US willing to go it alone against Syria if needed

[Little Star]

ABC
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
DEB RIECHMANN AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - August 28, 2013 (WPVI) -- The Obama administration said Wednesday it would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.


New requests for the United Nations to authorize military action in Syria may have complicated the Obama administration's plan to take retaliatory action on the purported poison gas attack east of Damascus that U.S. officials claim was carried out by President Bashar Assad's forces.

But a State Department spokeswoman said possible U.N. rejection of the U.S. plan - most likely led by Russia - won't slow the administration. "We cannot be held up in responding by Russia's intransigence - continued intransigence - at the United Nations," Marie Harf said. "The situation is so serious that it demands a response."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9220375

I don't like the sound of this.

[winter is coming]

1. If action were so blatantly necessary, you'd think other countries would be willing to do

something, even if not under the aegis of the U.N. This doesn't smell right.

[reformist2]

39. I guess Obama is the new Decider-in-Chief. :(

[MoonRiver]

2. What worries me is the possibility that Obama is doing this

simply because of his "red line" remark. Yes, I feel that such an outrage must be punished, but the U.S. shouldn't go it alone.

[Little Star]

4. I cringed when I originally heard him say that "red line" remark....

As a mother of 4, I knew better than to draw lines in the sand. One of my kids would certainly cross it. I kept my options open and left myself some wiggle room on any punishment I needed or didn't need to dole out.

[MoonRiver]

8. Absolutely. Never make a threat you can't back up.

That said, such a serious undertaking shouldn't hinge on Obama's gaff!

[Little Star]

11. That's where I'm at....

We need to wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job

[MoonRiver]

20. With you LS.

[winter is coming]

41. +1. You'd think he'd know better, as a parent himself. n/t

[Autumn]

3. Here's the link.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9220375

I find this very troubling. There should be no rush like this for war.

[Little Star]

6. Thanks! I just added the link to the OP, Duh on me.

[Savannahmann]

5. Seriously? We're going with Unilateral action?

I want a DNA test on President Obama. The Rethugs have kidnapped him and replaced him with some sort of Mission Impossible Mask wearing double.

[99Forever]

7. Why does this ...

... crap sound so VERY familiar? Where have I heard this sort of pounding of the war drums before?

I wish I could remember.....

[GeorgeGist]

9. I am the Decider

[ProSense]

10. Maybe it reminds you of this:

<...>

President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. involvement in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 without first getting approval from Congress. Clinton later requested, and received, special funding from Congress before the War Powers Resolution's 60-day deadline for Congressional approval ran out.

And in 2011, Obama ordered airstrikes against Libya during that country's civil war. The United States joined an international coalition, led by NATO and supported by a U.N. Security Council resolution, to enforce a no-fly zone and bombard Libyan military targets

- more -

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57600515/does-obama-need-permission-to-attack-syria/

[FarCenter]

14. What legal authority does the President have to unilaterally go to war?

He cannot use emergency war powers, since there is no threat to the US by Syria.

In the examples you cite, the US was acting as part of an international treaty organization, so treaty obligations could be used as a rationale.

[ProSense]

19. Would you be OK with it if Congress gives the go ahead?

War with Syria is a terrible idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023548839#post9

[FarCenter]

21. I wouldn't support it, but it would be legal

The constitution does not restrict Congress' power to declare war.

[newfie11]

12. This is horrible

What is wrong with our polititians?
If other countries don't agree then we will start a war all by ourselves!
This certainly not a country by the people and for the people!
It is a country governed by oligarchs and for whatever reason they are hellbent on attacking Syria. This of course will bring Iran into play( still think the CIA is not involved).
The Iranian oil has the same folks behind attacking Iraq licking their chops.
Betch attacking Syria is just to get Iran started and God help us.
This will not end well for America!!!

[HereSince1628]

13. An entire summer devoted to rhetoric about secrecy and I'm asked to think

that on the issue of a plan for use of military force, the government is going to be transparent?

Even if this is a limited hang-out, it's got to be pretty goldarned limited.

Accepting we would we really do this alone if certain other nations didn't acquiesce is quite a leap for me.

[bowens43]

15. talk about a dumb ass move...even saying it was a dumb ass thing to do

[Bonobo]

16. Is it so hard to see how condescending this is? To act as if punishment is the US' call?

Muslim countries must be so fucking sick and angered by this kind of obnoxious arrogance.

[Little Star]

17. +1

[LuvNewcastle]

27. We're the self-appointed wielders of punishment for

the sins of other countries. Who is going to punish us for ours? I think our day of reckoning is nigh.

[malaise]

18. Imperialism gone mad

The UN doesn't matter to the US, Britain or Israel.

Fuck Western Imperialism - they control most of the weapons of mass destruction on this planet.

[Little Star]

24. I agree. But Britain was told they had to wait for the UN this time, thank Dog!

[City Lights]

22. Swell.

[pampango]

23. I hate "cowboy diplomacy". The whole idea of having strong international organizations like the UN

is to diminish nations' "sovereign right" to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.

The only way these multilateral organizations can become accepted as legitimate arbiters of disputes between nations, in areas such as military conflicts, human rights, economics, criminal conduct, etc., is if we set a precedent of respecting their decisions even when we disagree with them. Every time a country goes "cowboy" like this it weakens the very international institutions that try to promote peaceful negotiations coupled with enforceable settlements as a way to resolve international disputes.

[Little Star]

25. Well, the USA has INTERESTS over there, dontchaknow....

[pampango]

28. I certainly hope that the US and every other country can be a force to protect civilians and promote

human rights, but do that in concert with other countries in global organizations, like the UN, that have adopted precisely those policies. In practice the UN has often not been successful in implementing those policies, but that is the fault of certain national governments rather than the UN as an institution.

[Little Star]

31. Bingo. Plus maybe if we just became energy independent...

we wouldn't have half as many INTERESTS over there. But no, because it's all about their oil and the 1% squeezing out every penny from it.

[LuvNewcastle]

29. That's why we have American Exceptionalism. The rules don't apply to us.

[pampango]

32. Exactly. We are not the only country that practices "exceptionalism" (Russia's intervention in

Georgia and France's in Mali spring to mind) but we are the ones who are by far the most guilty of using the concept to justify our actions.

Many of our "exceptionalism" proponents are conservatives who are focused on domestic issues. "Pay no attention to how Europe promotes strong unions, effective national health care and safety net, high/progressive taxes". Those things could not possibly work in the US because we are 'exceptional'".

[jsr]

26. Gotta outdo the previous rugged cowboy

[Little Star]

30. That picture just makes me sad now.....

Even though I was a Hillary girl in the 2008 primary season I was glad to see us have our first black president. I got in line with my support for him and had high hopes. I still like him very much as a person it's just that I disagree with "quite a few" of this admins policies. sigh.

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. same

[AtomicKitten]

43. Well, you're going to need to do some soul searching.

Because Hillary has been pushing for military action in Syria for quite some time.

Let’s give the White House and President Obama, personally, credit for blocking the hawks in his administration from going to war in Syria.

Last week, we learned that Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, now thankfully pursuing other opportunities and spending more time with their families, had cooked up a plan to arm and train the ragtag Syrian rebels, thus getting the United States directly involved in that horrible civil war.

Now we learn that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs—both of whom are about to join Clinton and Petraeus in the private sector—also backed the Clinton-Petraeus plan,

Who was against it? Obama.

more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/172774/obama-opposed-syria-war-plan-clinton-petraeus-panetta-gen-dempsey#

... and so has Bill Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/13/white-house-pushes-back-at-bill-clinton-over-syria/

[Little Star]

44. I have no problem with disagreeing with Hillary on this issue. Or Bill.

[AtomicKitten]

45. We can only hope mulling it over is as far as it gets. nt

[Autumn]

33. That's always been my favorite picture of Obama.

[Little Star]

40. I always thought it was a cool picture until the comparison to cowboy Bush.

[Initech]

34. Translation: the military industrial complex is going to profit big time.

We need to find out who stands to benefit financially from an attack on Syria and stop them. Is it the Kochs? Is it the oil and gas industry? Is it someone else?

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. It's shareholders of military suppliers and contractors.

And it's been that way forever.

So?

[avaistheone1]

36. All these other countries are smarter than us, they are keeping their noses out of Syria.

When will we every learn?

[Little Star]

37. Well, Britain's Cameron is trying like hell to join us, sad to say.

[avaistheone1]

47. Sounds like we have to follow the money.

There must be strong financial/power incentives for an ally to start their killing machines again.

[Little Star]

48. yep

[HereSince1628]

38. Yep, as soon as it gets reassurances from global partners

that no nation will much give a shit about killing Syrians.

[raccoon]

46. Sounds like deja vu all over again. nt