Senate Intervention in Syria: Yay or Nay?

They may agree with him who is responsible but the Financial Times is saying the leaders all still oppose the U.S. going it alone. This is important because it suggests Obama might have to wait at this point for a stronger case to be built against Assad.

To not wait risks the ire of the other nations and our own House. If he waits, he could then go to the congress with a stronger case and perhaps more international backing.

 

The best use out of this chaotic ordeal would be to wait until the UN can confirm it was Assad (which it seems that it was) and then use the evidence to either press the UN to action (which won't happen because of Russia + China) or make it as much as possible about Russia/China blocking anything being done and let Samantha Power do her job. We shouldn't be going in unilaterally, though.

Iraq proved why we shouldn't be messing around in these countries with no goal or game plan - and this dictator actually, you know, has and uses chemical weapons.

 

Doesn't locking down a whole city kind of count as crapping one's pants a bit?

 

Yay. For the sake of humanity.

I have watched a number of doco's lately on the Syrian conflict (ie: a few Frontline ones...) ... and it is just heartbreaking.

 

It's been said that

I don't know if the mandate excludes a report on how the weapons were delivered, which might make Assad's involvement clear.

 

Not so much for the citizenry. The Boston police are always crapping their pants--the Mooninites LED display being a perfect example. However, the average citizen seemed resolved, I think they were more afraid of the militarized police.

 

I find it amusing how the usual suspects are pulling the same old tricks trying to get us into Syria, but as far as the populace is concerned it isn't working. Right now, even as I type this, our great news media - having sensed the encroaching possibility that their paymasters might not ultimately get what they want - are flogging the gas footage ad nauseam. CHILDREN ARE BEING HARMED!!! IF WE SAY CHILDREN YOU JUMP! The problem is that our great political class has been claiming constantly for the last few years that there's no money, the country's broke, social programs need to be cut, everyone just needs to suck it up. Now it's "we got away with Iraq, let's go to war again, we don't need no steenking defense cuts" and the public is like "**** you, you said there was no money."

 

I don't even think it's the money. I just think we're sick of wars that are essentially useless wars. Unless your definition of a useful war is that the military industrial complex gets to play with their toys.

 

So if Congress votes "No", which seems ever more likely, Obama can either move forward and make an absolute mockery of the Constitutional process, or stand down and thereby become the most humiliated President since Nixon.

This isn't good.

 

More than that, it will put enormous pressure on him within his own party to stand his ground on the tough financial issues coming up. Conversely, the Republicans will then be emboldened (especially the far-right flank) to treat him as if he has essentially been castrated and refuse even harder to negotiate with him.

The longer this goes, the higher the chances of a true financial disaster this fall in the US and by extension, globally. A government shutdown would be bad, but a default would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, it's beginning to look as if a default is becoming likely; given the current atmosphere, I would put its risk at 50/50. If Congress says "no", I would put it 80/20 for yes.
Obama will become like a cornered kid with his gloves off, throwing punches in a desperate attempt to get his mojo back, and the Republicans will do the same, just for different reasons.

Time to buy gold?

Peace,

V-03

 

Has anybody else watched the videos CNN has been airing of the gas attacks in Syria?

Disturbing is an understatement for these videos.

 

That whole country is disturbing. Should we really go attack them and make things even worse?

 

I had forgotten about that.

 

Speaking of intellectual shallowness, who's "Arwen"? Calling others "shallow" while engaging in childish name-calling isn't exactly credible.

It's not about missile strikes, it's about the fact that the populace is tired of war. If missile strikes don't get the US what it wants, what comes next? Many in the US establishment want regime change in Syria, which involves more than just a few missile strikes. Witness the current talking point about whether or not it would be better to have the rebels in charge of the country. That's a regime change scenario, it doesn't happen because of "missile strikes".

Wrong. Nothing I wrote ignored that in any way. The point was not the source of impending defense cuts, but their effect.

And because the same news media clearly wants a war to happen. Hence their ongoing frustration with Obama bringing the matter to Congress, calling him a wimp, etc. The point was how they suddenly went back and started pushing the same old footage - there was no new attack - once the issue was brought to Congress and it began to become clear that the public wasn't buying it. On the other hand, maybe I imagined it all.

The country's entire political class has been compelled to kowtow to the deficit obsession for quite some time, in case you hadn't noticed.

Oh, so you did notice.

John Boehner never went along with austerity?

 

John Boehner is rudderless, not to mention more impotent than the President. Who knows what he wants?

 

He wants to retire. Former aides say he won't run for re-election.

 

Can't blame him. I think he really wanted to work with Obama to get things done, but we all know that turned out. I'm surprised half of Washington hasn't had a heart attack yet.

 

Just caught that Charlie Rose apparently got an interview with Assad. Not expecting anything new (likely an outright denial that he ordered the gas attack), but interesting that he granted any type of interview nonetheless.

 

Yeah, he threatens retaliation against the US for a strike.

Makes me wonder what Putin has promised him in terms of aid if there's war.

 

Putin won't lift a finger for him, in my assessment, and I don't think Assad is as naive as to assume so either.

 

All it means is that he'll probably give aid to terrorist attacks on the US.

 

Agreed. Terrible judgment on my part, and I offer my heartfelt apology.

 

As awful as those videos showing the gassed civilians in Syria are, we aren't exactly planning on using the most precise weaponry to keep from killing innocent civilians by lobbing cruise missiles into the country. They've been known to go awry and create collateral damage.

Obama just needs to wait to hear back from the UN team about their findings and go from there.

 

What does everyone think of Russia's new proposal?