karn wrote:The bombing of Syria will be the nadir (or peak) of America's confused apathy. As the Iraq war was the last gasp death of mainstream civil opposition to this sort of thing, the general and deepening malaise of who-the-fuck-cares-ness from John and Jane Q. Public towards world politics and especially the middle east is tantamount to the state pulling a joker card in a high stakes poker game - all rules and bets off. And while it wasn't all that impressive a feat to devolve conservatism into extremism given the generally poor showings of the right over the last 25 or so years, the refined techniques of social engineering that would so skillfully turn the bleeding hearts of a decade ago into the hawks of the present is rather geniuslike in its diabolicism. On the basis of that remarkableness alone, I'll support a small scale skirmish and another dummy democracy just to see what happens next. For as there is, as usual, no concrete evidence of, well, anything regarding the dustup that has been set as the hinge for the impending events, leaving both 'yes' and 'no' to bear equal metrics of moral weight when sidepicking, the cavalier and carnalness of 'yes' in this case just looks and feels so much more appealing than the staid virtue and temperance of the old Christian 'no'.

WASHINGTON—Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option. “The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama And Biden Have Said Military Action Without Congressional Approval Is Unconstitutional

karn wrote:There is a good bit more hearsay and circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was in fact our boys the rebels who did the chem attack than Assad. Striking at this point is inviting deep, deep turmoil which might be what they want (see: Iran).

karn wrote:There is a good bit more hearsay and circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was in fact our boys the rebels who did the chem attack than Assad. Striking at this point is inviting deep, deep turmoil which might be what they want (see: Iran).

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama And Biden Have Said Military Action Without Congressional Approval Is Unconstitutional

Hard to get congressional approval when they're on a 24 month break.

You can also invoke war powers act after the fact, and every president since reagan has gone around it

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Would love to know what the hell we could bomb to punish them. Just lobbing cruise missiles at houses or whatever Assad owns would be pretty funny.

jerseyhoya wrote: We're gearing up to bomb a country that is in no way an imminent threat to the US without Congressional approval. Maybe Joe Biden can help Justin Amash draft the impeachment papers.

Boehner and Reid should also be pressing for a larger role for the Congress, and they don't seem to be so they don't get held responsible if shit hits the fan, so there's plenty of blame to go around.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: We're gearing up to bomb a country that is in no way an imminent threat to the US without Congressional approval. Maybe Joe Biden can help Justin Amash draft the impeachment papers.

Boehner and Reid should also be pressing for a larger role for the Congress, and they don't seem to be so they don't get held responsible if shit hits the fan, so there's plenty of blame to go around.

Given how Barry got where he is, you think he's going to go all John McCain, without a few Congresspersons' tits in the wringer (McCain's, even with Corker's thrown in, would not be sufficient)? Just doesn't seem plausible.

Oh and that WSJ article is ridic.

This isn't zooming over a prostrate Iraq & lighting up anything you damn well please. There's a much better chance of American deaths in Syria, even in a limited action.

Are you really the closet neocon your enthusiasm for that inane article suggests? C'mon

jerseyhoya wrote:On a pretty basic level, I think the idea that if dictators fuck up and do something really bad against their own people or something of the like, killing them and destroying all that they care about rather than trying to bomb more conventional targets in the rest of the country is appealing. I don't think it's logistically feasible, and the vacuum it creates might be even worse than the present hell. But I enjoyed the article.

drsmooth wrote:

karn wrote:There is a good bit more hearsay and circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was in fact our boys the rebels who did the chem attack than Assad. Striking at this point is inviting deep, deep turmoil which might be what they want (see: Iran).

So you're thinking the reason Barry has not been out front on this is because he's not convinced the case is locked down, and would like to be a lot closer to convinced. I agree

pacino wrote:

karn wrote:There is a good bit more hearsay and circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was in fact our boys the rebels who did the chem attack than Assad. Striking at this point is inviting deep, deep turmoil which might be what they want (see: Iran).

They who