Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[alfred russel]

And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?

There is a difference between a response and military strike.

There has been chemical weapons use in the past and it didn't result in a military attack. There have been reports that North Korea has used chemical weapons against its own people. Are we attacking them? Of course not. What if Iran was to do so? I seriously doubt we would respond with an attack.

[frunk]

We are discussing launching missiles at targets in Syria. That is an act of war. We will be going to war with Syria. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.

I don't see how it is reasonable to go to war against Syria to uphold a threat made in order to "uphold international norms", when the action isn't endorsed by the UN and is against international opinion. The case for an attack here--while less ambitious and less dangerous--seems even more dubious than in Iraq.

The case in Iraq came down to suspicions of WMDs being developed in violation of a treaty and the refusal to allow inspectors the appropriate access.  As it turns out there were no WMDs being developed and it was Saddam being an idiot in not allowing the inspectors in.  In Syria there's actual evidence of WMDs being used on a widespread basis.  How is that more dubious?  It might have less popular support, but that doesn't make it more dubious.

[CountDeMoney]

And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?

No kidding; Just as support for terrorism, or for genocide, or for territorial aggrandizement, or any other type of behavior frowned upon by the international community.  It's not like this is some sort of new thing here.

[derspiess]

I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.

You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself

[Berkut]

Following through on a perfectly well advised threat is a fine justification for taking action.

Saying that said action is "war" kind of misses the point that that war is already a done deal. They've had themselves a nice little war for some time now.

Indeed, the case in particular (responding to the use of chemical weapons means, by definition, that the response would be in most cases, a response to an already ongoing war and how it is fought, rather than starting a war.

Hyperbole is almost never useful in an argument.

The issue is not "war or no war" it is "intervene in existing war or don't".

We are discussing launching missiles at targets in Syria. That is an act of war. We will be going to war with Syria. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.

No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.

I don't see how it is reasonable to go to war against Syria to uphold a threat made in order to "uphold international norms", when the action isn't endorsed by the UN and is against international opinion. The case for an attack here--while less ambitious and less dangerous--seems even more dubious than in Iraq.

It isn't endorsed by the UN because the UN has a idiotic setup for endorsing actions where Russia will simply veto said action regardless of its justification.

And princicples like "It is not ok to use WMDs" are not and should not be subject to "international review". Nor is any such claim that it is "against international opinion" valid in any case. How do you know that? How do you measure it?

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

[alfred russel]

The case in Iraq came down to suspicions of WMDs being developed in violation of a treaty and the refusal to allow inspectors the appropriate access.  As it turns out there were no WMDs being developed and it was Saddam being an idiot in not allowing the inspectors in.  In Syria there's actual evidence of WMDs being used on a widespread basis.  How is that more dubious?  It might have less popular support, but that doesn't make it more dubious.

Because allowing inspectors appropriate access was a condition of the peace treaty, to which the US was a party.

In Syria, the US has no interests. The UN Security Council was set up for this type of situation, and is not inclined to act. Also, there is probably less international support for attacking Syria than there was Iraq.

[garbon]

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.

[Berkut]

And why is there this assumption that telling someone that using WMDs will result in a response suddenly "ill advised"? Hasn't that been the Western stance for just about forever?

There is a difference between a response and military strike.

So you are saying the west should respond, just not militarily? So the stricture against the use of WMDs is one of really just a suggestions, since of course we know that the only regimes that would countenance such use are those for whom threats of "Don't do it or we will say don't do it again" are completely useless?

There is nothing ill advised about the position that has been around for many decades, that the use of WMDs pretty much automatically raises whatever conflict you use them in from a local affair to one with international implications.

Arguing that we should have such a principle but should not be willing to enforce it in any meaningful way is not just foolish, it is immoral.

There has been chemical weapons use in the past and it didn't result in a military attack.

Indeed. In the most well known case, Iraq, it seems pretty obvious in hindsight that the failure to react was a critical error, that in the long run resulted in vastly greater death, cost, and destruction for nearly everyone involved or not involved.

There have been reports that North Korea has used chemical weapons against its own people. Are we attacking them? Of course not.

Yeah, the fact that the result of said attack would very possibly be the death of some ten million people living in Seoul does not really argue for continuing to allow others to be able to hold the lives of civilians hostage to their crazy.

This is such a common fallacy it is rather boring. If we cannot stop every criminal, then we should never stop ANY criminal?

What if Iran was to do so? I seriously doubt we would respond with an attack.

I imagine that would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?

[Berkut]

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.

Thanks for you valued opinion.

[alfred russel]

No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.

It isn't hyperbole to state reality. Launching missiles into Syria puts us into a state of war with the Syrian government. We would consider ourselves to be at war with someone who did a similar attack to the US government.

[KRonn]

I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues,  of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.

[garbon]

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.

Thanks for you valued opinion.

Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful.

[Berkut]

No, that is hyperbole. hitting targets in Syria is an act of war, but that doesn't mean we are going to war or starting a war. That is just being intentionally vague on the use of terms in order to evoke an emotional response, and make something sound as bad as possible.

It isn't hyperbole to state reality. Launching missiles into Syria puts us into a state of war with the Syrian government. We would consider ourselves to be at war with someone who did a similar attack to the US government.

We've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.

Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.

If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".

As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.

Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.

[Berkut]

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.

Thanks for you valued opinion.

Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful.

Your last two posts suggest otherwise.

[garbon]

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

Sounds like you are getting too bogged down on semantics. Also, I think you go too far with the bit in bold.

Thanks for you valued opinion.

Your welcome. Unlike you, I don't think a wall of text ignoring people's points are very useful.

Your last two posts suggest otherwise.