British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

Post by **JewelSong** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:01 am

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.

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:55 pm

River wrote: And thanks to Frelga I found this

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.

Wow. What a mess!

IAWJS!

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:17 pm

Just heard that the president is going to speak about Syria very soon. Stay tuned....

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:38 pm

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.

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:51 pm

That's what I'm seeing (and hearing), too, Prim.

Wait. Just started talking, I think!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:59 pm

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.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:02 pm

tl;dr - everything sucks.

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:10 pm

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!

Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:24 pm

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.

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:29 pm

Thanks, Voronwë. That gives more depth to it.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 pm

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.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:11 pm

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.

Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:22 pm

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.

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.

Post by **River** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:30 pm

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?

Post by **Jude** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:34 pm

From what I understand, he only committed himself to "action"; I hope that action is limited to sanctions and trade embargos.* He could still avoid military action and still save face.

____________________
*embargoes?

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:59 pm

I'd have to listen to the speech again (and I don't have time right now), but I was pretty sure he mentioned military action of some kind. ?? No "boots on the ground," but something (bombing?).

Post by **River** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:13 pm

Precision bombing is the buzz I've heard. I don't think he was ever advocating putting any boots on the ground.

Post by **yovargas** » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:35 am

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?

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:51 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
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.
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.

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.

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?

That’s the issue, isn’t it?

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.

Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:00 am

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.