Good to hear - but I'll believe it when it happens...

Obama has no 'intention' to strike Syria if Congress says no, says aide

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-has-no--intention--to-strike-syria-if-congress-says-no--aide-130403503.html

Guys - I opened this topic thread with a broad brush. And I appreciate everyone who has come to comment. I notice already - and pleasantly so - that on such a set up we can have disagreement without being disagreeable. It would really be nice if we can keep it that way.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Why then aren't we at war with North Korea?

Can someone please explain to me why ~110,000 deaths over two years by 'normal' means are not enough to persuade the West to attack Syria yet ~1000 deaths by sarin are? That is a genuine question.

That is a heck of a good point... I suspect that in the minds of some - it is the total indiscriminate nature of poison gasses. Gasses can seep into homes, factories and businesses killing any living thing that comes in contact. And instead of the up to 1400 hundred claimed - one well placed attack could kill 30 to 50K or more at a time ... Then it becomes genocide.

I think in Syria's case it is too great a leap at this point to assume massive use of gas will occur.

Can someone please explain to me why ~110,000 deaths over two years by 'normal' means are not enough to persuade the West to attack Syria yet ~1000 deaths by sarin are? That is a genuine question.

Because the West and it's proxy/allies instigated the actions that brought about those deaths. They claim they didn't instigate THIS nerve gas attack but they have surely instigated others in Syria.

Can someone please explain to me why ~110,000 deaths over two years by 'normal' means are not enough to persuade the West to attack Syria yet ~1000 deaths by sarin are? That is a genuine question.

IMO, it is mostly about embarrassment over all the hoopla about Obama's red line remark - rather than about the use of chemical weapons - which is why I am skeptical about supporting the strike.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Why then aren't we at war with North Korea?

Because the horse is already out of the barn. They already have them.

I read today that in the messy wake of destruction the Muslim Brotherhood is making headway in controlling Libya... The Muslim Brotherhood was helped along to get control of Egypt (IMO by obama). Now the MB is unexpectedly thrown out - much to obama's chagrin.

I believe the long term obama plan for Syria is also the accent of the Muslim Brotherhood. No detailed proof - just my sense of things.

This (again IMO) is the reason for obama's strange actions - trying to force justify military intervention to have eventual regime change in the direction of radical Islamist which would morph into the political body of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Somebody is going to have to bomb them sooner or later, so why not sooner before they get even further?

You have some serious issues to deal with.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Why then aren't we at war with North Korea?

they tend to say...well they already have it so pffft.....too late

But at the same time this is the very reason everybody wants one isn't it? To be left alone.

You think if Syria had one anybody would be telling them they are about to be spanked?

What if Israel did not have them? Why does Israel need nukes?

Nukes/WMD's all suck & the world would be better off if none had any at all.

But if it is going to be unbalanced as it is then better all have them period.

Yes I know the "superior" groups like to think they are the non fanatics yet "their"

religions have killed just as many historically as any they like to call nutty.

Sad day when "good nukes make good neighbors" but it seems that is where the world stands today

@Ulysses @lannabirth @Jingthing @Mania .... post #41

Nukes and North Korea - no real intervention because we would have a heavy dose of the MAD concept - Mutually Assured Destruction ... Not total like in the Soviet days - but really bad things could happen... South Korea, Japan and Others...

And with this Syrian thing ... Iran conceals very well whether it could deliver one bomb or not - but one Nuke could cause a horrible situation - so they too have entered into the MAD scenario ... Thus the world treads lightly and obama should too in this Syrian fiasco

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Why then aren't we at war with North Korea?

Because the horse is already out of the barn. They already have them.

And aren't far fewer lives and far less of the public treasury (which is technically bankrupt) being used to manage this "containment" policy, than if we had chosen to go to war to prevent it? Isn't the prospect of a future Korean re-unification or at least detente still on the table because we chose this policy rather that aggression?

I read today that in the messy wake of destruction the Muslim Brotherhood is making headway in controlling Libya... The Muslim Brotherhood was helped along to get control of Egypt (IMO by obama). Now the MB is unexpectedly thrown out - much to obama's chagrin.

I believe the long term obama plan for Syria is also the accent of the Muslim Brotherhood. No detailed proof - just my sense of things.

This (again IMO) is the reason for obama's strange actions - trying to force justify military intervention to have eventual regime change in the direction of radical Islamist which would morph into the political body of the Muslim Brotherhood.

They are trying to convert regimes from being Russian client states to US client states. That's the greater game going on. There are lesser games we put up with like the Sunni/Shia battle, but our motives are to destabilize client states of the former Soviet Union and install governments likely to come under our control.

Oh look! Someone's removed my avatar.

So you think Iran with nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't.

Yes, that's a very serious issue.

Why then aren't we at war with North Korea?

Because the horse is already out of the barn. They already have them.

And aren't far fewer lives and far less of the public treasury (which is technically bankrupt) being used to manage this "containment" policy, than if we had chosen to go to war to prevent it? Isn't the prospect of a future Korean re-unification or at least detente still on the table because we chose this policy rather that aggression?

We're stuck with the Korean War aftermath -- but smart heads could apply lessons learned to what is going on in the Mediterranean Arab countries - that have blown up to such a degree... but I don't see too many lessons learned being applied by the obama Administration

We're going off topic about nukes. This isn't what it's about. Syria is another kettle of fish. I will try to sneak in a couple of comments though.

Iran has promised to use nukes once it gets them, and it is an Islamic terrorist government. That's more worrisome than a more resposible government.

I think that it is believed that China will control NK. NK can't survive without massive aid from China, and China has a lot of influence. China doesn't want a nuclear war in its back yard which would happen if NK nuked someone. So, fingers crossed.

I don't know why the US (Obama) wants to spank Syria. I don't know who used the gas, I don't know that the rebels are better than Assad, and I don't believe a single thing that comes out of Obama's mouth. Period.

Lack of support for Syria Intervention Bush's fault ... not the horrible fiasco in Benghazi ... not the mess in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt... just Bush ... Wow ! they actually had the nerve to say it ...

James Carville blames Bush for lack of support for war in Syria (Video)

"It’s easier and instinctive for Carville to blame Bush for a lack of public confidence than it might be to assume any trepidation about the Obama administration leading a military charge could be due to their woeful, incompetent response during and after Benghazi," a post at Twitchy said.

http://www.examiner.com/article/james-carville-blames-bush-for-lack-of-support-for-war-syria

The Washington Post published a poll that shows 59 percent of all adults oppose involvement in Syria. Even if allies like Britain and France get involved, opposition still remains at 51 percent. Seventy percent also oppose supplying arms to the Syrian rebels.

Can someone please explain to me why ~110,000 deaths over two years by 'normal' means are not enough to persuade the West to attack Syria yet ~1000 deaths by sarin are? That is a genuine question.

IMO, it is mostly about embarrassment over all the hoopla about Obama's red line remark - rather than about the use of chemical weapons - which is why I am skeptical about supporting the strike.

That whole "red line" business is for the benefit of comic book readers and Fox News/ MSNBC viewers. Since when has the USA ever done anything but pay lipservice or totally ignore the use of chemical weapons? We've supported leaders who use it. That's just a ruse for people who only see things in Black and White.

Just couldn't resist ....

Obama on Verge of Historic Rebuke Over Syria

Various news organizations are contacting members of Congress to see where they stand on the attack authorization. While each outlet has different numbers, the ominous sign for the administration is that all of them show the "no" votes outpacing the "yes" votes by a more than a 3-1 margin.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-syria-vote-house/2013/09/05/id/524077?s=al&promo_code=14C73-1

Obama on Verge of Historic Rebuke Over Syria

Various news organizations are contacting members of Congress to see where they stand on the attack authorization. While each outlet has different numbers, the ominous sign for the administration is that all of them show the "no" votes outpacing the "yes" votes by a more than a 3-1 margin.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-syria-vote-house/2013/09/05/id/524077?s=al&promo_code=14C73-1

The HOUSE may NOT VOTE on the Syrian Resolution ... (If this happens the American people will not like this)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357794/house-might-not-vote-obamas-syria-resolution-john-fund

"Absent a big change that shifts dozens of votes all at once, my source expects the authorization to lose".

“It’s hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big,” he says.

Link

If the House doesn't vote, can Obama still act? I thought he had to get congressional approval within thirty days after he has taken military action. Then the House would have to vote, and he would still get defeated.

Or does that mean that the whole threat of military action then dissolves into thin air, making Obama a laughing stock?

Where is there a way out for him?

Oh look! Someone's removed my avatar.

Can't you read the sign? You got to have a membership card to get inside

I rather liked that avatar too

Put what it said into your sig-line instead

If the House doesn't vote, can Obama still act? I thought he had to get congressional approval within thirty days after he has taken military action. Then the House would have to vote, and he would still get defeated.

Or does that mean that the whole threat of military action then dissolves into thin air, making Obama a laughing stock?

Where is there a way out for him?

This is all just more showboating

It will not matter which way Congress/Senate votes Obama is going to bomb Syria period.

Basically repay pre-election promises that entail sucking Iran into a fight. Or at least create a better lie as to why they too deserve bombing

He only did this little vote song and dance to once again give the illusion of choice before enforcing his personal "Oh Yes I can"

He will claim he did it all to give the citizens a voice but after consideration he has decided to go ahead with the power he thinks is

granted to him & bomb the life out of Syria for at least close to the X day limit he believes he is allowed as Prez without approval.

That should be enough to empower his new best friends the newly reformed rebels.

It will start the same as Libya with some hard military targets & quickly expand into other things

It will be claimed they had to take out a few broadcasting stations because well....they broadcast & we cannot have that.

Then there will be the claim as to why they just had to hit a few bunkers where Assad & company were seeking shelter.

Not because Assad was there mind you but ummm other reasons...what was the one they used when they killed Gaddafi's son & three

grandchildren? Oh right they will claim it was a command center

Military Revolts Against Obama Attack On Syria

Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College...

"They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense," Scales opines. "None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective." According to Scales, the military is privately "outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about 'red lines.' " The rank-and-file, in other words, are outraged that their blood may be shed just to save presidential face.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090613-670181-soldiers-revolt-against-obama-attack-on-syria.htm?p=full&fromcampaign=1

According to Scales, the military is privately "outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about 'red lines.'

Ain't it the truth.

I agree with those who believe Obama will act with or without his Congressional authorization. And I think it is in doubt. And then if it all goes to pieces, he'll blame those who didn't support him for, well, not supporting him (!) thereby making THEMSELVES the cause of his inability to avoid a wider conflict, and the loss of US credibitiliy. This is Obama's modus operandi, and his cult following, not to mention the major media, WILL stand by him on this. They may not support any hostile action in Syria now, but they WILL join him in blaming the right, the "non-believers", the "Obama-haters", afterward... It's an extraordinary kind of a dictatorship in which the majority actually loses its voice and has no say. And to bring this full-circle, that's why I'm strongly inclined to believe he will act with or without Congressional approval. Congress wil be his whipping boy in this no matter what they do.

Posted for a friend of mine ... .

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”

Sarah Palin 2013

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/sarah-palin-were-bombing-syria-and-im-idiot/

If the House doesn't vote, can Obama still act? I thought he had to get congressional approval within thirty days after he has taken military action. Then the House would have to vote, and he would still get defeated.

Or does that mean that the whole threat of military action then dissolves into thin air, making Obama a laughing stock?

Where is there a way out for him?

Technically, under the War Powers Act, Obama can act alone only if the US is under attack. But there is precedent including recently Libya for doing otherwise. Clinton did it more than once. And then there have been the attacks that go on in that lawless region of Pakistan including getting Osama Bin Laden, but also the drone attacks. So Clinton, Bush and Obama at least have gone on their own.

Who's going to stop him? The House could impeach him but the Senate would never convict him so that's a waste.

I don't know what he'll do. Right now it looks like Congress (the House side) isn't going to give him the approval so we'll have to wait and see. I think Americans will be furious if he does it on his own.

My personal opinion is that he won't do it if congress says no. He would look even more foolish and inept. However, there is precedent for a president ignoring congress and carrying out a strike anyway, so it is not impossible.

I think that he is making a good moral argument for the strike, but not for why he has waited so long and not for how it would do any good under the circumstances.