Luzinski's Gut wrote:The other aspect to the Congressional decision for Syria is that it potentially gives the President and SECDEF much greater logic to cut the Department of Defense budget even further.

DoD has been very vocal about not going into Syria, and there are a number of articles this week about leaks (some called them floods) emanating from DoD about how we're going to approach Syria.

If Congress says no, then there is even more reason for the President to cut the DoD budget. If they say yes, I suspect we'll see requests from more OCO supplemental, especially when the missile strikes are completely ineffective and the Administration is left wondering what the hell they can do next.

Brilliant move on the President's part on a number of levels.

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — International aid to Syrians uprooted by civil war is a “drop in the sea” of what is needed, a top U.N. official said Monday, estimating that five million Syrians have been displaced inside the country.

In addition, 2 million Syrians have fled to neighboring countries, according to U.N. figures. The total, of about 7 million, amounts to nearly one-third of Syria’s population.

The funding gaps for the displaced remain wide, with donor countries sending less than one-third the money needed to help those displaced, Tarik Kurdi, the representative of the U.N. refugee agency in Syria, told The Associated Press.

Syria’s brutal two-and-a-half-year-old conflict has also claimed more than 100,000 lives, including hundreds who — according to the U.S. — were killed in chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian regime near Damascus on Aug. 21.

America used various chemical agents including white phosphorus in Vietnam (where it was known as “Willie Pete”) and in Fallujah (Iraq) in 2005. We encouraged or at least did not object to the use of chemical agents, although we later blamed him for so doing, by Saddam Husain. Just revealed documents show that the Reagan administration knew of the Iraqi use in the Iraq-Iran war of the same poison gas (Sarin) as was used a few days ago in Syria and Tabun (also a nerve gas). According to the US military attaché working with the Iraqi army at the time, the US government either turned a blind eye or approved its use (see the summary of the documents in Shane Harris and Matthew Aid, "Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran," Foreign Policy, August 26, 2013) We were horrified when Saddam Husain used poison gas against the Kurdish villagers of Halabja in 1988 (killing perhaps 4-5 thousand people) but by that time we had dropped our support for the Iraqi government. Finally, Israel is believed to have used poison gas in Lebanon and certainly used white phosphorus in Gaza in 2008.

The Dude wrote:

America used various chemical agents including white phosphorus in Vietnam (where it was known as “Willie Pete”) and in Fallujah (Iraq) in 2005. We encouraged or at least did not object to the use of chemical agents, although we later blamed him for so doing, by Saddam Husain. Just revealed documents show that the Reagan administration knew of the Iraqi use in the Iraq-Iran war of the same poison gas (Sarin) as was used a few days ago in Syria and Tabun (also a nerve gas). According to the US military attaché working with the Iraqi army at the time, the US government either turned a blind eye or approved its use (see the summary of the documents in Shane Harris and Matthew Aid, "Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran," Foreign Policy, August 26, 2013) We were horrified when Saddam Husain used poison gas against the Kurdish villagers of Halabja in 1988 (killing perhaps 4-5 thousand people) but by that time we had dropped our support for the Iraqi government. Finally, Israel is believed to have used poison gas in Lebanon and certainly used white phosphorus in Gaza in 2008.

The Dude wrote:i don't think the point was whether or not it was banned chemical weapon, but it is a chemical weapon used to kill mass amounts of people. where is the line

jerseyhoya wrote:I emailed Runyan and Chiesa today encouraging them to vote yes after hearing about all the calls and emails pouring in telling reps to oppose action.

karn wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I emailed Runyan and Chiesa today encouraging them to vote yes after hearing about all the calls and emails pouring in telling reps to oppose action.

Why?

jerseyhoya wrote:

karn wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I emailed Runyan and Chiesa today encouraging them to vote yes after hearing about all the calls and emails pouring in telling reps to oppose action.

Why?

Because I think Obama's credibility and the United States' credibility are at stake, and there are other instances with more direct US interests in play (Iran, North Korea) where maintaining this credibility is vital. Threatening to do something if X occurs and then doing fuck all should be a sign to Iran that they can pursue nuclear weapons with impunity (or a sign to Israel that they need to act themselves). A sign to North Korea that we might not really mean it about South Korea (or a sign to South Korea and Japan that they should look into going nuclear). Better to look like we will keep our word when we make big threats.

Also I agree with Obama that we have an interest in preserving the norm against chemical weapons usage. And on top of all of that, Assad is a piece of shit who ought to die a painful death, though I'm not sure how much our attacks will affect that.