So, where's OUR vote on Syria?

[bigtree]

_____________________

Eric W. Dolan ‏@EWDolan 1h
British parliament votes against military strike on Syria http://bit.ly/17oan6D


ajamlive ‏@ajamlive 1h
White House says it is aware of British vote on #Syria, Obama's decision-making will by guided by best interests of US - @reuters #breaking

Mike O'Brien ‏@mpoindc 1h
hmm RT @mikememoli: Rep. Zoe Lofgren, on CNBC, says "my guess is a clear majority of the House" wants a vote on Syria.

[pscot]

1. That's the trillion dollar question.

[Glassunion]

2. Our vote was paid for by others.

There are some folks who stand to make a lot of money. They paid for their vote, and they'll get what they want.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Obama is the "decider" now. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

4. In a lobby .

[LearningCurve]

16. I see what you did there.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Coooool, I trust your flag waver more than theirs .

[PoliticAverse]

5. Obama won't repeat Cameron's error. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Democracy is too important to be left to the people. Father Knows Best.

[msanthrope]

7. Under the War Powers Act, the President can strike without a vote. Of course, Congress would have

to come back from vaykay early, so let's face it.....there's not going to be a vote anytime, soon.

[bigtree]

8. using that slippery, Bushian reasoning

. . . this president is arguing that Syria's chemical weapons threaten our national security. That's the only reed he has to justify acting unilaterally.

. . . slippery, Bushian reasoning.

[Amonester]

11. NS = Israel

They live next door.

[bigtree]

15. slick, slick

. . . to claim that Israel is 'threatened'.

Of course, Israel is a conveniently located target for reprisals following our own self-serving provocation.

[Amonester]

18. sadly, our own self-serving provocation also has a follow-up* if

the reprisals (which may not materialize) would include using CW anywhere across their border.



Money in politics.


*more newest high-tech toys of the most recent generation.

[bigtree]

20. slippery

. . . chemical weapons are horrid, but, in this case, they're little more than a convenient pretext for this administration's (and many supporters of military intervention) ambition to remove Assad from power.

For the moment, let's hold on to the reality that Israel has not been threatened by Syria with a chemical weapon attack.

[Amonester]

23. I just 'suspect' the "National Interest" rationale is about that

(highly improbable) possibility, that's all, and not about a$$-had CWing the East Coast...

[bigtree]

9. .

[RB TexLa]

10. We don't have a parliamentarian style of government

[bigtree]

12. that's not what's stopping them

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. And the use of military force without Congressional authority...

in the absence of a clear and present threat is still probably illegal. The USA would be much better off if it did have a parliamentary government instead of the bastard hybrid of elective monarchy and broken legislature it's stuck with.

[The Straight Story]

19. So what if it is illegal. We need to look ahead, not behind, who will do anything about it, and

Using chemical weapons on people is illegal as well.

And no one seems to want to do anything about that either.....

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Yes, using chemical weapons on people is illegal

but it's precipitous to not wait for the conclusions of the UN inspectors regarding the attacks; to strike without international support or consensus, to basically go off half-cocked on some sort of pretext of "imminent threat of attack on the US" that's essentially bullshit.

And I'm not entirely convinced that a punitive missile strike is going to prove to be a deterrent in eliminating the use of chemical weapons from the Syrian conflict, let alone doing anything to end the bloodshed more generally. Giving Iran, or Russia, a reason to back Assad with more than just arms shipments is probably a bad idea, for instance.

[The Straight Story]

24. I mostly agree on the waiting

Unless we have evidence another attack is imminent, in which case I would be ok with stopping it.

My fear is this will be the new congo. Over 5 million dead over 14 years, UN is there doing little (although now they have troops and are fighting).

The deterrent comes in when Syria realizes that we will strike, even a small one now shows that we are willing to do so again. And from what we heard in the UK today there have been 14 other gas attacks and no one did anything up until now because there were not as many people killed all at once before.

We could just tell the world that he is a dictator and it is his country and he can gas anyone he wants and we will stay out of it. But that has not always worked out in history and I, for one, don't like the idea of repeating mistakes we regret today.

[bigtree]

22. thing is, a 'limited' attack will do little more than provoke a response from the Assad regime

. . . and do almost nothing to stifle, eliminate, or control Syria's chemical weapon capability.

The reports are that military targets are contemplated by the U.S., not any direct attempt to get at the stockpiles. The administration position is not only weak, it's fantasy.

[The Straight Story]

25. Well, as I said above it does more than damage a building or weapons

It puts them on notice that this time, unlike the last 14 times, people are serious about this crap and if we don't attack now and show we are willing to....well then why wouldn't he kill thousands more? What does he have to lose?

When the rest of humanity outside our little dome is no longer our concern then I find things to be in a sorry state. If we could stop him by dropping food and medicine and love letters, fine, I would support that. I support our disaster relief efforts around the world and using our military to help aid countries when disasters strike. We give money, food, medicine, aid, etc all over the world to help others all of the time.

And in this case being are being gassed and need our help, why let one man dictate to us that we should just let him keep killing? If people want to rise up and fight a civil war (which they were doing) - fine, but in this case those in power are using gas to terrorize and murder innocent people and either we care enough to stop it or sell him some chemical weapons to use so we can at least profit off it. And if he gets away with it time and again then why the hell shouldn't every other country with them use them.

You a draw a line somewhere. Used to be the world drew it at chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

Looks like we can scratch one off the list.

[bigtree]

29. what's mostly missing from this discussion

. . . is an honest debate about the effectiveness of U.S. exercise of military force across sovereign borders to send messages and the like.

Most of the contemporary evidence says that this type of military intervention in, what is essentially, a civil conflict, can more destabilizing than it may be corrective or determinative. Witness, Afghanistan and Iraq. The heavily tilted, U.S. led NATO aggression in Afghanistan in a stated defense against the ideology of al-Qaeda and the pursuit of a political solution behind that display of military power has produced legions more individuals bent on violent opposition to the U.S. and our interests; in the region and throughout the world.

We need to consider the blowback that almost always occurs behind the arrogant flailing of our military might against these seemingly lesser nations. We need to come to grips with the limits and sometimes counterproductive results of our military forces attempts to influence behavior or put folks 'on notice.'

I think it's incredibly naive to believe that there can be a 'limited' exercise of military force by the U.S. in Syria which won't just spark more reprisals and violence.

[The Straight Story]

30. A lot IS missing from the discussion

Like the after affects in Israel and the whole Golan heights issue should assad end up leaving power and the rebels win, if our attacks weaken assad and tip the balance in their favor, etc.

I am one of those people who has hated the US involvement in the ME (historically and presently) and the Iraq war, and I know well my son could be called back up and sent back to the ME.

But there are cases where I find action is warranted, and using chemical weapons is one of them (and the US/Iraq and previous uses of such weapons has not escaped me, but this is a new admin and I can't hold them accountable for the past).

I don't want us to be lions of war or paper tigers. Our hesitance today is a direct result of previous admins and their idiotic mistakes and imperialism which I detest.

We draw line, we stand by it. I think we should confer with UN and other nations, as many of them signed the chemical weapons treaties/resolutions as well. But I also do not oppose us going it alone with limited strikes on strategic targets (say ground to air missile sites, air defenses - something that won't help the rebels in this case but will cost and degrade the Syrian military's ability to defend itself should they do the same things again - and impose sanctions on countries for a time that would sell them new such equipment).

[JI7]

13. i think they are on vacation

[bigtree]

17. convenient

. . . for them to have the president take most of the initiative. Dangerous to be satisfied leaving that initial authority to authorize military force in the hands of the Executive.

[oberliner]

26. Feinstein Says Congress Need Not Vote on Syria

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Diane Feinstein spoke to TIME about the ongoing situation in Syria. She said it was important to wait and see what the United Nation’s inspections yield. That team is expected to leave Syria on Saturday. Speaking before the British vote to not participate in any hostilities in Syria, she expressed confidence that Britain would come around. She also said that President Obama has performed adequate consultations with Congress to move forward in Syria, should he chose to do so.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/29/feinstein-says-congress-need-not-vote-on-syria/#ixzz2dQZnadts

[David__77]

28. Whoever replaces her will truly be a step up...

I voted for her, of course, but California could do so much better by replacing her with a true progressive leader - she's a relic of a different California entirely. I won't assume she doesn't run in 2018 at age 85, but regardless, California can do better.

[David__77]

27. Vote with you letters to representatives, with street protest, showing up at "town halls"...

...with all other manner of political action. Each of us is responsible to agitate and raise a ruckus. We need the elected officials to fear us - that we will cause too much trouble for them to ignore us.