On military action in Syria

[Seeking Serenity]

IF, and it's a big IF, the United States decides to engage in military action in Syria, whether it be a bombing campaign to actual boots on the ground, must the President (should the President) get congressional authorization to do so?

I say, yes, he should. Congress should always have to authorize any use of military force.

[Isoldeblue]

1. You're right of course

But I don't have faith is this particular congress for what will motivate them to go there. I think Obama will only go to help for humanitarian sake only. I hope.

[snappyturtle]

2. It will be a cya rubberstamp event....imho. I am not happy at this

prospect of war.

[Isoldeblue]

5. I agree.

It makes me sick at the possibility of another war. Especially with wacko Putin behind much of this.

[snappyturtle]

7. Yep, I hear you. If Assad would be dumb enough, like Saddam in

the first Gulf War, to fire on Israel & Israel fires back...Katie bar the
door...we've got a bite bigger than we can chew. With Russia backing
Assad we might see what the Russian weapons can do.

[Isoldeblue]

8. I wish we could say

it's not our problem. But then that would be thinking like a rethug.....

PS. My name's Kitty...

[Seeking Serenity]

10. Hello, um..., Kitty

[Isoldeblue]

11. I thought you called me, Katie :)

[leveymg]

3. Legally, he has 60 days under the War Powers Act to notify and seek an authorization for use of

military force or, failing that, would have to withdraw US forces from the area of conflict.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. You are correct

I can't stand Leonard Lance - but even though it's obvious he is agreement on getting us into a war before the UN inspectors are through (they are touring more tomorrow correct?) - he is asking the President to come to Congress for approval.

Unless I missed something - are we 100% certain it was Assad? Was it the rebels? Was it Assad making it look like the rebels?

People are suffering needlessly - but we need clarity as to why. Throwing random bombs at another country is not going to resolve this in a few hours.

And someone at the UN (Power) needs to say the word Genocide. Then it becomes a global issue which requires all members who have signed the Genocide Conventions to work together to find a solution.

[leveymg]

6. Genocide opens up a can of worms that can implicate the Saudis and Qataris. Powers is unlikely to

use the term, much less seriously attempt to invoke the CAT.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. You are right

But last month she said we "missed the mark in Rwanda". It also makes her book obsolete. I was excited to have her in that position because to me - she picked up where Lemkin and Galbraith left off. Having heard her speak in regards to Sudan gave those of us who watched those human beings get ignored hope that we could stop their suffering - I personally expect better from her.

That's the only way I can support any military action - a global unified effort where for once - for once in the age of genocide the world does the right thing. 6 million, 5 million, 700,000 to a million . . .

Okay so if we cannot stop a man made human disaster - lets just do away with the UN. No country really respects it anyway.