Fairly odd. .. Remember when they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected? How did that turn out?
x

Comments(214):

[ 214 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #52 to #39 - gragasvlad (09/05/2013) [-]
that would be awesome! He would be the first black president and the first black man to work for the goverment
User avatar #55 to #52 - gragasvlad (09/05/2013) [-]
also I hate emoticons
User avatar #170 to #39 - jeremyneverdieone (09/05/2013) [-]
What if Joe Biden was Vice President?
#13 - pappathethird (09/05/2013) [-]
All hail obabo
#10 - I Am Monkey (09/05/2013) [-]
Remember when they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected?
How did that turn out?
#22 to #10 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Y'all bitches don't seem to understand how this works, so I'll dumb it down.

Basically, everyone agrees not to use chemical weapons because they hurt more civilians than soldiers.

If America does nothing, then it encourages more armies to use chemical weapons because Syria got away with it.

Sending a few warning bombs was the only thing he could do.
#107 to #22 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
I wouldn't have a problem with it if Russia wasn't ready to blow us up for it. =/
#37 to #22 - endospore ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
No one is arguing that chemical weapons are good. Quite a few people even believe that Obama is justified and doing the right thing in bombing Syria.

What we're arguing here is that he doesn't deserve the peace prize.
#44 to #37 - kingoflint (09/05/2013) [-]
Even Obama didn't really think he deserved it. I mean, he accepted it cause what else is he gonna do? He did say when he accepted it that he did not feel like he'd earned it
User avatar #62 to #44 - Fgner (09/05/2013) [-]
He could have easily said, "I refuse this prize".
#145 to #10 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
He's respecting the geneva convention
#20 to #10 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
they gave him the nobel peace prize for opening communications between enemies AND ALLIES that bush had cut off. you never stop working or hell even talking with allies. So by opening communications he was promoting that a general peace could be achieved.

User avatar #23 to #20 - commontroll (09/05/2013) [-]
******** . He wasn't inaugurated yet. He was seriously given one just for being elected.
#30 to #10 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Considering he was given the prize simply for not being global pariah George Bush and he's still not George Bush, it turned out perfectly.
#25 to #10 - thornberry (09/05/2013) [-]
He pretty much was forced

Chemical warfare is deemed illegal by the UN... if the US ignored that then it would send a message to other countries that they can use chemical weapons and suffer no repercussions. It just makes the US look like the bad guy since almost every other country in the UN is too much of a pussy (big surprise) to do anything about it. Since the United States is the leader of the free world everyone is looking to us to solve the problem.

Long story short, he pretty much had no choice to do this. He was backed into a corner.
#26 to #25 - captainwow (09/05/2013) [-]
So, get involved and it's "OMG STOP POLICING THE WORLD FAT MURICANS"

Do nothing and it's "GET OFF YOUR FAT ASS FAT MURICANS DO SOMETHING"

Also, it's mainly because Obama said he'd get involved if Syria DID use chemical weapons. he was banking on the threat being enough but it wasn't.
User avatar #95 to #26 - riddari ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
Too bad it is yet to be proven that it was the Syrian government that used those chemical weapons.
User avatar #208 to #95 - thornberry (09/06/2013) [-]
I know, i mean i dont agree with going to war over it but I see why he felt that he had
#213 to #208 - riddari ONLINE (09/06/2013) [-]
Well, good sir, but if you don't know who used the chemical weapons, why would you wage the war against the government by default?

I mean, they have the upper hand against the islamic extremist rebels so far, why would they do something that would bring an international uproar upon them?

Besides, you might say the US is actively working against the UN investigators. Why does he want to wage this war so bad? Even against the will of the congress?

There have been reports of US working against UN investigators that are considering the chemical weapon use there.

I don't like dictatorships, mind you, but I'd say it's better than letting theocracy rule. It'd be the cruelest form of government. If there needs to be an intervention, they have to let the UN investigators do their job and analise the case. THEN it's okay to act, depending on the investigation outcome.

One of the sources: www.infowars.com/us-attempts-to-sabotage-un-chemical-weapons-investigation/
#122 to #26 - unlucki (09/05/2013) [-]
Not the hero the world deserves but the hero it needs
User avatar #28 to #25 - defender (09/05/2013) [-]
Let other countries deal with it
User avatar #51 to #25 - rubydude (09/05/2013) [-]
Plus, some of the congressmen have stated they believe Syria will become the new Afghanistan in that it will begin to harbor terrorist groups. They started with bullets, then chemical weapons. What's gonna be next if nobody intervenes?
#57 to #51 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Except Assad's opposition is tied to Al Qaeda, it's already Afghanistan dude. You're just shifting chemicals from someone who is ambivalent to the US, to people who want to wipe us and our allies of the ******* map.
User avatar #34 to #25 - PhoenixComics (09/05/2013) [-]
why is no one considering that it would have been the rebels? :/
#15 to #10 - prvcowboy (09/05/2013) [-]
They should give him another one.
#38 to #10 - endospore ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
The peace prize is kind of a joke. Gandhi never won one. Ever hear of Irena Sendler? Of course you didn't because she didn't win the peace prize even though she helped thousands of holocaust victims. She died in obscurity just a couple years ago. Al Gore won the prize for a slideshow about global warming the year she was nominated.

Andhere's a source for Irena: www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp
User avatar #74 to #38 - admiralen (09/05/2013) [-]
implying helping holocaust victims have anything to do with peace, she shouldve been nominated for humanitarian or something like that
User avatar #188 to #74 - hydraetis (09/05/2013) [-]
implying a slideshow about climate change has anything to do with peace
User avatar #214 to #188 - admiralen (09/06/2013) [-]
yeah i dont really get peace prizes in general, peace is a fickle thing, you can have peace in a dictatorship, and in that case gandhi fought peace and such, its not an easy cathegory and i dont think Al Gore deserved one
User avatar #40 to #38 - kafudamapla (09/05/2013) [-]
I think everyone's heard of her after that FJ post about, don't pretend you're some insightful guy that cares about this ****
#43 to #40 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
You sound like a ******* hipster.
User avatar #204 to #43 - kafudamapla (09/05/2013) [-]
Oh **** off
#42 to #40 - endospore ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
I'm not pretending to be insightful. If you look closely, that's a snopes like I posted, which isn't the classiest of sites in the world. I'm just citing further evidence for the peace prize being worthless these days.
#217 to #38 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
Don't forget that Gilbert Lewis never got a Chemistry Prize and John Steinbeck got a Literature Prize for parroting the Communist Manifes
#21 - howaboutnsfw (09/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #118 - swagloon (09/05/2013) [-]
Why can't someone else deal with Syria? Or better yet why not let Syria deal with Syria?
User avatar #125 to #118 - smellmyfaceforswag (09/05/2013) [-]
America is the world police. Not joking. They're supposed to keep the world in "check".
User avatar #127 to #125 - swagloon (09/05/2013) [-]
But why?
They do something everyone hates them.
They do nothing everyone hates them.

Can't England do something? They have the power don't they?
User avatar #132 to #127 - smellmyfaceforswag (09/05/2013) [-]
Those outcomes are very true, but, it's their job so either way you look at it, not everyone will like you in the end. I don't know if England has the power to do any thing about it, but, I doubt that they do though.
+2
#134 to #132 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #190 to #132 - steedawwg **User deleted account** (09/05/2013) [-]
Well, we would have the power to something, but Parliament (the Labour party) had a hissy fit and said no. So we aren't intervening just yet. (I say 'we' as in England)
User avatar #128 to #118 - gammajk (09/05/2013) [-]
Because Obama said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a red line and would have to be dealt with, and chemical weapons were used.
User avatar #129 to #128 - swagloon (09/05/2013) [-]
Right under the UN chemical weapons are banned; this has to be a united effort between the nations, not just America.
User avatar #131 to #129 - gammajk (09/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, and the UN is a ******* joke. Obama actually stated outright that if ASSAD uses chemical weapons, not just a vague "if anyone uses them" but "i'm ******* warning you right now assad", then action would have to be taken against him.
#136 to #131 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
So let obama go to war by himself 91% of Americans don't want this **** .
User avatar #141 to #136 - gammajk (09/05/2013) [-]
No no, I'm not calling for war in Syria just yet, because Obama hasn't actually proven that Assad used the weapons. We know they were used, but Obama keeps referring to his sooper-secret documents proving Assad used them and refuses to tell the public what this proof is. Sound familiar? It's Bush back in 2003.
#144 to #141 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
The information was even collected by the same organizations that said there were WMD's in Iraq.
User avatar #150 to #128 - roliga (09/05/2013) [-]
And then turns around a week later saying he didn't set a red line
User avatar #154 to #118 - appleboom (09/05/2013) [-]
It is against international law to use chemical weapons. If no one enforces those laws, they are pointless. The UN is locked due to China and Russia preventing any action, so the laws must be enforced by a third party. The US and France have decided to be that third party, as no one else is.
#162 to #154 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
We continued funding Saddam after he used Mustard gas on the Kurds, the US doesn't give a single **** about international law, this is about Israel.
User avatar #198 to #162 - appleboom (09/05/2013) [-]
You mean Iran. You're also forgetting, though, this is Obama, not Bush.
#201 to #198 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
And Obama is basically a carbon copy of bush, this isn't something that deviates from president to president, we're Israel's bitch, and we're only going to war with someone if they're a threat to Israel or we can get some money.
User avatar #33 - jukuku (09/05/2013) [-]
George Bush's 4th term sure isn't going well
User avatar #66 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
you do realize that hes not trying to start a war, or take anything, or relive the Iraq fiasco?
he is trying to enforce international laws against the use of chemical weapons.
if people can just use chemical weapons freely without having some kind of retaliation, then other countries will begin to use it, as much as they want. and chemical weapons are bad, mkay? too many civilian casualties with em, pain and suffering as you bleed out of all of your orifices, etc.

not to mention the bombing isnt going to turn the tide of the war, nor is it meant to do so, its just a slap on the wrist.
and hes within his rights as president to make this call without congress because he is not putting boots on the ground.

im reading these comments and im just sorta surprised that none of you seem to understand why he's even doing this
User avatar #69 to #66 - reginleif (09/05/2013) [-]
Even if it were international law, it isn't our place to enforce it, and it isn't our responsibility either.

Every one "concerned" with Syria ought to fund, and fight the war themselves instead of trying to force others to act in something they clearly want no part of.
User avatar #76 to #69 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
its not about syria, assad, the rebels, or anyone specific. its about the use of chemical weapons, and the fact that they shouldnt be used.

however, you're right, why should the US do it? why doesnt someone else step in?
so, say we sat back and did nothing. who would intervene? what if nobody did? then the use of chemical weapons will continue to be used and the idea of regulations in warfare go out the window. and that would be a step backwards for all of humankind, if you ask me.
User avatar #92 to #76 - reginleif (09/05/2013) [-]
We set back and do nothing, Assad wins , rebels either die (and killing ends) or continue to be killed. US wastes 0 lives and 0$

End result: Killing or the possibility of Despotic rule.

We intervene, Assad loses, rebels win bringing with them their Islamist brand of politics oppressing the people, people complain and die. US wastes Billions of dollars and a large amount of US lives. Despotic rule.

End result, Chaos, Killing and Despotic rule by Islamists.

There aren't "good guys" in this conflict, and it's not like we don't have a precedence ignoring Human Right's violations.

BTW sometimes intervening has negative effects that can be considered worse than the disease..... our intervention with the no fly zone in Libya extended an already bloody civil war that was about to END before we intervened, the Libyan conflict along with the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarek showed us that sometimes a despot is the only thing standing between their country and bloodthirsty Islamists.

I'm not saying Assad is good, or that I approve of his methods, by all means he's a monster..... I'm saying that so is the opposition and that to put our resources and lives on the line for one monster as opposed to another isn't the moral thing to do.
User avatar #101 to #92 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
also, did you name your profile after Ephraim's spear?
User avatar #126 to #101 - reginleif (09/05/2013) [-]
**** yes, that spear is the business. :/
User avatar #167 to #126 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
atleast we can agree on something
User avatar #99 to #92 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
you arent reading what i said. this is about cruise missile strikes. while that costs some money, there wouldnt be any american casualties.
and i also said that its a slap on the wrist, and that the strikes are not going to be great enough to turn the tide of the war.
you are completely right about there being no good side here, i was just explaining that to someone else. US doesnt want to be caught supporting either side. its not about the war, its about trying to temper the use of chemical weapons.
#73 to #66 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Syria is breaking international law meaning Syria should be punished by the international community. Secondly, if Assad falls the rebels take over, rebels might I add with ties to Al Qaeda, so unless you're advocating handing over the keys to chemical weapons to known terrorists overthrowing Assad is going to cause trouble.

And no, if congress says no and he still strikes Syria that is illegal period, it doesn't matter if boots go on the ground or not.
User avatar #81 to #73 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
unfortunately, there is no "good" side in that war. Thats why the US isnt supporting either side. the strikes are not related to the war itself, its not supposed to show support to rebels, its supposed to temper the use of chemical weapons. didnt you see what i said?
But you are right. the international community SHOULD handle it. but when they dont, what do you do? just let the use of chemical weapons continue? its a difficult call, if you ask me.
#85 to #81 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
It really doesn't matter what side is being formally supported, if you go in and completely destroy the Syrian military the rebels can just walk right in. Which would be putting chemical weapons in the hands of people we know for a fact would use them against us.
User avatar #94 to #85 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
they arent trying to wipe out the Syrian military. as i had said, its a slap on the wrist. it would take more then a few cruise missiles to turn the side of the war. or so Obama hopes, i suppose...
#98 to #94 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Yes, yes we are, and a "few cruise missiles" completely ****** over the Iraq military during Operation desert storm.
User avatar #100 to #98 - avatarsarefornoobs ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
yeah well, intention and result are often two different things, amirite?
#104 to #100 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
True, but we're responsible for the result, no matter our intentions.
#82 to #66 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Maybe he's doing it to not lose face after he said that ******* red line thing?
#97 to #82 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
That dumb ************ should start watching his mouth. Impulsive ******* idiot.
User avatar #50 - gragasvlad (09/05/2013) [-]
I say let Syria destroy Syria.
#140 to #50 - ohnotwoone (09/05/2013) [-]
An excellent morally bankrupt comment.
User avatar #143 to #140 - gragasvlad (09/05/2013) [-]
it's the internet! we don't need morals here.
#191 - brokenfirefly (09/05/2013) [-]
Obama wen't around congress to attack another country for no reason. It's all part of his master plan .... promote gun control? What's the conspiracy theory this time?

Because, you know, he can do that. It's not like he would be impeached if he ignored congress for self gain or anything. Not like Congress can overrule him or anything. Not like we're going to Syria a legitimate reason or anything. Not like France is helping out too or anything.

I have an idea, let's leave the country to be destroyed by itself. I'm sure the neighboring countries won't mind the chemical weapons. And **** all those innocent civilian casualties. That's how we get our rocks off. Watching people die when we could have stopped it.

I'm not ashamed of my country because it's trying to help. I'm disgusted by all the countries who refuse to help. If the world wants to make fun of America for doing the right thing, then fine. Be ******* stupid. We'll still come to save your ass when you're in a bad way.

France has my respect.
#197 to #191 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
actually, attack Assad will likely give the terrorist access to chemical weapons...
User avatar #199 to #197 - brokenfirefly (09/05/2013) [-]
We're going in to stop the use of chemical weapons. I don't know the details on who used them or why, but I don't think the President of the country will be all beat up over losing something the whole world (The UN) said they can't use. If he is, well then, too ******* bad. That **** is bad.
#203 to #199 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
The US is actually blowing off the UN and not submitting the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons to the national security council. Usually that has to be done before the US intervene in something. Bush did that; Obama is not doing that.
User avatar #209 to #203 - brokenfirefly (09/06/2013) [-]
But we don't know that Assad did it. We just know they were used. We're not going in there to hunt Assad, we're going in to hunt chemical weapons. The UN needs people in there to go get them, but they can't be ****** to do it themselves. If anything, the US and France are covering the UNs ass.
User avatar #211 to #209 - pebar ONLINE (09/06/2013) [-]
Obama and his minions (Kerry, etc) have stated that there is no doubt it was Assad and that the attacks are to punish him. Putin denies the evidence (previously in March, chemical weapons were used by the rebels) and wants Obama to submit the evidence to the UN to make sure it wasn't the rebels again.
User avatar #212 to #211 - brokenfirefly (09/06/2013) [-]
I like to think the Russian president knows as much as the American president. Who did it becomes a "he said she said" if neither of them can show proof. Hey Putin, how about you show some proof it was the rebels then? Huh? Didn't ******* think so. Like I said, we don't care who did it. We're going to be kicking both sides in the ass until we fins the weapons and get rid of them. We don't give a **** about what that country is doing. Revolution? Have fun. Dictatorship? Good luck with that. Random terrorist attacks against them? Yeah sucks to be those guys.
#163 - omniscientreason (09/05/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKIiR5pRvk Guys please watch this before you judge the situation. Anytime innocents are killed it tears at me horribly. This is no exception.
User avatar #176 to #163 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
Yes, but there's video and pictures of the rebels telling their snipers to shoot civilians so that they could blame the military. They're both evil.
Also, that entire video is from the rebel and civilian point of view and it's mostly showing the aftermath of an attack, which is bound to look tragic. That's not a good argument to say that the military is evil and the rebels aren't. It's one-sided.
#186 to #176 - omniscientreason (09/05/2013) [-]
You have a good point but syria is syris. I understand both sides may have bad people ******* **** up but.....idk. I just wish I could do something to figure out who to help and how to help them. These kids dont deserve to die or live in a world like that.
User avatar #189 to #186 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
I retract my red thumb

In all honesty, the U.S. could theoretically quell the violence, depose the leader and set up a puppet government to serve our interests that wouldn't be as harmful to the people as the present government is. That would save lives and having it our way would help raise the standards of living. However, Israel would like to keep the Middle East in a state of warfare and poverty. There's also the fact that we don't care about Syria. We just want to keep China from having an influence there because then they can spread influence throughout the Middle East, and then to Northern Africa, and then... the Suez Canal.

Honestly, all these politics are horrible for the children there, but that's not my business. I consider you a better person for caring about them, though.
#164 to #163 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
that's what happens when you have evil people on both sides
#172 to #151 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
It's sad that Democrats make the Republican party out to be inbred rednecks and unintelligent warmongers. I feel sorry for them.

Now Obama wants to start another war before he's even finished up pulling troops from Afghanistan like he said that he would.
User avatar #61 - liquidz (09/05/2013) [-]
The president can only issue an attack without authorization when it is an immediate threat to the country. However to officially go to war it must be approved by congress.

They are not a threat to us, let them go do whatever they are doing.

We literally can not afford to go into another long term war like that.
#109 to #61 - joikapoika (09/05/2013) [-]
Actually, the american economy is independant of war. source:
At the same time, The middle east is a very oil rich area, and many oil-pipes are running through the country. After the gold standard was removed, the USD has been dependant of oil. Not the direct control of oil, but the fact that the oil is being sold in USD standard, and not by Euro standard, which many middle-eastern cuntries do. pretty much source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
User avatar #123 to #109 - liquidz (09/05/2013) [-]
I agree with all that and know it to be true.

But we have so much debt right now we literally have no money to spend on putting more stuff out to secure it.

They will have to raise the debt again to a much higher level.

It's unsustainable in the long run, and we need to move away from a weapons/oil based system.
User avatar #133 to #123 - joikapoika (09/05/2013) [-]
Totally agree with that, but there are just such extreme amounts of money to be made, and the people in control are extremly greedy. I'm Norwegian and live in a cuntry driven by oil, and even I believe we should stop teh oil-era.

The debt of the US is already sky rocketed, I don't believe it will be hurt by another war. They are so extremely dependant on the oil standard, and I believe going to war in Syria actually will be beneficial for the US economy.

Another side of the war is that many US lives will be lost...
User avatar #142 to #133 - liquidz (09/05/2013) [-]
The thing is the companies make that money from the government paying them... if the government has no more money to give, they can't be paid. That is the issue I see. I deal in that area and I know some companies already not getting paid or being told they have to suspend contracts because of the lack of funds.

User avatar #146 to #142 - joikapoika (09/05/2013) [-]
I don't really know anything about that field, but it seems murica really screwed up...
User avatar #153 to #146 - liquidz (09/05/2013) [-]
Hence why it's such a stupid idea to do anything to start another war.

Anything more than just bombing a couple facilities and leaving we really can't handle right now. And based on everything I know we have quite a few ships in that area, and seem to have already committed to doing it. the bill in congress already has extra stuff added to make it an extended conflict
User avatar #115 to #109 - joikapoika (09/05/2013) [-]
*dependent, not independent
+2
#31 - gwenisdead **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#14 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Can someone please explain this to me? Congress hasn't voted on it yet and Syria hasn't been bombed yet. At least I don't think so, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
User avatar #103 to #14 - danster (09/05/2013) [-]
Well, a Youtuber I watch has some pretty good videos of the whole thing.

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told Egyptian Revolution: What You're Not Being told World War 3 Has Already Begun
#16 to #14 - walmartysghost **User deleted account** (09/05/2013) [-]
you're right, he's just made a statement that says even if congress says no he wouldn't let that stop him from protecting national security. I think it's probably just getting blown out of proportion like these things always are.
#41 - MaxFabian (09/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#18 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
For people who don't know what's going on:


User avatar #35 to #18 - PhoenixComics (09/05/2013) [-]
That is the biggest load of ******** i ever read
User avatar #68 - SubjectThree (09/05/2013) [-]
Well, to be fair, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, so he doesn't need Congress' approval to deploy troops, only to declare war.

Which has only been done four times in our nation's history.
#179 to #68 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
HOW? there have only been 3 official wars in American history!
User avatar #202 to #179 - SubjectThree (09/05/2013) [-]
I checked again; it's actually four times.

Congress (as we know it) didn't officially exist during the Revolutionary War.

The Civil war was the first official war.

The Mexican-American war was the second.

WW1 was the third

WW2 was the fourth

The difference between "war" and "police action", is that in a police action, associating with hostile factions is not considered treasonous. In war, it is.

See: Jane Fonda.
#77 to #68 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Actually he doesn't, unless there is an imminent threat to the United states the president has no right to take military action without the approval of congress, let alone if they vote no on such military action.
User avatar #79 to #77 - SubjectThree (09/05/2013) [-]
No, he can do it whenever. Have you ever heard of a "police action"?

#83 to #79 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
"Police action" only applies if congress hasn't given consent, it doesn't apply if congress has voted no on military action.
User avatar #102 to #83 - SubjectThree (09/05/2013) [-]
Yes. It does. I hate to say it, but when it comes to military actions, the president really is the ultimate decider.
#105 to #102 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
No, he's really not, congress has the final say on what our military does and their restrictions, checks and balances.
User avatar #84 to #79 - multichicken (09/05/2013) [-]
so your saying that if obama wants, he can bomb syria without any permission from anyone?
#93 to #84 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
yes
User avatar #96 to #93 - multichicken (09/05/2013) [-]
i dont believe that one man namely obama can bomb a country without the consent of congress or anyone else.
#155 to #96 - drummkidr (09/05/2013) [-]
When people vote for President, they are giving their consent.
#108 to #96 - funnygiggles (09/05/2013) [-]
He can, probably not, but he can.
User avatar #137 to #108 - multichicken (09/05/2013) [-]
unless i see proof then maybe
User avatar #152 to #84 - thoubrethrenlivid (09/05/2013) [-]
Harry Truman had to make the decision to nuke Japan, it was his call himself.
#158 to #152 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
Congress had already declared war, meaning they gave consent to bomb Japan by default.
#135 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
**** Syria. Actually, **** the entire middle east. It's 1 giant **** hole full of ******* terrorists and disgusting smelly people.
User avatar #148 to #135 - fireprincess (09/05/2013) [-]
Actually, **** the world. Let's just kill everyone!
User avatar #160 to #148 - deandrummer (09/05/2013) [-]
Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever
#181 to #148 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
No just the Middle East. And Africa while we're at it. Those are the 2 biggest **** holes in the world.
User avatar #166 - ggggotmethisname (09/05/2013) [-]
why are we in syria anyway?
User avatar #178 to #166 - exclamation (09/05/2013) [-]
Something about chemical warfare. I don't understand whatever it was that outlawed the usage of chemical warfare (if something did).
#169 to #166 - anon (09/05/2013) [-]
We are not currently in Syria but the US congress is debating whether or not to launch missile strikes against Assad's regime. Even if congress says no, there's still a decent chance Obama will launch the missiles anyway. Either way, it's been made clear that the US gov does not want actual troops deployed to Syria.
User avatar #173 to #169 - yuukoku (09/05/2013) [-]
It's going to be a problem is Congress puts troops down in Syria, but even if they say no, the president has 60 days to launch missiles or do whatever in Syria and then he has 30 days to pull out.
#165 - blanketandpillow (09/05/2013) [-]
I wonder how many posts would be on here complaining about no one taking action and letting thousands of innocent children, women, and men get killed if America didn't go to war.
#182 to #165 - lolfire (09/05/2013) [-]
It's not America's job to get involved.
You lot should look after your own before you try to look after other countries.
User avatar #171 to #165 - angelmatvey (09/05/2013) [-]
Just as many as will be complaining about the US warmongering and ignoring the wishes of the people.
Not trying to take sides or anything, but this site is pretty bipolar when it comes to politics.
[ 214 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)