Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[JollyRoger]

It's a pop quiz to see if Congress has learned anything since 2003.

 

[Bowsling]

I don't see what's selfish about not wanting to see troops coming home in body bags, in not wanting Syria to become another Iraq? In wanting stability?

Bad argument man. Tomahawk cruise missiles go one way. Airstrikes are a little riskier, but still reasonably safe in terms of casualties. I don't think anybody is advocating an invasion.

Syria is already another Iraq, unless you're using Iraq as an extension of your first point. Sectarian conflicts, etc. etc., the country has fallen apart, and it will take a miracle to ever put it back together again. Western intervention is not to try and fix the situation (which it can't), rather, it is to show Assad that using chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anybody.

The only reason Assad would logically use chemical weapons is if he was losing.

That doesn't justify using them at all.

Oh, don't worry, the West will intervene, because Democracy must prevail!

Well uhhh... it looks kind of unlikely at this point, unless Hollande mans up and does it himself.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Its interesting that he is letting this go through Congress. From a political perspective I don't think he has the votes for Congressional approval. Lyndon Johnson always lectured people, never hold a vote until you know you have the votes. Once you have the votes, then you can hold a little debate or whatever to satisfy the whims of the overly emotional... Obama is no LBJ true, but this move seems really strange.

From the press over the last few days it seems they really want to intervene in Syria. Maybe they have been working Congress over these last few days, or maybe there has been a dramatic shift at the White House where they no longer want to intervene (hence throwing it to Congress)

Yes, Congress will be getting a vote.

However...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...en-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-votes-no/

One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.

Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.

Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.

The senior State Department official told Fox News that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord Friday night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them.

However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Fox News, adding that that was why the president, in his Rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.

The decision to begin firing has evidently been reached.

Congress can only delay it now.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It's a pop quiz to see if Congress has learned anything since 2003.

Indeed!

I can't think of a single major responsibility that they have not delegated out to someone else.

 

[kramerfan86]

If he is going to act why risk the embarrassing situation where congress votes against it then you ignore them anyways? Already bad enough you are going to lone wolf it from an international level.

 

[AdamCrock]

I don't think it matters wheter or not Assad used chemical weapons - it is even possible it was a CIA set-up. The Civil War in Syria has become (in my opinion) a power struggle between US and Russia, Russia clearly doesn't want the US "seizing control" of yet another Mid East country (affraid of slowly being surrounded by "US *approved* democracies") and US apparently have a great interest in that country since it is so eager to intervene (perhaps US views this Civil War as an opportunity to strenghten it's position in the Middle East "arena") or there's a possibility that I am entirely wrong and US plays nice and just wants to put an end to a bloodshed that has brought nothing but death for Syrians. I wish for the latter and hope that this bloody conflict will end with as little casulties as possible - on both sides.

 

[kramerfan86]

I dont think anything that has happened so far suggests the US is "so eager" to intervene, in fact Obama's muddled wishy response to me suggests the exact opposite.

 

[caketastydelish]

Just like Abraham Lincoln, Assad is a tyrant. Even if abortion is outlawed in Syria (for the record I don't know) he should still rot in hell. However, the US must not intervene. The only way this can be solved is through free-markets and liberty.

Moderator Action: Nope. Nipping this in the bud. The impersonation shtick stops now.

 

[illram]

If he is going to act why risk the embarrassing situation where congress votes against it then you ignore them anyways? Already bad enough you are going to lone wolf it from an international level.

He is punting. If Congress says no he won't do it.

It's a very "Obama"-ish move. I.e. thought out to death, middle of the road, not ruffling any feathers. And at times seemingly indecisive. Honestly this quote from the NY Times from a Syrian was the best analysis of the situation I have heard yet:

For another Homs resident, Abu Bassam, 31, the only possible response was black humor.

“Man, I wish Bush was the president,” he said. “He would have reacted right away. He may have invaded Cyprus or Jordan instead of Syria by mistake, but you know he would have done something at least.” Times

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

He is punting. If Congress says no he won't do it.

It's a very "Obama"-ish move. I.e. thought out to death, middle of the road, not ruffling any feathers. And at times seemingly indecisive. Honestly this quote from the NY Times from a Syrian was the best analysis of the situation I have heard yet:

I agree. If Congress agrees, he is sort of absolved of any guilt (well, he doesn't have to bear it alone anyways) should anything go wrong.

 

[Borachio]

Just like Abraham Lincoln, Assad is a tyrant. Even if abortion is outlawed in Syria (for the record I don't know) he should still rot in hell. However, the US must not intervene. The only way this can be solved is through free-markets and liberty.

Moderator Action: Nope. Nipping this in the bud. The impersonation shtick stops now.

Very funny, though.

Spoiler :

Well, maybe not very funny. Quite funny?

 

[Chiteng]

He is punting. If Congress says no he won't do it.

It's a very "Obama"-ish move. I.e. thought out to death, middle of the road, not ruffling any feathers. And at times seemingly indecisive. Honestly this quote from the NY Times from a Syrian was the best analysis of the situation I have heard yet:

I agree

 

[Defiant47]

I don't see what's selfish about not wanting to see troops coming home in body bags, in not wanting Syria to become another Iraq? In wanting stability?

The price paid with that inaction is what's selfish. We are making an announcement to the world that a few million dollars worth of taxpayer money (and maybe a pilot or two) are worth more than thousands of Syrian lives, lives dying from atrocities.

The stability discussion is moot, since with or without intervention, there is no stability. You might as well say that we shouldn't intervene, because intervention will not help Norwegian dancers win the gold medal. Neither will non-intervention.

The only reason Assad would logically use chemical weapons is if he was losing.

High opinion you have of this man who would slaughter his own people indiscriminately.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Defiant47: the communist party is now sending troops to liberate the oppressed French minority of Quebec.

The price of inaction is to high to pay.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Defiant47]

@Defiant47: the communist party is now sending troops to liberate the oppressed French minority of Quebec.

The price of inaction is to high to pay.

Sent via mobile.

All of us need liberation from capitalism.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

All of us need liberation from capitalism.

All righty, then...
On our way...

Sent via mobile.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think throwing the matter to Congress is a brilliant move on Obama's part:

Then again, I also think the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional in how it is typically used. The only time where it can be justified at all is when the US must respond in a few minutes to a few days to a crisis. Any other time, it should be a decision made by Congress and preferably by many other countries.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Sure, like when there is a natural disaster, authorization to mobilize troops and equipment to transport people to safety would be welcome, indeed.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Then again, I also think the War Powers Act is blatantly unconstitutional in how it is typically used. The only time where it can be justified at all is when the US must respond in a few minutes to a few days to a crisis. Any other time, it should be a decision made by Congress and preferably by many other countries.

Arguably when the US wants to deal with something ongoing in a quick way that wasn't seen coming.

I don't think any of those really apply here though (anymore anyways).

So throwing it to Congress is Obama's best shot.

 

[JollyRoger]

Going to be tough to be a Republican on this vote - support Obama or be one of those soft doves.