It's also interesting that one of the six ships in the area is an LPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Antonio_(LPD-17)). Never served in the marines, so I'm relying on Wikipedia, but it says it can house up to 800 marines + equipment. 800 isn't going to make much of an invasion force, but why move that ship into the area? Search and Rescue for downed aircraft? Embassy evacuation? What? Also saw some analysis that seems to suggest the Assad regime may have been losing control of the access points to the belt highway around Damascus- and losing that access may have been what triggered the attack. So, in light of that, the regime making a chemical strike starts to make some sense. The whole thing smells. On the one hand, we issued a threat and told Assad not to use chemical weapons or there would be consequences. To not act would potentially allow our allies and enemies alike to question our resolve in future conflicts. Think about how much worse the North Korean situation could have gotten. On the other hand, we have no true national interest in Syria. Neither side is particularly appealing. Any strike we make may be ineffective and that would be as bad or worse than choosing to do nothing. Any strike we make will inevitably kill civilians (and likely both sides will kill some civilians and blame it on us for their own street cred). What happens if the strike is an air strike and we get a couple planes shot down? Are we going in after the pilots? Do we allow them to be paraded around on Syrian state TV or get beheaded on youtube by the rebels? I don't see a good way out, but I think acting is going to be worse than not acting.
military action in Syria has been brewing since Bush was in office. So there is a lot of doubt at least to me that Assad used these weapons . Looks more false flag to me. China and Russia are not going to let us replace one of their best customers ,and deal with Iran. This will not be good
agree. the way the stock market is acting so far today it looks like a strike is closer than some want to believe.
The good way out is that Congress either says yes or no and in either case we've begun the process of rolling back the Imperial Presidency that has existed since at least 1968, although you could argue 1966. What has gotten completely lost for us as a country over the last two generations is that the President is not a Dictator capable of deciding that US national interests justify the use of military force. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of US forces once hostilities begin. He has no power to commence hostilities. That power is vested in the Congress and in the Congress alone. The War Powers Act is both unconstitutional and a result of unconstitutional actions taken by a succession of US Presidents since World War II. That the Congress was forced to setup a clearly unconstitutional law to govern the use of military force by the Presidency is a clear indication that the current system is broken and that the Presidency has claimed in incremental steps far too much power in terms of the use of military force. Nobody argues that the President's hands should be tied in the event of a national emergency before the Congress can be convened for action. However the War Powers Act is designed to stop things like the President giving aid to the Contras over Congressional objections, funding private resistance movements without Congressional approval and bombing places like Syria without Congressional action. All of those things clearly fall under categories that are not immediate national emergencies and none of them should be available to any President without Congressional action and consent on them. This is why we are so screwed politically in the world right now. We say one thing and we do another. We talk the talk and then we slouch the slouch. I believe the reason President Obama is going to Congress for approval on Syria is that he realized that all the sins of past administrations were going to land squarely on his shoulders if he took unilateral action and that he'd probably be impeached for his actions and the weight of past actions and very possibly convicted.
Due to officials having insider trading and interests in defense corporationsi do not trust congress with my country. I have no doubt they will vote yes to a strike. WE the people,have been gagged.
This is true - the vote for aggression or a declaration of war must be made through congress. That being said, congress must now act to authorize air strikes against Syria and to arm specific groups of anti-Assad fighters
Can't say I disagree with you. The other two branches of gov't have been prostrate for too long, between executive orders, signing statements, unilateral use of military force, and everything else... It'd be nice to have some of, oh what should we call them? Oh, checks and balances. I think I read about those somewhere. If only we had a document that clearly laid out how the government was supposed to operate. Maybe if we even had a document that clearly outlined citizens rights that were not to be trod upon. Sorry, I'm off my meds, talkin' crazy talk now.
Kerry reiterating, that the President, doesnt want Assad gone. He wants to give him a time out. This is the Rich Kotite of American Politics.
Then he is, to put it simply...unfit to hold the office. Bullshit on impeachment, thats flat out retarded, the President has the power to act as he sees fit, in that arena. Clinton, should have been impeached for helping the KLA in Kosovo. No President will ever be impeached for using his C-i-C authority. In fact the correct play would have been to start shooting first. And therefore putting the onus on Congress to support men under arms. This guy is a pussy, calculating his future speech income.
He has that power,for matters of national security. This situation does not fit the bill. As much as a load of bs this little "im asking congress 1st" is,it is the way it is supposed to be. When 11% of the citizens of this nation are against an attack,why should he do it anyway?
Obama sucks but if this was the Rich Kotite era does that make the 8 years of Bush the Rod Marinelli era of American politics?
Nonsense. The President isn't asking Congress to declare war on Syria. He has stated unequivocally that he has the power to what is effectively a limited police action without Congressional approval. This is very much a CYA action. The President drew a red line. This action is about restoring the President's credibility to draw red lines. Specifically it relates to our red line in Iran on nuclear weapons. That is the geopolitical reason to strike and the only interest the US has in a strike at the moment. There is no indication that the US is planning on doing anything of significance to deter the use of chemical weapons. It could be argued that a limited strike on conventional command and control that tipped the scales in the rebels favor would increase the likelihood of additional use of chemical weapons or that these weapons will land in the hands of rebel forces that we no more control than the Syrian forces. This has nothing to do with the war powers act. This is simply a limited action to protect our Presidents ability to make credible threats as part of our ongoing diplomatic activity regarding nuclear weapons with Iran.
so,you actually believe that Obama said not to use Chem weapons,and Assad was dumb enough to use them?
I don't know where you came up with that? I haven't seen evidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. The UN hasn't reported yet. Obama's threats, credible or not is probably irrelevant to Assad and his followers. It's clear they will be wiped out in mass if they lose the civil war. They are essentially in a death struggle for survival. I don't think Obama's threats are even considered by Syria at this point. It may be much more likely a US strike will end up putting more people at risk to being gassed if it changes the balance of power on the ground. US action is about US credibility period. It has little relevance on the use of gas in Syria by either side.
President Obama does not have the authority to launch an attack on another sovereign nation absent an immediate threat to US national security. He doesn't have gray areas to work in either. The fact that two generations of Presidents now have acted as though they had the right to effectively start a war is beside the point. The founding fathers would have been horrified if George Washington launched an assault that could lead to war against another sovereign nation, the British excepted due to the nature of ongoing hostilities after their withdrawal.
Well some of the chirping we initially heard coming from the White House would lead some to believe we do NOT need congressional approval for a certain limited strike...... I have no idea about the fine print but some sort of action has already been telegraphed by the WH so every day that goes by gives Syria the ability to move shit around. So is a "limited air strike of defined duration" the same thing as a war declaration - which of course requires approval. I hope for BO's sake he isnt defiant enough to act on the fine print disclaimer and go it alone without congress and/or united nation votes. OTOH maybe I would like to see this tool act solo.....that would be the nail in his presidential coffin so to say. No mt Rushmore for him - sorry msnbc.
In that case,it is just like Iraq. They do not have the right to manipulate the American public with lies.
