British Parliament votes against military action in Syria
- JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
What a mess. What a toal, snarled, messy mess of a mess the mid-East is.
I don't think any military action will help. Ever. There are too many factions and too many issues and too many groups operating with a tribal mentality.
And there is too much money and power due to the sale of oil. The balance keeps shifting and tipping and changing and nobody really knows what the holy hell is going on.
In my very uneducated opinion, one thing that might force the countries in the mid-East to come to grips with some kind of solution would be to eliminate the oil factor. Having the mid-East become one of the biggest suppliers of oil for the world was the worst possible thing that could have happened. You've people with 11th century tribal mentalities dealing with 21st century issues and with boatloads of money and the power that comes with it.
I don't think any military action will help. Ever. There are too many factions and too many issues and too many groups operating with a tribal mentality.
And there is too much money and power due to the sale of oil. The balance keeps shifting and tipping and changing and nobody really knows what the holy hell is going on.
In my very uneducated opinion, one thing that might force the countries in the mid-East to come to grips with some kind of solution would be to eliminate the oil factor. Having the mid-East become one of the biggest suppliers of oil for the world was the worst possible thing that could have happened. You've people with 11th century tribal mentalities dealing with 21st century issues and with boatloads of money and the power that comes with it.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
That's what mine looks like with the same colors, even! (Minus the "no clue" lines.) I also added plus signs for the blue and x's for the red.River wrote: And thanks to Frelga I found this
Wow. What a mess! IAWJS!
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
The WH was quick to tweet that he wasn't going to announce imminent action and in fact had not yet made a decision; this was to be "an update."
ETA: Went to a live feed (TPM) and it shows an empty podium now, almost half an hour after the announced time. Obama is always late.
ETA: Went to a live feed (TPM) and it shows an empty podium now, almost half an hour after the announced time. Obama is always late.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Holy smoke. He's decided to take action—but he's going to seek Congressional authorization.
He means a Congressional debate and vote, not just an OK from leaders, and it will not happen until they come back into session—which will give time for the UN to report on its findings. Congress doesn't come back in session until September 9.
He means a Congressional debate and vote, not just an OK from leaders, and it will not happen until they come back into session—which will give time for the UN to report on its findings. Congress doesn't come back in session until September 9.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Yeah.
Well, I like that he's seeking Congressional approval. I'm generally not a fan of the POTUS acting on his own about these things. I wonder if this is a roundabout way to get out of actually taking action, though. He saves face by saying he wants to take action, but Congress will take the fall for delaying it or denying it.
Too cynical?
ETA: Forgot an important word!
Well, I like that he's seeking Congressional approval. I'm generally not a fan of the POTUS acting on his own about these things. I wonder if this is a roundabout way to get out of actually taking action, though. He saves face by saying he wants to take action, but Congress will take the fall for delaying it or denying it.
Too cynical?
ETA: Forgot an important word!
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47464
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Not too cynical. But only partly true, in my opinion. I think he genuinely feels that something should be done, but he knows that if he does it on his own with no congressional approval the backlash would be severe. The wildcard is certainly the UN inspectors. If they tell a significantly different story than the U.S. intelligence sources, I don't see how any action could be taken.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
At least we'll get that news now instead of ten years after the war starts.
And I do think going to Congress for approval might be a maneuver on his part. He committed himself too soon, and the country and the world are not with him. He can get out of it without backing down.
Of course, if the Republicans want to box him in, they'll vote yes. But I think there are a significant number of them who can't vote yes on any Obama proposal, either out of their own conviction that he's illegitimate or because too many voters back home feel that way.
And I do think going to Congress for approval might be a maneuver on his part. He committed himself too soon, and the country and the world are not with him. He can get out of it without backing down.
Of course, if the Republicans want to box him in, they'll vote yes. But I think there are a significant number of them who can't vote yes on any Obama proposal, either out of their own conviction that he's illegitimate or because too many voters back home feel that way.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
So now we are looking to Congress to save the day.
I feel it was a mistake for Obama to commit himself as he did. Now, though, going to Congress may be a maneuver on his part, but I do think it's the right thing to do.
I feel it was a mistake for Obama to commit himself as he did. Now, though, going to Congress may be a maneuver on his part, but I do think it's the right thing to do.
"What a place! What a situation! What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47464
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
It really sets up an interesting dynamic, because the natural inclination of most of the GOP would be to support military action. But that would be supporting Obama.Primula Baggins wrote:Of course, if the Republicans want to box him in, they'll vote yes. But I think there are a significant number of them who can't vote yes on any Obama proposal, either out of their own conviction that he's illegitimate or because too many voters back home feel that way.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
My husband and I had a very long discussion about this last night. He's so upset he can't even resort to black humor, but, then again, his city was on the receiving end of a NATO bombing and he was on a Search and Rescue/Recovery crew. We figured that the Obama Administration got itself into rhetorical corner with that talk about redlines last year and they're going to either have to go ahead and look awful or find an out that doesn't leaving them looking too dumb. My thinking last night was that, if Obama was really that bullish about going in not matter what anyone thought, the planes would have been in the air Thursday. So he's playing for time while the UN goes in and Congress comes back from their five-week vacation. Hopefully Congress will say "No!"
It does amuse/amaze me how quiet McCain and other hawkish types have been this week. Weren't they howling for a Syrian intervention last year?
It does amuse/amaze me how quiet McCain and other hawkish types have been this week. Weren't they howling for a Syrian intervention last year?
When you can do nothing what can you do?
So.......I have no real opinion on this one way or the other because the world's too *&#$%^ complicated for me to pretend I know anything about anything but.....it seems like there's consensus in this thread in hoping the US does not take military action? Is that correct? If so...does that mean people think he's wrong in saying that there must be a strong response against chemical attacks? My impression was that this "zero tolerance" attitude towards chemical warfare was an internationally agreed upon position, no?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
- Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
That is true, but the non-interventionist types in the GOP have grown more vocal since the end of the Bush Administration (eg. Rand Paul). And at the same time, there are plenty of Republicans who would like to bomb Assad but don’t want to provide any support to Islamist militants. Finally, it may be that the British Parliament’s decision against intervention (driven just as much by Conservative back-benchers as Labour and Lib Dem MPs) might sway those who are wavering. That is why I thought I’d start the thread with the news on that vote. At any rate the feeling on American conservative sites at the moment seems to be strongly anti-intervention.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:It really sets up an interesting dynamic, because the natural inclination of most of the GOP would be to support military action. But that would be supporting Obama.Primula Baggins wrote:Of course, if the Republicans want to box him in, they'll vote yes. But I think there are a significant number of them who can't vote yes on any Obama proposal, either out of their own conviction that he's illegitimate or because too many voters back home feel that way.
That’s the issue, isn’t it?yovargas wrote:So.......I have no real opinion on this one way or the other because the world's too *&#$%^ complicated for me to pretend I know anything about anything but.....it seems like there's consensus in this thread in hoping the US does not take military action? Is that correct? If so...does that mean people think he's wrong in saying that there must be a strong response against chemical attacks? My impression was that this "zero tolerance" attitude towards chemical warfare was an internationally agreed upon position, no?
Of course, there is a risk that Assad’s chemical attacks on civilians may turn out to be the same as Saddam’s WMDs. Personally, I don’t think it matters too much from a pragmatic perspective – there are either good grounds for us to aid in the overthrow of the regime or there are not. But even if he is using chemical weapons, there is no guarantee that we must then enter the war on the other side, regardless of who they are.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47464
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Some of the most hawkish of the GOP (e.g., McCain and Graham) have indicated that they might vote no because they don't think that Obama's planned limited strikes are enough, and they want all out military intervention to effect regime change.
I am impressed with Obama's ability to change course rather than insist on "staying the course" at all costs, which I think was a major problem with his immediate predecessor.
I am impressed with Obama's ability to change course rather than insist on "staying the course" at all costs, which I think was a major problem with his immediate predecessor.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."