• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

House votes to aid Syrians

A

Anonymous

Guest
House approves plan to assist Syrian rebels


By Deirdre Walsh, CNN Senior Congressional Producer

updated 6:00 PM EDT, Wed September 17, 2014


Washington (CNN) -- The House on Wednesday approved President Obama's request to arm and train Syrian rebels in the fight against the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

With significant opposition to the proposal in both parties, the vote was 273 -156.

Many Republicans argue the strategy isn't tough enough to defeat ISIS; many Democrats worry the plan could drag the United States into another long military engagement.


The proposal would authorize the Pentagon to provide assistance to "appropriately vetted" members of the Syrian opposition and require the administration to give Congress a detailed plan for helping the rebels before that assistance could begin.

The Senate could vote as early as Thursday.

Congress is expected to debate a broader war authorization after the midterm elections.

The measure states the new authority does not include approval for "the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities..."


With significant opposition to the proposal in both parties, the vote was 273 -156.

With the memories of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and several dozen little civil wars in my memory-- I actually thought the vote might be closer...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Yeah, but you must be so happy you're giggling like a school girl. The do-nothing congress is doing something that your leader has asked.

Have a drink and pass the ammunition.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Romney proposed during one of the debates to carry out something like this a few years ago before it got to be the problem it is now.

Leading from behind again. Yep. :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Like someone said on tv today, nothing has happened so far to punish those that beheaded people, or even to those that attacked Benghazi. Look at the message we are giving. Thugs prey on weakness or to those that don't stand up for something. And this administration hasn't stood up for much. Actually, have they stood up for anything, other than to protect Muslims?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Like someone said on tv today, nothing has happened so far to punish those that beheaded people, or even to those that attacked Benghazi. Look at the message we are giving. Thugs prey on weakness or to those that don't stand up for something. And this administration hasn't stood up for much. Actually, have they stood up for anything, other than to protect Muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgn4EaCGQA

2001, President George W. Bush 'Bin Laden, says he wants Osama dead or alive' ...

So FH- remind me again the date that Bush got Osama Bin Laden :???:

Now if I remember history right it was almost 10 years later in 2011 that the President announced that Osama was dead... And the President that announced it wasn't a Bush, but an Obama.... :wink:

And while you are at it remind me again how much this nation building and invasion of sovereign countries did in making them "Democracies"- or ending their sectarian and tribal wars... :wink: :roll:




Andy Borowitz

Today's vote in Congress shows that while the two parties can't agree to do anything good for this country, they are united when it comes to bombing a foreign one.
 

Triangle Bar

Well-known member
This has mission creep written all over it. In short order this will turn into an air war and then a ground war to bring about regime change in Syria. That is exactly what Obama and McCain and others wanted to do some months back.

I'm not sure how funding Syrian rebels who have non aggression pacts with ISIS is going to help us defeat them.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Like someone said on tv today, nothing has happened so far to punish those that beheaded people, or even to those that attacked Benghazi. Look at the message we are giving. Thugs prey on weakness or to those that don't stand up for something. And this administration hasn't stood up for much. Actually, have they stood up for anything, other than to protect Muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgn4EaCGQA

2001, President George W. Bush 'Bin Laden, says he wants Osama dead or alive' ...

So FH- remind me again the date that Bush got Osama Bin Laden :???:

Now if I remember history right it was almost 10 years later in 2011 that the President announced that Osama was dead... And the President that announced it wasn't a Bush, but an Obama.... :wink:

And while you are at it remind me again how much this nation building and invasion of sovereign countries did in making them "Democracies"- or ending their sectarian and tribal wars... :wink: :roll:




Andy Borowitz

Today's vote in Congress shows that while the two parties can't agree to do anything good for this country, they are united when it comes to bombing a foreign one.

Are you serious, Fatman? You are laying all the credit for OBL at the Great Pretender's feet? The man, and I use that term very loosely, that agonized for hours and hours whether to send in the operators or not, for fear of failure like Carter's I'll fated foray to rescue the hostages taken by Iran?

Doorknob.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Like someone said on tv today, nothing has happened so far to punish those that beheaded people, or even to those that attacked Benghazi. Look at the message we are giving. Thugs prey on weakness or to those that don't stand up for something. And this administration hasn't stood up for much. Actually, have they stood up for anything, other than to protect Muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgn4EaCGQA

2001, President George W. Bush 'Bin Laden, says he wants Osama dead or alive' ...

So FH- remind me again the date that Bush got Osama Bin Laden :???:

Now if I remember history right it was almost 10 years later in 2011 that the President announced that Osama was dead... And the President that announced it wasn't a Bush, but an Obama.... :wink:

OT, every time I think you've said something so dumb that you can never top it again, you prove me wrong by uttering something even more stupid than before. I'd like to think that you were just kidding with the above dribble, but I know better.

OT, do ya think bin Laden didn't get the message that Bush was serious about making him and everyone else closely associated with 9-11 pay for their crime? One by one we hunted each and every one of those farkers down (most being killed within the first few months after our invasion of Afghanistan. The mighty lion bin Laden, in order to survive, ended up living the last years of his life in a single room of a house where most of those in the floors below didn't even know who lived above. He spent his days watching newsclips of himself. That actually sounds like something you'd do.

And I should add that the intelligence that was gathered that ultimately led to his location and death was generated over a period of many years and using techniques that your Messiah campaigned against but embraced once he became president.

You're as petty and as two-faced as your hero.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Like someone said on tv today, nothing has happened so far to punish those that beheaded people, or even to those that attacked Benghazi. Look at the message we are giving. Thugs prey on weakness or to those that don't stand up for something. And this administration hasn't stood up for much. Actually, have they stood up for anything, other than to protect Muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgn4EaCGQA

2001, President George W. Bush 'Bin Laden, says he wants Osama dead or alive' ...

So FH- remind me again the date that Bush got Osama Bin Laden :???:

Now if I remember history right it was almost 10 years later in 2011 that the President announced that Osama was dead... And the President that announced it wasn't a Bush, but an Obama.... :wink:

And while you are at it remind me again how much this nation building and invasion of sovereign countries did in making them "Democracies"- or ending their sectarian and tribal wars... :wink: :roll:




Andy Borowitz

Today's vote in Congress shows that while the two parties can't agree to do anything good for this country, they are united when it comes to bombing a foreign one.

Are you serious, Fatman? You are laying all the credit for OBL at the Great Pretender's feet? The man, and I use that term very loosely, that agonized for hours and hours whether to send in the operators or not, for fear of failure like Carter's I'll fated foray to rescue the hostages taken by Iran?

Doorknob.

Hours? If my memory serves me, the US government suspected it had pinpointed Osama's location months before but the Dawdler-in-Chief was afraid to make the move. Seems the birth certificate story got so hot he finally had to do something.

Then like the low class piece of dung that he is, he gives a speech where he uses the word "I" 188 times describing how he personally took the risk to get bin Laden. We won't even talk about him spiking the ball for months and months thereafter.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Did you miss this part of my post, OT? You didn't mention it.


So why didn't Reagan,Daddy Bush, Clinton, or GW stop Osama when he was 200 strong... Instead for years we gave him arms like we now are going to do to the Syrians... In actuality we/U.S./CIA built Al Quaeda...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Faster horses said:
A real leader would have stopped ISIS when it was 200 strong, not wait til it is 30,000 strong and growing.

Did you miss this part of my post, OT? You didn't mention it.


So why didn't Reagan,Daddy Bush, Clinton, or GW stop Osama when he was 200 strong... Instead for years we gave him arms like we now are going to do to the Syrians... In actuality we/U.S./CIA built Al Quaeda...

Why didn't your fellow lib Slick Willy Clinton get him when HE had the chance and he could have been detained in very short order with no problems? OBL was being offered up on a silver platter at that time. OBL wasn't really on the radar until Clinton's watch.

Doorknob.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Did you miss this part of my post, OT? You didn't mention it.


So why didn't Reagan,Daddy Bush, Clinton, or GW stop Osama when he was 200 strong... Instead for years we gave him arms like we now are going to do to the Syrians... In actuality we/U.S./CIA built Al Quaeda...

Why didn't your fellow lib Slick Willy Clinton get him when HE had the chance and he could have been detained in very short order with no problems? OBL was being offered up on a silver platter at that time. OBL wasn't really on the radar until Clinton's watch.

The answer to that is simple. Bin Laden didn't have a puzzy.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The whole deal with OBL lies in the immense natural resources of Afghanistan. We aided the Taliban, and OBL, to keep the Russians out of Afghan and their paws off the fortunes in minerals there.

Mission accomplished. Russia high-tailed it.

OBL wasn't an ally of ours, but an enemy of my enemy is my friend, for a short while anyway.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The house bill limits obama and that was the goal.

If obama had it his way, the rebels would overthrow Assad, creating another vaccuum that Russia would fill.

If Assad is taken out, I am positive you will see Russia move in, just like Ukraine.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Andy Borowitz

Today's vote in Congress shows that while the two parties can't agree to do anything good for this country, they are united when it comes to bombing a foreign one.

Borowitz is right- the old grey haired men in D.C. are always ready to spend $Billions/Trillions to fight foreign wars and get our young men and women killed- but can't seem to find a dime when its to invest in the greatest investment for our future- the education of those young men and women....

 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Andy Borowitz

Today's vote in Congress shows that while the two parties can't agree to do anything good for this country, they are united when it comes to bombing a foreign one.

Borowitz is right- the old grey haired men in D.C. are always ready to spend $Billions/Trillions to fight foreign wars and get our young men and women killed- but can't seem to find a dime when its to invest in the greatest investment for our future- the education of those young men and women....


Yeah right. There's been no investment in education in the US. :roll:

God you're more stupid by the day.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Did anyone else notice the title of this thread and who OT thinks are "Syrians".

The Syrians are already fighting those being armed by the US. Why not spend those funds across the border, in Iraq, and let the Syrians deal with ISIS?

But...defeating ISIS does not appear to be the goal with this, does it?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
listen to the whole interview with Sean Hannity

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/17/mark_levin_a_revolt_going_on_with_top_generals_and_obama.html

MARK LEVIN: What the House has done, let me just say this, is extraordinary. They've given the president authority to train 5,000 moderate whatevers in Syria. I guess they know who's what. This is very interesting to me, Sean. The president doesn't think he needs Congressional approval, a declaration of war or what have you, to bomb, but apparently he needs congressional approval to arm 5,000 whatevers.

This is very odd. I just want to point this out. You actually have a revolt going on with the top generals and Obama. I'm talking about tanks pulling up to the White House and so forth. These men are trying to communicate to the American people that they are military men and we cannot defeat this enemy unless we use all of our armed forces and armed services. That's number one. Number two, Obama does not view this as a military action. He keeps telling us it's not a war, it's not a war. For him, the truth is it's about politics. It's about containing this issue politically for him so he can focus on fundamentally transforming America. And this is a very serious matter to understand.

So the generals and the military see this quite differently than our very political president who really doesn't want to defeat this enemy. Or he will go to Congress, get a declaration of war, unleash hell on these cockroaches and then get out. Instead, he speaks to our military men and tells them don't worry, no combat boots on the ground. He has said it a thousand times so everyone of our enemies in every single language can understand under this so-called commander in chief he has no intention of defeating them, period.
 

Latest posts

Top