[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

latest whip count

Spoiler

 

It's not just a matter of a Hastert rule but the reasoning behind why Boehnor has stuck to it. He has been very careful about guarding his position as speaker and a defeat in an area where he is overtly supporting Obama will greatly undermine his power. I can't see how cautious Boehnor is why he would support this unless he really feels there is a very good chance of passage.

True it doesn't look good at this point but I still suspect those numbers against aren't as solid as they look. Both Boehnor and Pelosi know how to enforce party discipline so I am thinking there is much more going on behind the scenes than these numbers indicate.

 

is it an odd position to take if one were to say that they support military strikes on Syria, just not by the United States?

 

Yes it is.

 

Eh, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The polling on this is pretty solidly against intervention, and there is quite a large potential for severe unintended consequences. If I was a Rep my default position would be against all other things equal. The fact that no one has yet articulated a decent reason for intervention only makes it more difficult to support.

Boehner is likely retiring after this stint anyway. Keep in mind, if this vote fails then no one will remember who voted for what. If it passes, we intervene, and things go badly (as they likely will) then people WILL remember who voted for it in 2014 and 2016.

Again, don't hold your breath. Personally, I think Obama wants it to fail one way or another so he has an excuse to climb down from the cliff he's hoisted himself upon. I would if I were him.

 

Outsourcing. As American as apple pie...made by a migrant worker.

 

Except that, in Kerry's model, the USA would be the migrant worker, and the Qataris and/or Saudis would be paying...

 

Libya is in tatters at the moment, so...

 

In the ultimate outcome, this will be much ado about nothing. Either way the status of chemical weapons won't change. Either way there will be at least 50 years of chaos in Syria (and Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, Palestine/Israel, Pakistan, Indonesia et al.)
Hell the beacon of democracy can't even pass a budget due to it's own religious/sectarian strife.

If Assad prevails there will be Islamic guerrilla violence, if the 'rebels' prevail there will be tribal sectarian violence. If I were the decider I guess I would strike, strategically with a minimum loss of life, strictly with stand-off weapons, half-assed but technically qualified.
Mission accomplished.

 

No. I'm tired of us getting in everyone else business, when we have so many problems here. Fix your sh#t before you try and fix someone else. And this coming from a veteran.

 

This is who we are supporting?

http://nyti.ms/17QH7pl

 

Terrible.

 

It's not even the first time, or the second, or probably the 1000th. Al Qaida has claimed responsibility for over 600 attacks in Syria since November 2011, according to a State Department Travel Warning. Including 40 suicide attacks in Damscus, Homs, Aleppo, and other areas.

And as I have repeatedly said, it is beginning to boil into Lebanon as refugees flood into the country at an unsustainable pace. Just like with the Palestinian crisis, this is likely to cause more violence in the region.

I want the US to do something, but WHAT can we do? Our hands are tied at this point. Perhaps we should have done something when the Syrian opposition was made of, you know, SYRIANS?!

On a personal note, I had plans to go back to Lebanon next summer, and this is really putting a damper on my plans : ( I've always wanted to visit Syria as well, but I think I'll stay out...

 

I posted this earlier in one of these Syria threads, but it's an interesting solution:

http://nationalreview.com/article/357373/strategy-syria-mario-loyola

The basic idea is that you tip the balance enough to give the rebels an edge, but not enough to outright win. Then you push a negotiated peace at some kind of international conference - where the extremists really have no way of having a seat at the table. It allows the world to try to maximize the role of moderates in the new government.

Not convinced if it will work because the radicals will still be there and have to be dealt with, but if neither Assad nor an extremist rebel government are an acceptable outcome, then this is an attempt at finding a way to empower moderates.

 

Similar to Clinton's Kosovo strategy, which btw didn't have UN support. So the precedent is set for action despite Congressional approval.

I think it is a much better strategy than completely crippling his regime, but how do you go about doing it? Apparently there has been no discussed end-game with Congress, at least not at this point.

In the end, both sides have committed atrocities. Is gassing people really that much worse than executions, beheading, and hanging people from bridges? The rebels have doing all of this for almost 2 years now.

Also, apparently Russia submitted a 100 page report to the UN which "scientifically" proves the rebels used the gas. Something about the gas was not industrially manufactured, which is the kind the Syrian regime has? It's Putin, so you take it with a grain of salt, but I am not convinced it was Assad. All we have been told is we have proof it was Assad, what is it? Even Congress hasn't seen it!

 

Yes that is very possible and I agree that the reasons why haven't been fully articulated. I still find it telling that Pelosi, Cantor and Boehnor are all supporting this and willing to risk political capital unless they know something that most of us don't.

I don't know whether things will go badly. I am thinking these strikes will be so minor that they do much either way. Foreign policy usually isn't a big factor in major US elections, short of a Vietnam style war and there is no way Obama or the Congress will allow that. THis is speculative but I doubt this will be much of an issue in 2014.

I would believe that more if he didn't also say he won't be constrained by a Congressional vote. I will agree though with Obama's critics on this that he has handled this poorly. Contrary to those who believe that Obama has wanted all along to intervene because of some sort neo-con US hegemony support Israel Bilderberg and etc... conspiracy what it seems to me is that Obama really wanted nothing to do with Syria and instead of getting ahead of the issue has been dragged along with it. It seems like he first tried to ignore the issue and then when chemical weapons were involved got called on it but figured Assad would be cowed on the "redline" rhetoric but now his bluff has been called.

 

That precedent was set long before Clinton was president. Reagan bombed Libya without Congressional approval.

Kerry laid out the evidence to Congress publicly about a week ago and there has been other secret briefings to key members of Congress. I referred to the public info in a post in another thread but here is off the top of my head:

Assad is already known to have chemical weapons of the type detected by the UN inspectors and the victims of those attacks all showed symptoms consistent with those type of chemical weapons. Coinciding with the time of the latest attacks shelling was coming from regime controlled areas into rebels controlled areas where the victims were. This was corroborated both by witnesses and from US satellite tracking. US intelligence intercepted calls from regime personnel discussing using chemical weapons in the attacks. While the regime did ultimately let in UN inspectors they prevented them from entering for days and carried out a prolonged shelling barrage for four days following the attacks.

None of this is to say that the rebels didn't also use chemical weapons but so far the evidence for those seems much more speculative than the regimes and even if they did the evidence seems like the regime has used them more.

 

Lol

Republican sheep will always vote for military intervention. The Democrat sheep always follows their leader blindly. Expect the vote to be close but we are going to war as usual. Yayyy America.

 

With all due respect, how ridiculous. I'm a Democrat, and I follow no one "blindly." Neither do many of the people I know who are actually engaged in politics, and that includes some Republicans. Instead of tossing easy insults on a message board, you might consider looking a bit more deeply into both the issues, and what can be done to promote whatever political views you hold. Lumping people into convenient groups of "sheep" reflects more poorly on you than it does on those you are attempting to demean.