Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

In what way do you believe chemical weapons in Syria are a threat to us?

Is your argument that Al Qaeda is trying to topple Assad so we should destabilize Assad to prevent Al Qaeda from winning? Hmmm. This is far too deep for me.

Will you bel contacting your congress critters demanding that they turn around Obama's hollowing out of our military so they can be ready to respond to Syria?

If you want intervention then call your Senators and your Congress people and demand a declaration of war.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Where, in the US Constitution, do you find that the president has a right to use the military on a whim?"

I am an engineer. Show me where in the US Constitution the President has the power to declare war. It should be easy. After all you have claimed that it is true. I have my Constitution ready. Thrill me.

Indeed he has. I am delighted that he is weak in this instance. I wish he would have been weak in the closet instead of out in public. But he is who he is. Obama is only strong when he is fighting citizens who are conservatives.

The War Powers Resolution does not give the president to attack a country on a whim. We have already discussed this.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Veritas. Truth. You would do well to recognize that the truth is not in you. Did you just live near Harvard?"

If you attended you should ask for a refund.

Explain why you believe this question is relevant to a decision to attack Syria.

If you want to start a thread about freedom's value go for it.

 

Cool. Your disbelief is fine with me.

Therefore what?

Why do you believe this?

Like most things in life it depends. Who used them? What is the context?
Second question. Same answer.

 

I think what we are seeing here is Obama's Greatest Triumph. I know that ALL the right wingers will respond to that with little laughie symbols or whatever they are, but consider.

Obama did not want Chemical Weapons to be used in Syria. He had a particular concern about this because Syria was fighting for its life and had large stocks of CW, which they had said they would use within their borders

A month ago, they started to. They had the support of Russia in this, and Russia remains the one state in the world with a nuclear arsenal capable of and sufficient for our complete destruction still ready.

A month later the Syrians have agreed to not use CW again and to, in fact, dispose of their stocks of them under Russian supervision and International inspection.

Not one missile was launched, not one American was put in danger. And now Putin owes Obama a large favor for making him look like the peacemaker.

This is how diplomacy should be done. No chest beating, no drama. Just accomplish your mission, rather than put up big signs that say "Mission Accomplished" while bankrupting the nation with a war against the wrong country

In contrast, we still have substantial numbers of Americans in harm's way in Afghanistan and there is still violence in Iraq, and all totally due to Republican mistakes made years ago that we will pay for for decades.

WHY does anyone EVER vote Republican?

 

Just as an aside, you’re terrible at this copy-reply-paste business.

And that was then, and is now, totally irrelevant.

The really sad thing about this is, it wasn’t hyperbole! I’ve still not thought of a more amateurish conduct of foreign policy in my lifetime. In fact, the example I used yesterday of an amateurish foreign policy, the Bay of Pigs, was used on MSNBC today.

MSNBC. When those guys start turning, you know you’re in trouble.

The Cuban Missile Crisis could also be an example, although foreign policy was less amateurish and more just weak, since Khrushchev, after meeting Kennedy, thought he was a pushover and instigated the Russian attempt at missile emplacement in Cuba.

But anyway, for the sake of argument, let’s say calling the President’s conduct of our foreign policy in this self made crisis amateurish was hyperbole. So what? Why do you need to avoid talking about the crisis to talk about whether it’s hyperbole or not? I’ve already explained myself fairly clearly that I don’t think it is, but it’s irrelevant in any case.

As for the cult of personality, I don’t think you should use words like ad hominem unless you know what it means. Referring to an “Obama cult of personality” isn’t a personal attack on Obama. It’s personal attack on some of his slavish supporters. Obama isn’t priming his own publicity pump. He doesn’t have to. He has you!

I will give you partial credit for at least trying to punch above your weight by using a phrase like ad hominem, even if you used it incorrectly. You still made the effort.

Your tale of woe growing up as a white boy in the mean, racist, streets of Chicago is totally irrelevant to this discussion, and probably every discussion.

Ironic for someone who thinks Putin’s rolling of Obama is actually part of Obama’s master plan!

See above.

The only thing I need add to this is to break down why I considered the Cuban Missile Crisis as a possible example, since for all of your self-proclaimed experience, it seems to have gone over your head.
Khrushchev met Kennedy, thought he was a weakling, and thought he could push forward with putting missiles in Cuba. The final agreement to the crisis had the US withdraw it’s missiles from Turkey. Final analysis: US military posture came out worse from the crisis then when it entered the crisis. Russia won, we lost.

I didn’t say the Iraq war wasn’t handled poorly. It just wasn’t handled amateurishly. Again, you are painting with a broad brush since you have no idea what my position was on Iraq. Bush spent a year building his case both with the American public, the Congress, and allies. Just because you oppose the war doesn’t mean that Bush didn’t hit all the check boxes on the way to war. And I guess this shows the lie to your previous statement that “I have no interest in rehashing the Bush Admin and their cowboy diplomacy.” I think you would much rather sit around rehashing the Bush administration rather than Obama and Syria.

And I feel comfortable saying there will be no “good outcome” here. I think what you get will be the status quo, which supposedly is what the administration was opposed to. Now, I imagine they will have always loved the status quo.

So that’s a guarantee from you that chemical weapons will not be used?

And thanks to the world’s peacemakers, the Russians? I’ll hold you to that!

You need an editor. Again with Iraq?

Although I’m sure Obama and Putin talked about Syria at the G20, I’m pretty sure they didn’t discuss this particular fiasco, err I mean brilliant plan. Otherwise Obama would have started with this proposal. Why didn’t he? He knew enough that he would be laughed at. So why agree to this Russian scheme that will never happen? It gave him an out for a massive defeat in Congress on the vote to use force.

It’s amazing how that cult of personality will allow people to believe anything.

I will anxiously await the vote that you think is imminent. And as for now, there is no diplomatic solution. I don’t think there will be one. I think Putin will just throw stopsticks in front of foreign policy, and a chastened Obama will do nothing about it.

A rare agreement.

I don’t know why you are so hung up on the Freedom Muffins line. It must have been more hilarious to you than I thought.

As for Cameron:

Syria vote a humilation for David Cameron

UK's 'reckless' Cameron pays political price for Syria vote loss

Not hyperbole, just reading the papers.

I can’t believe you really think this is any sort of redline for either Russia or Syria. They’ve already won. Obama’s not attacking. Don’t you get that?

First, that is Obama’s quote, so I’m not sure why you keep saying it’s not Obama’s red line.

Secondly, Syria already is a rogue state, and Russia has been fine with it.

The President did not say that the purpose of the military strike is to take out Assad’s chemical weapons. No one in the government has been saying it. I keep asking for proof over and over and over and you won’t provide it. Can’t you just admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about and move on?

 

No.We can't be involved in every incident. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved in any of them.

 

Well...this is just false garbage. We don't have the smallest number of people in the work force since Jimmy Carter. We've actually reduced unemployment since the Bush Admin when unemployment began to sore. We also do not have a hollowed out Military. George W. Bush stated just recently that if Obama had to strike he'd have the strongest military in the world at his disposal. We don't have a flake who thinks he's royalty in the White House. Ronald Reagan left office long ago, and he died. Aside from that, the comment doesn't help your argument since it's pure opinionated crap.

That of course is over the top hyperbole, typical of the conservative Republican that has an affliction for total exaggeration to make his ridiculous point. The only thing you could possibly be thinking of is the repeal of don't ask don't tell. So you're a homophobe. Ok, at least now we know your problem. You hate gays.

Throughout American History, Presidents have claimed authority to send troops into battle or otherwise engage in warlike acts without awaiting a congressional declaration of war.

In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.”

The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The President, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Thomas Jefferson sent ships into the Mediterranean to battle the Barbary Pirates

Enacted in 1973, the War Powers Resolution provides that whenever the President initiates military action he should notify House and Senate leaders within twenty four hours and that presidentially directed military actions should cease after not more than sixty days unless authorized by Congress.

What you're doing is making the mistake of thinking that what was offered in the original document is how we operate today. That of course is myopic in the extreme. We've amended the constitution 27 times. If we held to the original concept, we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote. Maybe that appeals to you, but we've moved on from there.

 

I'm afraid that would eliminate quite a few of them. We can look back at the Republican Nixon for starters. I see no integrity in beginning a Presidential campaign in the very spot where 3 Civil Rights workers were murdered in order to cultivate the racists that killed them. Nor do I see any integrity in selling Chemical Weapons to an Iraqi dictator, and when he uses them, issuing a generic statement that The United States Condemns the use of Chemical weapons by any country...and then sending an envoy to smooth the dictators ruffled feathers and assuring him that the statement was just for public consumption and not meant to interfere with our business with him. I think I posted the video of Rumsfeld in his handshake meeting with Saddam which took place on the very day that the Iraqi monster was gassing more of his people.

And the beauty of absent integrity comes with G. W. Bush using Saddams use of the very chemical attack against his people that we supplied the weapons for as evidence against him, and one of the bogus excuses for going to war and costing America 4000 lives and over a trillion dollars. We sold him the crap and then we blame him for using it. Priceless. Integrity +.

You say this:

 

BTW...you're at complete odds with Lil Mike on this. Perhaps he can set you straight. He says you're wrong too.

 

Then it's clear that you have no moral compass. So why would anybody follow your advice? You're only concern is how things affect you personally. I doubt that you're a Christian person are you?
Matthew 25:40
39'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

You offer a self-serving ideology that is un-American. This country has always stood up to the bully. We have an infatuation in this country today with the glorification of the bully coming from the right.

Bruce Lee?? Seriously? I don't remember studying Bruce Lee in a philosophy course. I guess that explains a lot about you. What other movie super hero's do you draw from? Ironman? Batman? Spiderman? Nahhh...they all kind of stood up to the bully.

Bothers you that much that it's working? Damn that Obama.

 

Nope. Only the ones that have WMD and are willing to use them. Syria has proven to be one of those willing to do it. As opposed to you who would subject our troops to them. Not very patriotic of you to sell out our troops like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Only the ones that have WMD and are willing to use them. Syria has proven to be one of those willing to do it. As opposed to you who would subject our troops to them. Not very patriotic of you to sell out our troops like that.

 

Nope. Only the ones that have them and are shown willing to use them. Syria is one of those countries. On the other hand, you are willing to allow our troops to be exposed to WMD. Not very patriotic of you.

Assad has threatened everyone. He's shown that he's willing to use poison gas on his enemies. That's completely unacceptable. If allowed to do so, he can and no doubt would provide that crap to terrorist groups that would use them at will against us, our allies, and our troops. That cannot be allowed to happen. That was Bush's entire argument for invading Iraq. The difference is that he attacked first and looked for the WMD later. Obama has the evidence and is threatening attack, which is bringing about a diplomatic solution.

Lets say we're on the same page. That would be more accurate.

Why would I do that? Any country that would use Chemical weapons is of vital national interest to the US. It's not like he used the stuff 30 years ago. He used it a month ago. There's a Civil War going on and one of the groups involved is AQ. The last thing we want is for them to gain any control of the country and its stockpile of WMD. You do remember who they are, right?

This isn't an emotional response. You have weak observational skills. It's a completely logical and rational response to a genuine threat. Not some made up threat like the last time. Anybody that is willing to use Chemical weapons has demonstrated his own irrationality, and cannot be permitted the opportunity to use them against us, our troops or our allies. That's not an emotional response. That's a realistic response, completely rational and logical. There are Chemical Weapons in Syria. They're in a Civil War with one faction being AQ. AQ is sworn to our destruction. If they get hold of them, we can count on them being used on us. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to get them.

 

Then I guess that answers that question.

You've been shown already numerous times. Having "your" constitution ready doesn't mean that you understand any of it. It means that you have a copy of something that requires expert legal minds to figure out. That leaves you out of the equation. You're an engineer. I'm sure you can do the math on that.
Premise: I have the constitution in my pocket
Premise: I am an engineer and I have no legal training at all in constitutional law
Therefore: I am an expert on constitutional matters.

Clearly there is something wrong in that syllogism. You are no authority on what is constitutionally permissible and what isn't. Just because you have it in front of you, doesn't make you an expert on Constitutional Law.

Amazing. You demand that he go to congress, and when he does, you call him weak?? You're hate for the man is showing. You're completely irrational when it comes to this guy.

That's because conservatives act like morons. Look at your statement above. You demand that he go to congress, and when he does you call him weak. That's complete conservative nonsense that is motivated out of hate.

It's not a whim in this case. Syria has used Chemical weapons. That's a positive demonstrable threat to US interests. Lil Mike says that he has the authority to simply fire away. Maybe you should take this up with him. Maybe he can show you why. You've been shown several times already and are incapable of grasping it so far. Maybe he'll get through to you.

 

Because Syria is a microcosm of your own values put to a test. Your motives are completely self-serving with regards to Syria. You've made that clear. For you, the question boils down to what's in it for us, which really means what's in it for you as a taxpayer. How does our engagement in Syria benefit you? How does it profit you? The question I posed is a philosophical problem. "The question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its end." For you, there is no economic reason that serves American interests here so, that in itself voids out our intervention in what is by all accounts an atrocity. A War Crime. A Crime against humanity. Now that doesn't seem to register with you. Your constant question has been, what's in it for us? The motivation here is a matter of self-interest. My question asks whether freedom is valuable for its own sake. Do the Syrians have a right to that or not? Being a freedom loving American, I would argue yes. Assad has no interest in allowing that to happen. In fact, he's willing to commit a war crime to insure that it doesn't happen. So the question before you is whether or not you support freedom for its own sake, or if it is a commodity, something to use in order to obtain economic prosperity which I'm sure you enjoy, and then dispensed with once that has been achieved? If you find no profit to be gained in our intervention, then why get involved? If you find no profit to be gained in freedom, then what's the point of it? That's become your arguing point. My argument is that freedom is not about profit motives. If a party is willing to use poison gas to deny freedom to their people, they will be willing to use that same tool, in another situation if they feel threatened or choose to advance their ideology by imposing it on their neighbors. Tolerance is something that people like myself subscribe to. But make no mistake, that tolerance doesn't mean that people like myself must tolerate the intolerant. Once you do that, tolerance itself becomes threatened and that would allow intolerance to rule the day and that is unacceptable. You don't tolerate your own destruction. So there is no tolerance for the use of Chemical weapons in any situation. Assad has done that. He's crossed that "line". He must be prevented from ever using them again. When all of this is over, if he is still alive he may face a war crimes trial.

I don't think so.

 

So you do believe that there is an acceptable context for the use of Chemical weapons against people? Ok...that's all I need to know about you.

 

I think we can see that with the Republicans and conservatives, there is an egocentric motivation in all of this. They need a black and white outcome that illustrates We won, They lost. When diplomacy becomes more subtle and nuanced, they don't understand it because the outcome seems vague to them. The Chemical weapons issue is being resolved without a missile being fired and we get exactly what we wanted without any cost in troops or dollars. They don't seem to get that. None of that could be accomplished without a credible threat from Obama. Well done.

 

I believe there is an acceptable context for using any weapon against people. Apparently you lack the sophistication and profound wisdom you have implied you have.

 

Imagine that. We agree. We have no military role to play in Syria.

 

Unemployment has been reduced because our wonderful government does not count people who have stopped looking for work and have elected to live off he rest of us. Here is a question for you. In how many months prior to the nation selecting a Marxist to be the President did the nation lose more than a half million jobs? What happened in the month that the nation selected the Marxist to be the president? Can we agree that elections can have dire consequences? What has happened since? Sore unemployment indeed.

What has happened when economies recover in those cases where the nation did not select a socialist or a Marxist to be the president?

Yes we do. We have fewer ships, fewer aircraft, fewer soldiers, fewer training days. This is worse than what I endured as an officer in Carter's hollow military.

Really? Would a public servant use a V-22 Osprey to fly his dog to a vacation spot?

That is an impressive leap. What other tricks can you do?

In other words you cannot show me that Presidents have a Constitutional authority to declare war. Now walk through your examples of convention.

Yeah? What were the salient points? Vital national interest (Americans at risk immediately) and time urgency.

I studied this at some point in my military career. The Soviet communists used civil war to try to penetrate our hemisphere to establish a second Cuba. Combined with Soviet forces and influence in Cuba a Soviet-communist influenced takeover of the DR would have had long term consequences for the US.
Your facts are simply not facts.

We had a vital national interest and time urgency in that intervention. We also put boots on the ground in order to evacuate Americans as the civil war moved toward anarchy.

Again your facts are not facts. The Congress was deeply involved over a long period of time in resolving the Islamist fascists seizing of Americans and American property. So once again you are simply wrong.

Things can move quickly given our interests all over the world. This codification of the President's role in immediate response to unfolding events is appropriate and realistic. This situation is not covered. Nor, in my opinion was the Marxist's Libyan adventure. There was no immediate threat to Americans or American vital national interests in either case. The president has the authority to direct military action but he cannot take the nation to war without consequences.

Again, you are simply wrong.

So show me the amendment that allows the president to declare war.

This is just more evidence that you are a leftist statist relying upon strawmen to your peril.

 

There is much anger and very little reason in this one. Ignoring your politics for the moment let's explore your concerns about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. You imply that we sold chemical weapons to Iraq. I read a half dozen articles and did not find evidence of it. Exaggeration?

So what was our purpose is supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war? We did not want him to lose his war with Iran. We also did not want the Soviet Union to intervene. We did a great deal to prevent those two occurrences. I was on active duty at the time and was involved in the planning to counter a Soviet push into critical spots in the region.

Evidence?

Do you believe it requires any special intelligence to be discerning? I have just shown you that your "facts" are in error. Of course if I had your record of failure I would be very cautious. But I am not you. I can see that we have no vital national interest combined with time urgency where the president can appropriately take the nation to war. Even the president agrees with me.

More parlor tricks? I continue to be impressed.

I do hate Obama. He is the worst thing that has happened to my country since Jimmah Carter. I take great delight in his discomfiture. I hope he fails in his effort to transform this nation from capitalism to socialism. I look forward to the end of his term. I also hope he fails to finish out this term in office. Why do you believe that has anything to do with his race? Is this yet another vain imagining on your part? As you are consistently losing each argument do you strive for emotional appeal?

 

People can reasonably disagree. If he likes he and I can discuss each of our reasons. However, the president, by his actions, clearly agrees with me. The president lacks the Constitutional authority to take the nation to war in the Syrian case. We have no time urgent vital national interest.

 

Do you believe we should right every wrong then as long as we can find some scripture to support our position? That seems like a very dangerous position to take. When, in your mind, did the transition from Constitutionally limited government to the Christian theocracy take place?

Do you believe that only Christians can discern the evil that men and nations do? If you believe that you must right every wrong why aren't you on the way to Syria to throw in with the side you believe is least bad?

In a vain effort to educate you I offered two sources, one from a book (you might try one now and then) and one from an NSA monograph available on line. Here is what I wrote, "I take my understanding from a book by Bruce Lee called Marching Orders."

It is 590 sourced pages not including the reasonably decent index. And you mock documented history because it disagrees with your pre-conceptions.

It is clear you are anti-intellectual. Nice try though.

Then I wrote of you putting lipstick on a pig.

I was amused. Anti-intellectual and childish. Awesome response.

 

Earlier I wrote, "Well then I am sure you will want to lob cruise missiles into many countries on the off chance that you son is deployed someplace.
Assad has not threatened us. So you and the president are one. I never doubted that.

You would have been better off just agreeing that we have no vital national interest in Syria. I am impressed with your emotional response. You can be easily manipulated by Obama and his chemical weapons holding regime.

We have used chemical weapons. The Russians have used chemical weapons. Iran has used chemical weapons, the rebels have used chemical weapons...

Have US forces been affected? I believe I see a mental tic. Every time your reason fails you resort to emotion.