Will the War against Syria be voted on by Congress?

[WNYresident]

Find your Congress person and let them know how you feel.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/


So Mindcrime and HipKat

Are you in favor of killing people and destroying property in Syria ?

[HipKat]

I answered that in this thread already

http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...=1#post1180463

[Mindcrime]

...So Mindcrime and HipKat

Are you in favor of killing people and destroying property in Syria ?

I'm never in favor of killing people. I'm OK with killing people out of absolute necessity, but this situation does not fit that description.

[WNYresident]

So Mindcrime did you email your congress person and let them know you don't approve of President Obama bombimg Syria?

[FMD]

Res, do you sincerely believe that contacting your respective congress critter makes a difference?

[Mindcrime]

So Mindcrime did you email your congress person and let them know you don't approve of President Obama bombimg Syria?

Rep and Senators. Several times over the past 2 months.

[4248]

As Nogods insinuated earlier - President Obama has placed this on the Political shoulders of Congress.

After sending millions in aid to the "Rebels/terrorists" to fan the fire - after beating the public media drum - he now throws the football at Congress.

Pure Politics that will be used in the next Presidential Election. Now the media will turn this whole thing on Congress!

[WNYresident]

You need to break the political parties that support this nonsense right down to the local levels. Money flows up from the local support groups besides lobbyist.

The http://www.ecgop.com/ supported Mitt Romney while the http://ecdems.com/ supported President Obama.

You can see the guy behind the The Erie County Republican website has a sense of humor

Welcome back Carter

[HipKat]

Top Republicans warn Syria no vote would be 'catastrophic

Two top Republicans warned Monday of catastrophic consequences if Congress votes against striking Syria and suggested the White House may be mulling a more robust military intervention.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Republican hawks who have long advocated deeper US involvement in Syria's civil war, met President Barack Obama as part of his efforts to sell US lawmakers on military action.

McCain emerged from the meeting with a stern warning for fellow Republicans who may be considering voting against military action purely to damage the Democratic president.

"A vote against that resolution by Congress I think would be catastrophic," said McCain.

"It would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States. None of us want that."

Full Story

[4248]

I guess its more about "Salesman ship" than gas attacks - now they bring in the neucular rumors.

Quote from same article: "Graham, who is facing a tough primary fight from his right for the Republican Senate nomination in South Carolina, warned of the wider consequences of a failure to back military action.

"I can't sell another Iraq or Afghanistan, because I don't want to," Graham said.

"(What) I can sell to the people of South Carolina (is) that if we don't get Syria right, Iran is surely going to take the signals that we don't care about the nuclear program.

"It weighs on the president's mind strongly about the signals we send," Graham said.

The two senators also offered what appeared to be indications of evolving administration thinking about its Syria policy.

Obama has stressed that any US action, expected to include cruise missiles, would be "limited" and "narrow."

But McCain suggested that more US muscle than expected might be deployed.

"We have been given some reason to believe that very serious strikes may take place as opposed to cosmetic," McCain said.

"We now need to see a lot of the details."

The plan could be intended to degrade President Bashar al-Assad's capabilities and upgrade those of vetted opposition groups, McCain suggested.

Graham indicated that the administration, which resisted arming Syrian rebels for months, may be prepared to build on a nascent plan to provide military support to some rebels announced after a previous, small scale chemical weapons attack.

"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Graham said, saying regional players like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan should play a key role.

[300miles]

To everyone here: What is it exactly that you want Obama to do?

First he's criticized for suggesting a military response without congressional approval... then he's criticized for postponing that in order to let Congress approve it or block it. You really can't criticize both paths without sounding like a hypocrite.

Dealing with the civil war in Syria isn't a simple, straight-forward thing. Any kind of response has its drawbacks, and even no response has serious drawbacks too. There is no real Right or Wrong here. Every option he has is basically "wrong" in some way.

[granpabob]

since the Russian are helping the Syrians with their defense system and have people working on them. will we cause a war with Russia if we kill their citizens. is that why a Russian air craft carrier is sitting of the coast of Syria now?

[NY The Vampire State]

This will be a real test of our "representation". It seems like the vast majority disapprove any action to be taken. If strikes are either approved by congress or Obama does it anyway, I hope it will awaken the vast majority of idiots out there that don't realize this is not a government by the people anymore.

[steven]

To everyone here: What is it exactly that you want Obama to do? .

Nothing.

It isn't our countries place to get involved in another nations civil wars.

[Save Us]

To everyone here: What is it exactly that you want Obama to do?

First he's criticized for suggesting a military response without congressional approval... then he's criticized for postponing that in order to let Congress approve it or block it. You really can't criticize both paths without sounding like a hypocrite.

Dealing with the civil war in Syria isn't a simple, straight-forward thing. Any kind of response has its drawbacks, and even no response has serious drawbacks too. There is no real Right or Wrong here. Every option he has is basically "wrong" in some way.

He needs to steer us away from these types of conflicts

There are some sources that cite we are achieving oil independence thanks to the Dakota's.
The chaos that results from removing a dictator is worse then having them in power.
We run the risk of hitting chemical weapon sites
We run the risk of broadening the war to include other countries, not to mention their retaliation through terrorism
We once again appear ignorant bypassing the UN security council
Nato will not participate
We will create more refugees
Al Quada is one of the groups that are supporting the rebels and will surely fill a power vacuum.
Iraq and Afghanistan stand as abject failures, Iraq is appears to be heading for another civil war.
Syria is not a strategic Keystone
The majority of the public in the US and other countries do not wish this.
Chemical weapons are no more barbaric than a bullet (not all bullets kill instantly), High explosives, phosphor, napalm, starvation etc.
We have little credibility anyway this will do absolutely nothing but worsen it.

We are broke, we have 59 million people are on food stamps. We cannot send in missles, materiel, troops to every single hot spot in the world.

You cannot find Leadership currently in the US that could be any further out of touch.