Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[Ed Anger]

[KRonn]

I think that Congress will approve. As more info comes out about setting an example to Syria or any other nation about using chemical/bio weapons, plus the info showing that the government did take the actions, Congress will become more and more likely to vote yes.

I'm still very divided on an attack though. I think attacking would have unintended negative ramifications but I'm thinking more now that letting this go by without punitive action is the worst option. Also shows Iran whether the US has the fortitude to carry out action on any "red lines" that have also been set with Iran.

[merithyn]

I think that the Senate will approve, but the House will not. Obama will move in, anyway.

From my perspective, we have little choice but to at least lob a few volleys at Syria. The question is: what will be the ramifications with only France to back us? I could see Putin feeling a need to put on his own show under the circumstances.

[KRonn]

I'm not a fan of the US acting unilaterally or with only one other or a few other nations joining in. I'm very surprised and annoyed that there isn't more of an outcry on the use of these weapons by many more nations, and many more willing to act. With the banning of and the fear of using bio/chem weapons  there should be a lot more resolve by nations over the use of the weapons.

[Razgovory]

Maybe we can shoot members of the House at Syria.

[Berkut]

I think that the Senate will approve, but the House will not. Obama will move in, anyway.

If Obama is smart, he can and should use that scenario to beat the hell out of the "obstructionists" in the House who care more about party politics than taking a stand against the use of WMDs against women, chidlren, and civilians.

Of course, Obama has consistently shown an almost comical inability to make House Republicans pay or even take responsibility for their obstructionism, so I have no faith he will manage to do so.

[alfred russel]

From my perspective, we have little choice but to at least lob a few volleys at Syria. The question is: what will be the ramifications with only France to back us? I could see Putin feeling a need to put on his own show under the circumstances.

We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?

[alfred russel]

If Obama is smart, he can and should use that scenario to beat the hell out of the "obstructionists" in the House who care more about party politics than taking a stand against the use of WMDs against women, chidlren, and civilians.

Of course, Obama has consistently shown an almost comical inability to make House Republicans pay or even take responsibility for their obstructionism, so I have no faith he will manage to do so.

The public appears to be against an attack, including large numbers of Democrats. One man's obstructionism is another man's responsive representative government with some checks and balances on the executive branch.

[garbon]

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

[merithyn]

We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?

No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD.

[alfred russel]

We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?

No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD.

Making an ill advised statement shouldn't be a justification for war.

[Berkut]

We have to lob a few missiles at Syria because international norms require a response even though the international weight of opinion is to the contrary?

No, we have to lob a few missiles at Syria because we said that we would if they used WMD.

Making an ill advised statement shouldn't be a justification for war.

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".

[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?

[Bluebook]

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?

Yeah, that is something that worries me aswell. What the hell has happened when people argue like that.

[alfred russel]

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.

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.