Who the hell is ABLX Boston and why should we accept their version of the events?
“It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region”
“We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil war, death and activity that we’ve been seeing on the ground.”
We are not trying to hit chemical weapons which would be an ecological disaster if those are released accidentally.
If this simply serves to increase Assad’s hardness of heart, than the demands for further intervention will be strengthened and perhaps we may be able to get a no-fly zone.
So are you enjoying this just so you can see Obama fail? :rolleyes:
Noticed that 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. I picked three but I think four is correct as well.
It depends on what kind we are talking about. Someone can correct my if I’m wrong. I believe that a non-persistent nerve agent like Sarin dissipates quickly and its not harmful in the long run. Nothing I have seen indicates that they have anything like a persistent nerve agent like VX. If they have mustard gas that can cause an ecological disaster. That stuff is nasty. Designed to incapacitate rather than kill but its look term effects are much worse.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to approve such treaties as the executive department (President) may have negotiated. It also has the sole power to approve ambassadorial appointments, and, I think other foreign arrangements.
I would say that the role of the House is limited, in this case, to concurring in a declaration of War. I don’t consider a punative strike against a government that has broken international ‘law’ to be a ‘War’. Our relationship with the UN has to be considered as part of the Senate’s responsibility, doesn’t it? Treaties, decisions reached by international organizations, etc…?? sort of feels to me like it is up to the Senate, only, to approve such agreements as we might reach at the UN.
the convention against the use of chemical weapons is, I think, a convention arranged by the UN. Breaking that convention falls to the UN to police. If the UN asks the US to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons, as provided for under the convention, which is really a ‘treaty’ we agreed to…then why do we need further input from the Senate or the House? Certainly not the House, and the Senate, only if they choose to make their voice heard. The treaty was already approved.
Obama is looking for a vote of confidence on this action. For years we have allowed presidents to conduct foreign affairs without much, if any, interference from the legislature. Obama obviously thinks that the legislature needs to be involved, to provide him with political cover when the thing goes sour.
The legislature has gradually allowed the executive to dominate foreign relations to the extent that presidents prior to Obama have felt it their job to declare war. Perhaps the legislature realized over time that only a ‘leader’ can make war decisions, because the legislature is too divided and bogged down in protocol to ever actually make a decision about anything. Now, particularly, they can’t even pass legislation to pay the just debts they have incurred.
I’d ask the Senate to consider this matter, and go no further. If 2/3 of the Senate say we should punish Assad, that if good enough for me.
Reply
Our military actions will end in disaster. Suppose Assad has also invested in the “old reliable” chemical agents…like chlorine and mustard gas…or phosphine and arsine? these agents killed thousands of British troops in WWI…and they don’t break down readily (unlike Sarin). A cruise missile hits a depot storing these…and now we have the sight of thousands of dead civilians-which Assad will parade on TV.
This will end badly.
I voted *Hell will freeze over before Congress authorizes any action. *
This is the genius of Obama. McCain and many Republicans would love another war. Obama knows this so, rather than fight it, he suggests, no, he insists upon, the very actions that would start that war. The Republicans, dedicated to opposing Obama’s every action, are then forced to take the exact opposite view and vote in lockstep to oppose the the very thing they want.
I was stating to worry that Obama was turning into a warmonger but now that I see his clever plan clearly I am less worried. Let’s just hope John McCain doesn’t figure it out.
Not enough rolleyes in the world for this post.
The elephant is Iran’s nuclear program and their threat to use whatever force to annihilate Israel. Better, we think, to take Iran to the woodshed before they go nuclear, rather than after. Iran, we say, has told its terror arms to attack Israeli and US assets in the mideast if the US attacks Syrian assets. They have issued a presumptive declaration of war.
So, moving the assets we have into position…may not be for Syria, but Syria is a good excuse for deployment.
Futzing around, ‘trying to get permission’ from Congress gives us a longer time to deploy and reinforce.
September 11 might be a good day to watch carefully, since someone, somewhere, will be dumb enough to attack an American asset on that terrorist holiday…then all hell breaks loose.
Wow, I was wrong. Who would have guessed?
Well, Putin has given Obama his “out”. Now the Syrians will move their weapons to places where they cannot be found. The inspectors will find some old, expired weapons, and that will be that. Putin could not resist poking Obama in the eye with his speech criticizing American “exceptionalism”. Except now the USA is supplying weapons to the opposition-which will be like “Operation Fast and furious”-those weapons will be used to kill Americans.
What makes you think we would aim cruise missiles at chemical weapon stockpiles?
A more effective deterrent would be to hit their most expensive military assets. That way it costs Russia more to support Assad, and they can warn him not to use chemical weapons again.
That very idea occurred to me as well. Obama did the math on the likelihood of the outcome in Congress. If it didn’t coincide with his judgement that a strike was warranted, he would bypass Congress, and attack using the War Powers Act. If it coincided with his judgement that an attack was not warranted, he could make the Republicans fight it out, and they would take the responsibility for appearing weak on standing up to dictators using chemical weapons. He wins either way, and the GOP is further weakened by infighting between hawks and the Tea Party.
Never go in against a Kenyan when death is on the line.
I heard about this. I can’t believe how mind-numbingly stupid our government is. We know that the rebels are being supported by Al Qaida. It is an undisputed fact. It’s why nobody was too eager to support the rebels over Assad. And we’re still arming them :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
Like the fat guy in “The Godfather” said: you need a war every 20 years…it clears out the bad blood".
Well that was already nicely fulfilled by our previous President in Iraq.