So make your congressional vote prediction here regarding Syria

The Senate will vote yes, the House will vote yes. All the political shows this morning were either screaming security at you or crying about the poor dead children and how we can't allow the use of these horrible weapons to kill more children.



Both sides are trying to drum up support for a 'surgical strike'.

No American lives are in danger and the national security threat is hard to identify. Not only is NATO not participating, but also neither are the Brits, the United State’s closest diplomatic ally. With Russia serving as Assad’s enabler, there will be no Security Council resolution or UN mandate.

Every time a president employs questionable legal arguments to wage war, it becomes a valuable tool for the next Commander in Chief impatient with the constitutional requirement to work through Congress. That’s why it would have been so dangerous for Obama to go forward in Syria without a congressional vote or the support of the UN or NATO. It is as much of a slippery slope argument as the contention that Iran, say, would be emboldened with its nuclear program if America did not punish Assad’s chemical attacks.

Yahoo News: History Defying Decision

Anyway, my guess is the vote either doesn't happen or isn't relevant. I like your anthropological perspective, I hope it doesn't make you go insane eventually.

Also, it's starting to look to me like people in America just make things up as they go, and then justify it later with new vocabulary.

reply to post by darkbake


Trying to look from an anthropological perspective does tend to make one pull one's hair out from time to time. But I think I'll be ok.

Im starting to think house no and senate yes is looking like the outcome from rumors. But who the heck knows anymore. You can bet your butt this will be an issue in the mid terms though.

reply to post by bknapple32


Well one thing is for sure.. it doesn't matter what they choose, Obama is going to Syria. I think they will vote to go though.

Its funny. I think all but a handful of politicians want to go. The only reason so many spoke out against it was because it looked like Obama was going anyway. He knows most of those saying against are actually for it so he is putting it to them. Making them vote and flip flop and share some of the blame. He was goin and is going anyway, but this way it makes his detractors show themselves and switch positions. Pretty funny. Even if they don't change their minds and vote no, Obama doesn't care to take the blame and go. He just wantes to share it if he could.

reply to post by bknapple32


What has to happen for there to be approval? Both the senate and the house?

Im going to say senate by a narrow margin. And as far as the House i dont think Nancy Pelosi will get the number of democrats she needs. Some republicans will vote yes so the key is the democrats have to vote as a united block.And i think there are far to many people that remeber George Bush asking congress for this same vote and authority in Iraq. The ghost of Sadam lives on and im skeptical that even democrats want another gulf war were kinda full. And theres alot of democrats that will lose elections if they decide to play hawks.

One silver lining from Iraq... If the fake wmd's are a lesson learned and it prevents us from bombing Syria, then it will be one small blessing in disguise.

Originally posted by soulwaxer
Respectfully, and correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't seem to be seeing the big picture here.

Obama's use of the 'red line' rhetoric was far from a careless mistake. Since that rhetoric was accepted by the public at the time, he now has an excuse to use military force, technically speaking. He is only being consistent in something that the public has been accepting of.

When was it accepted? Was this "cowboy" diplomacy vetted by Congress, the Peoples' House? The States' House? The President drew a line that had no basis other than..."I double dog dare you". He, President Obama, created this scenario with his statements a year ago.

I am not sure if that rhetoric a year ago was widely accepted and publicly okay or polled well. And who cares about polls anyway? Leaders shouldn't.

Originally posted by Kali74
The Senate will vote yes, the House will vote yes. All the political shows this morning were either screaming security at you or crying about the poor dead children and how we can't allow the use of these horrible weapons to kill more children.

Both sides are trying to drum up support for a 'surgical strike'.

Should be interesting really. Either way, the President is passing the buck now after his bluster running up to his "walk in the park" moment in regards to changing his tune.

Sadly, he is playing this politically (which I thought this was a national defense issue; but I digress)

reply to post by ownbestenemy


To be fair though, had he of decided to start a war, legally through the war powers act, most would be screaming he should have gone through congress.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by soulwaxer
Respectfully, and correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't seem to be seeing the big picture here.

Obama's use of the 'red line' rhetoric was far from a careless mistake. Since that rhetoric was accepted by the public at the time, he now has an excuse to use military force, technically speaking. He is only being consistent in something that the public has been accepting of.

When was it accepted? Was this "cowboy" diplomacy vetted by Congress, the Peoples' House? The States' House? The President drew a line that had no basis other than..."I double dog dare you". He, President Obama, created this scenario with his statements a year ago.

I am not sure if that rhetoric a year ago was widely accepted and publicly okay or polled well. And who cares about polls anyway? Leaders shouldn't.

The polls are all over the map heres two so you decide where the public is????????

Reuters/Ipsos Syria Poll: About 60 Percent Of Americans Are Against Intervention

NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria

So which is it the public is against it or for it so apparently according to these two polls we have either 40 percent or 80 percent for intervention and we have either 60 percent or 20 percent against WTF!

800.000 thousand people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days by machetes & nobody said a peep in 1994.

So give me a break with this Red Line crap!

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
800.000 thousand people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days by machetes & nobody said a peep in 1994.

So give me a break with this Red Line crap!

I know happens all the time. Funniest part is we created a court to deal with this kinda stuff why isnt any one putting the Syrian government on trial? I honestly think Americans are unaware there is a world court.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague (Netherlands) and the Rome Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The definition of what is a "crime against humanity" for ICC proceedings has significantly broadened from its original legal definition or that used by the UN,[22] and Article 7 of the treaty stated that:
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[23]

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;

Well trying to make logic it off something here... perhaps it is the red line issue. If the US let's a government like this use chemical warfare . Then it's like negotiating with terrorists. What's to stop a real nutjob leader from using worse weapons. "Hey. If the u.s didn't stop Assad I have no reason to think they'll try and stop me days later"

Yes it's a stretch but could be what they are thinking.

Ok in listening to congress ask their questions I am sensing my vote for "no" was wrong. I had faith in them but before they even cast a vote I am seeing that they are for it. When asking, "why didn't you do something in April when there was clear evidence of an attack" all Kerry could say today is: ...it wasn't as compelling and we did do something - you wouldn't have approved it since it wasn't dramatic enough...What kind of answer is that? So some chemical weapon use is ok but when we see a bunch of videos its not okay?

Also - why did you even come to congress since the president deems it ok to not consult with us on other serious matters? Kerry answers "I don't know. Ask obama". Later its asked again and this time "surely you must have talked to him about this" oh yes.... That's right... Because no one else supports this and we didn't want to also have you guys against us along with the American people and the majority of the world. So if the UK would have said yes he still would have brought it to congress? He says yes but again was confronted with Obama only deciding to include congress "after" parliament voted it down and pressure was put on him to do so. Caught in boldfaced lie. Yet will anyone even take notice? No...they don't care. A few lies to get your agenda met is acceptable.

I'm just hearing "how to attack Syria and how to work out the bugs in this plan". So much for the American people. They ask 4-5 questions each when they know their time is limited so questions get to easily be evaded. Inconsistencies and weak answers dont seem to phase anyone thus far. I believe it is going to be approved.

They'll ignore that 91% of Americans say 'no' to going into Syria. (that's the number I saw this am).
They'll go into Syria. It will get bigger and out of control.
They have all lost their freak'n minds. The whole world has.
Assad. Putin. Obama. The Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudi Royals. McCain
Every last stink'n one of them.

I did see after my statement above that some are really pounding some common sense into this; being frank about how they will oppose it. Its just that some seem so wishy washy. Like they are afraid to speak up or are kissing butt more than anything. This is a great opportunity for Americans to see who is and who is not strong in our congress and senate. Even if they supported it I would respect some strength - some convincing argument. Nothing convincing other than the opposition to this and I've tried to be open minded.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
They'll ignore that 91% of Americans say 'no' to going into Syria. (that's the number I saw this am).
They'll go into Syria. It will get bigger and out of control.
They have all lost their freak'n minds. The whole world has.
Assad. Putin. Obama. The Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudi Royals. McCain
Every last stink'n one of them.

It's not insanity...it's cold calculated, non political, ritual murder.
You forgot the main puppet masters in the global dance of death.

www.erichufschmid.net...

It's comforting to try and place blame, but it's not that kind of game. In fact it only looks like a game. I don't think we are really able to understand the reasons for what happens on this planet. We may not even want to know....

If humanity still exists within those people, a big "No" would result.

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." --Ancient Indian Proverb

“I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.”
“I AM IGNORANT of absolute truth. But I am humble before my ignorance and therein lies my honor and my reward.”
I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit."
(these 3, by Khalil Gibran)