Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[If_I_Loved_you]

Well there you go JayBird, you have drawn a response from IILU.  Carry on if you guys like.  This will be one area of discussion I will have little interest in.  I will leave it to you guys to hash out.

Promise LOL!

[Cheshire Cat]

You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol 

[If_I_Loved_you]

You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol

One of the problems with you Diane you want the last word like that really counts for anything? LOL!

[BridgeTroll]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

[Cheshire Cat]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Well there is a surprise.  My guess is their minds were made up quite some time ago.  Now it's a matter of trying to mitigate the degree of forceful action that is taken.  The military machine must be fed and Obama it looks to me doesn't want to be seen as a weak leader who is afraid for armed conflict and further enforce this idea that the U.S.A is the world police.  That's a pity.

[Ajax]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

[Ajax]

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/08/30/on-war-and-declarations-of-war

On War and Declarations of War
Jason Kuznicki / 9 hours ago
Bellona
Yesterday the United Kingdom showed us what it looks like to live under the rule of law:

British lawmakers on Thursday delivered a stunning rejection of Prime Minister David Cameron's bid to punish the government of Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons, citing skepticism over the misinformation used to back the Iraq war as a reason for staying out of Syria and raising the prospect that any U.S.-led strike would go ahead without its staunchest military ally.

The move came as a severe blow both to Cameron — a Conservative Party hawk on Syria — and to U.S. hopes of securing a Britain as a cornerstone of a coalition. After an eight-hour debate, Cameron lost a vote that was seen as a symbolic, preliminary motion setting up a final vote in the days ahead. The failure of even the weaker piece of legislation, in a 285 to 272 vote, suggested that Cameron faces overwhelming opposition to the idea of Britain joining any strikes.

All this is just as it should be: The representatives of the people decided the question of war, and this time around they said no. The morning headline today is damning by contrast:

Obama has power, determination to make own decision on Syria, administration says

No, Mr. Obama, you do not. We live under a written constitution, and that constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Without a declaration, you may act only in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Not one of those things has happened in Syria, nor is there even a vaguely plausible scenario by which they might. There isn't even a fig leaf of justification to this intervention. It is simply warmaking by executive fiat. It is precisely what our Constitution was designed to prevent. It is a lawless and illegitimate act.

The power to declare war was not given to Congress by accident. Nor is it some arcane ritual of a bygone era.

No, this arrangement was done by conscious design: so that the representatives of the individuals who would fight, risk their lives, and die might first decide whether the matter was compelling enough to demand such a sacrifice. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has just said no, and there is reason to believe that our Congress would say no too, if only they were asked. It doesn't look like they will be.

Entrusting to Congress the power to declare war is an anti-war measure. It exists to keep us out of war. Congress — flighty, irresolute, perpetually deadlocked — would not act in concert except in fairly dire circumstances. And none who had to face the wrath of a democratic electorate would send those voters out on a war if national defense did not absolutely compel it. Or so the thinking went.

It's not a perfect system; none are. But the founders knew very well the history of Europe in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. They had seen quite enough of executive warmaking. That approach brought Europe perpetual war, perpetual turmoil, and an empty, puffed-up "glory" for monarchs who gained little, lost little, and risked absolutely nothing while slaughtering each others' subjects.

The United States, our founders promised, would be different. As a republic, we would not treat our citizens, or the citizens of any other country, as gambit pawns. We are individuals, and so are they, and we are not fodder for the growing of empires. That, anyway, was the idea.

How sad that Europe now is showing us the error of our ways.

[I-10east]

I see that the UK government has plenty of sense, overwhelmingly voting nay concerning any military (militree) action in Syria, despite the urgent pleas from the Prime Minister. 

[Cheshire Cat]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

Exactly.  I guess this is also an indicator that the U.N. is just politically correct window dressing and America is gonna do what America is gonna do.  The unfortunate part is that this attitude and action just doesn't always play well around the globe. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

For those who would like to email the President with your thought's about any military involvement in Syria, here is the link to do so.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Obama and Kerry today said we have all the proof we need ...

Then they should take their proof to Congress so that the people's representatives can have a proper discussion about whether the US military should get involved. 

Exactly.  I guess this is also an indicator that the U.N. is just politically correct window dressing and America is gonna do what America is gonna do.  The unfortunate part is that this attitude and action just doesn't always play well around the globe.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=487 Tick Tock

[Ajax]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

[Cheshire Cat]

from the link carpenter shared.  (thanks)

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/syrians-jacksonville-rally-against-us-intervention/nZghY/

[If_I_Loved_you]

Diane you broke your promise? "You bet I promise with regard to this portion of discussion.  lol "

[Ajax]

There is no way that anyone can get rid of chemical weapons without boots on the ground.  We can't just bomb the chemical weapons away.  That just disperses the poison.  So we'll be committing ourselves to yet another invasion of a predominantly Muslim country. 

How has our intervention in other Middle East countries worked out recently?  Egypt?  Libya?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Unless you're happy to see how they've turned out, then what makes you think that getting involved in Syria will be any better? 

This should be debated openly in Congress.  If our representatives don't do their due diligence and decide to go to war, then it's on all of us.  But I don't want an Imperial President killing more people in my name.

You can take out Syria's planes and bomb the area's were these missiles came from. And yes Innocence people could be killed we try not to have that happen but even our smart bombs don't work right all the time.

I don't want any innocent people to die by American hands, but I'm more concerned about young American men and women dying because our 'leaders' have a hard on for war and they want to keep feeding that Military Industrial Complex. 

Do you agree that this should be debated in Congress?  Or do you feel that the President should decide without Congress' input?