Obama will seek congressional approval to go to war with Syria.

It's admirable that Obama's taking a constitutional approach for once, but it's not going to make a difference. If the chemical weapons attacks have been confirmed, the majority of the house will support an invasion, it's just a matter of when and how.

Because there is precedent of not using them, or if you do something will happen to you.

Hell you can see it in Syria chemical weapons have slowly been used more and more leading to bigger death tolls.Person0

Like I already said, it was the US that already set the precedent in the Iraq War...

Mr. Obama, that was not "the worst chemical attack of the 21st century"... The "worst chemical attack of the 21st century" was carried out in Iraq by your predecessor, the Bush administration, which used white phosphurus and nuclear depleted uranium, not only killing countless thousands of Iraqis, but with countless more Iraqis still suffering from the after-effects to this day... Why haven't Dick Cheney and the Bush administration been punished yet for their war crimes?

Jag85

[QUOTE="Person0"]Because there is precedent of not using them, or if you do something will happen to you.

Hell you can see it in Syria chemical weapons have slowly been used more and more leading to bigger death tolls.Jag85

Like I already said, it was the US that already set the precedent in the Iraq War...

Mr. Obama, that was not "the worst chemical attack of the 21st century"... The "worst chemical attack of the 21st century" was carried out in Iraq by your predecessor, the Bush administration, which used white phosphurus and nuclear depleted uranium, not only killing countless thousands of Iraqis, but with countless more Iraqis still suffering from the after-effects to this day... Why haven't Dick Cheney and the Bush administration been punished yet for their war crimes?

Jag85

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Like I already said, it was the US that already set the precedent in the Iraq War...

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Mr. Obama, that was not "the worst chemical attack of the 21st century"... The "worst chemical attack of the 21st century" was carried out in Iraq by your predecessor, the Bush administration, which used white phosphurus and nuclear depleted uranium, not only killing countless thousands of Iraqis, but with countless more Iraqis still suffering from the after-effects to this day... Why haven't Dick Cheney and the Bush administration been punished yet for their war crimes?

Person0

Iraqi cities like Fallujah and Basra have rates of cancer and genetic defects surpassing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after World War II... The US has really outdone itself this time.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

Jag85

Iraqi cities like Fallujah and Basra have rates of cancer and genetic defects surpassing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after World War II... The US has really outdone itself this time.

Syrian rebels are not our allies and they do not represent the people. They are just as bad, they just want the throne as much as the established government.

He's seeking approval from congress this time? Nice.

.

Depleted uranium is not radioactive, its a heavy metal like mercury so cancer doesn't make sense unless people are eating it. Anyways difference in intent

Person0

Remember the "response" back in 1988 when Hussein gassed the Kurds? What did the moral authority, aka the United States, do as a result? If you know what resulted, we didn't see the frequent use of chemicals weapons after that incident. Mr. Kerry seems to be a clairvoyant of sorts since he seems to think a non-response will result in chemical weapons being used at the drop of a hat if no response is enacted.

Rather sad that the rest of the world does nothing.....I guess it's good that WW2 was fought in Europe....or they'd have done nothing.LJS9502_basic

The voice of altruism :P

^^^^Really? what are you hearing? Because from what I can gather right now the House is leaning toward voting NO. Master_Live

[QUOTE="Master_Live"]^^^^Really? what are you hearing? Because from what I can gather right now the House is leaning toward voting NO. Serraph105

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Those aren't chemical weapons. (WP) is only if it is used as a weapon as smoke not. Once again intent matters.Person0

Iraqi cities like Fallujah and Basra have rates of cancer and genetic defects surpassing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after World War II... The US has really outdone itself this time.

Like solary said, it is radioactive. Nothing Saddam or Assad ever did comes close to what the Americans did in Iraq. And there you go, a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow...

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Depleted uranium is not radioactive, its a heavy metal like mercury so cancer doesn't make sense unless people are eating it. Anyways difference in intent

Solaryellow

Remember the "response" back in 1988 when Hussein gassed the Kurds? What did the moral authority, aka the United States, do as a result? If you know what resulted, we didn't see the frequent use of chemicals weapons after that incident. Mr. Kerry seems to be a clairvoyant of sorts since he seems to think a non-response will result in chemical weapons being used at the drop of a hat if no response is enacted.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Iraqi cities like Fallujah and Basra have rates of cancer and genetic defects surpassing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after World War II... The US has really outdone itself this time.

Jag85

Like solary said, it is radioactive. Nothing Saddam or Assad ever did comes close to what the Americans did in Iraq. And there you go, a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow...

and

Depleted Uranium effects on people are still not proven to be extremely harmful in the long term.

The majority of americans are opposed to any military action in Syria.  Hopefully, Obama will listen to the people of his own country and not strike Syria.  While I think the Syrian regimes actions against its own people are shameful, how would airstrikes help that situation?  Syria is an incredibly complex situation.  As we've seen in Iraq, removing one ruthless autocratic regime, doesnt make the country a better place if there is nothing better to take its place.

The only actions the US should take would be if there is an overwhelming world consensus to act.  There currently is not.  We are not the moral police of the world nor should we try to dictate our morals on others.

The majority of americans are opposed to any military action in Syria.  Hopefully, Obama will listen to the people of his own country and not strike Syria.  While I think the Syrian regimes actions against its own people are shameful, how would airstrikes help that situation?  Syria is an incredibly complex situation.  As we've seen in Iraq, removing one ruthless autocratic regime, doesnt make the country a better place if there is nothing better to take its place.

The only actions the US should take would be if there is an overwhelming world consensus to act.  There currently is not.  We are not the moral police of the world nor should we try to dictate our morals on others.

sonicare

Ideally, if we really needed a police in the world, it would have to be incorruptible and impartial, and I don't see the politicians of the US government having those qualities.

US Senate:

24 Yays
57 Undecided
19 Nays

US House:

23 Yays
20 Unknown
275 Undecided
115 Nays

Most Republicans oppose the invasion where as most Democrats support it and the majority oppose intervention. It looks like it's not going to happen.

It looks like it's not going to happen.

leviathan91

It WILL happen ... one way or another.

If Obama doesn't receive Congressional approval, he'll simply proceed without it.

Either that or a false flag attack on US or Israeli interests in the region will oblige Congress to give Obama even greater latitude for military aggression than he's seeking at the moment.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The majority of americans are opposed to any military action in Syria.  Hopefully, Obama will listen to the people of his own country and not strike Syria.  While I think the Syrian regimes actions against its own people are shameful, how would airstrikes help that situation?  Syria is an incredibly complex situation.  As we've seen in Iraq, removing one ruthless autocratic regime, doesnt make the country a better place if there is nothing better to take its place.

The only actions the US should take would be if there is an overwhelming world consensus to act.  There currently is not.  We are not the moral police of the world nor should we try to dictate our morals on others.

one_plum

Ideally, if we really needed a police in the world, it would have to be incorruptible and impartial, and I don't see the politicians of the US government having those qualities.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The majority of americans are opposed to any military action in Syria.  Hopefully, Obama will listen to the people of his own country and not strike Syria.  While I think the Syrian regimes actions against its own people are shameful, how would airstrikes help that situation?  Syria is an incredibly complex situation.  As we've seen in Iraq, removing one ruthless autocratic regime, doesnt make the country a better place if there is nothing better to take its place.

The only actions the US should take would be if there is an overwhelming world consensus to act.  There currently is not.  We are not the moral police of the world nor should we try to dictate our morals on others.

sonicare

Ideally, if we really needed a police in the world, it would have to be incorruptible and impartial, and I don't see the politicians of the US government having those qualities.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

Ideally, if we really needed a police in the world, it would have to be incorruptible and impartial, and I don't see the politicians of the US government having those qualities.

sonicare

With the (possible but probably not) exception of a few uninfluential European countries I agree. That's why (like you I suppose) I don't like the idea of having one country playing world police dictating what everyone can do and can't do.

The majority of americans are opposed to any military action in Syria.

sonicare

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

Ideally, if we really needed a police in the world, it would have to be incorruptible and impartial, and I don't see the politicians of the US government having those qualities.

one_plum

With the (possible but probably not) exception of a few uninfluential European countries I agree. That's why (like you I suppose) I don't like the idea of having one country playing world police dictating what everyone can do and can't do.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

With the (possible but probably not) exception of a few uninfluential European countries I agree. That's why (like you I suppose) I don't like the idea of having one country playing world police dictating what everyone can do and can't do.

comp_atkins

I realize I got off topic, but my comment was not simply about Syria and chemical weapons, but the concept of a country acting as a world police. The US doesn't always act in the interest of "the greater good" as that always get shoved down our throats...

To be fair, I believe the US does good for the most part (when it's convenient), but they don't exactly follow the rules when it doesn't suit them (destabilizing regimes they don't like, ignoring the UN, use of waterboarding...)

US Senate:

24 Yays
57 Undecided
19 Nays

US House:

23 Yays
20 Unknown
275 Undecided
115 Nays

Most Republicans oppose the invasion where as most Democrats support it and the majority oppose intervention. It looks like it's not going to happen.

 

leviathan91

if 95+% of countries signed a treaty on what nations can't do, how it is one country dictating? comp_atkins

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Depleted uranium is not radioactive, its a heavy metal like mercury so cancer doesn't make sense unless people are eating it. Anyways difference in intent

Person0

Like solary said, it is radioactive. Nothing Saddam or Assad ever did comes close to what the Americans did in Iraq. And there you go, a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow...

and

Depleted Uranium effects on people are still not proven to be extremely harmful in the long term.

According to your own sources:

Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities

"Uranium, Hg and Pb, (g/kg, mean ± SD) in the hair samples of parents from Italy, Iran, and Fallujah (Iraq), are shown in Fig. 4. Though statistically not significant, the hair of parents of children with birth defects had more uranium, Pb and Hg than the hair of parents of normal children."

Features: Depleted Uranium

"Like any radioactive material, there is a risk of developing cancer from exposure to radiation emitted by natural and depleted uranium. This risk is assumed to be proportional to the dose received. Limits for radiation exposure are recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and have been adopted in the IAEA's Basic Safety Standards."

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Like solary said, it is radioactive. Nothing Saddam or Assad ever did comes close to what the Americans did in Iraq. And there you go, a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow...

Jag85

and

Depleted Uranium effects on people are still not proven to be extremely harmful in the long term.

According to your own sources:

Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities

"Uranium, Hg and Pb, (g/kg, mean ± SD) in the hair samples of parents from Italy, Iran, and Fallujah (Iraq), are shown in Fig. 4. Though statistically not significant, the hair of parents of children with birth defects had more uranium, Pb and Hg than the hair of parents of normal children."

Features: Depleted Uranium

"Like any radioactive material, there is a risk of developing cancer from exposure to radiation emitted by natural and depleted uranium. This risk is assumed to be proportional to the dose received. Limits for radiation exposure are recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and have been adopted in the IAEA's Basic Safety Standards."