Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: 79% want congressional approval before bombing Syria (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Congress, as a majority... (4+ / 0-)

    never met a bomb they didn't want to drop.

    •  Ah, but congress CAN be brow-beaten... (8+ / 0-)

      Look at what happened before the first bank bailout vote...and we weren't talking the bombing of innocents back then.

      The best-case scenario would be bringing the matter before congress...having debates for all the public to witness...then a swell of protests (from the left AND right...wait and see) AGAINST this action just before congress votes it down.

      Remember, Iraq basically doomed Republicans in 2006. 2014 is just around the corner...and regardless of bloodthirstyness, none of these slugs wants to lose his or her job just so Obama can drop bombs on Syria.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I commented yesterday that an (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leonard145b, Love Me Slender

        up or down vote in congress was a possibility. I think that the American people deserve a fair and extensive debate before the dogs of war are launched.

        According to the poll numbers used in this diary, the wording of this poll was pro-war. The answers war based on the government of Syria having used chemical weapons. The UN inspection team has to this point not made that assertion. A less biased question would have had a much higher anti-war response.

        War is costly. Peace is priceless!

        by frostbite on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:36:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  yeah but (4+ / 0-)

      I'd like to see the do-nothing Congress kill this idiocy in its crib.

      •  Putin is cheering. Assad and Iran are cheering!! (0+ / 0-)

        They want your country to vote!
        In the meantime, I watch TV with a glass of wine and Syrians are gassed. Who cares? I don't know them.

        Putin (KGB/USSR) told us that Assad did not do it. He is smarter than Obama. Remember, he helped our beloved Snowden. Btw, Iran confirmed that Assad did not do it.

        I SUPPORT OBAMA ON THIS. Not Putin.

        If we let Assad use chemical weapons with impunity, many (many) nations will do the same thing in the future. This is "real world" my friends, and a dangerous slippery slope. Who would need fancy international treaties to "ban" the use of these weapons? Why not just get rid of the UN? Does this sound like Rand Paul?

        •  Excuse me but lets start with the US of A (8+ / 0-)

          If we are really against chemical weapons then:

          1) Why did George Bush get away with using white phosphorous in Iraq?

          2) Why do have depleted uranium coating our bombs?

          3) Why did we stand by while Iraq used CW against Iran?

          Too many inconsistencies for us to claim the moral high ground.

          "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

          by noofsh on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:11:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  didn't know Obama was prez then (0+ / 0-)

            You probably blame him for Katrina too.  

            Do the mistakes of previous administrations prevent all future administrations from taking certain actions in response to chemical weapons attacks?  

            •  So wait... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Teiresias70, James Kresnik, copymark

              because Obama didn't authorize the colossal mistake that was invading Iraq, he gets a pass on authorizing the colossal mistake that will be invading Syria? Why, because he's a Democrat?  Aren't we supposed to learn something from our past mistakes?

              Assad has been killing his own people for years, but because his troops used gas instead of bullets, we've decided that we really have to show him what we think about it by attacking and killing more innocent Syrians with bombs and missiles. Yeah, that makes sense.

              What is the military objective here? According to the White House, this would be a "limited engagement" and regime change isn't the goal. Well, what is the goal? What will launching cruise missiles accomplish, exactly? How will this advance America's interests? What threat to our existence does Syria pose that requires us to unilaterally attack them?

              We aren't responsible for making sure every one else in the world behaves according to our moral code, which itself is a sick joke with when you consider how we've behaved pretty much since the birth of our nation.

              And how are we going to pay for yet another military boondoggle? It blows my mind that we don't have money to do what we need to be doing for the good of the citizens of our own country (heath care, education, jobs and wages, environmental management, infrastructure management, etc.), but we always manage to find whole boatloads of money when we decide we have to punish some bad guy in another part of the world by blowing shit up.

        •  No, my friend, that is warmongering fantasy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          copymark, phrogge prince

          Iraq used gas with impunity in 1980 and somehow "many (many)" nations did not do the same thing in the future.  

          These calls for how the use of gas is so beyond the pale that it justifies a nuclear strike against Syria would have a bit more resonance if they were accompanied by calls for the United States to eliminate its stockpiles of gas -- or at least force its allies to stop selling it to other countries...

        •  Powell made 254 flase claims in the runup to the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lepanto, phrogge prince

          Iraq war...........

        •  I certainly don't care. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik, minox, phrogge prince

          Let em cheer.

          If Syrians want to gas each other, knock yourself out.

          Maybe if they all killed each other in sufficient numbers we could finally get some peace in that part of the world.

    •  They also never met an Obama policy (6+ / 0-)

      They didn't want to screw with.  What a conundrum for them!

    •  But it's OBAMA wanting to bomb (5+ / 0-)

      the baggers will line up against it and enough Dems will be against it for it to go down in the House.

      And the best news is the baggers will primary all the GOP hawks that voted for it.


      Because OBAMA!

      and FREEDOM, or something.

      Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

      by Walt starr on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:42:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans probably remember 2006... (0+ / 0-)

        Not wanting a repeat performance in 2014, I suspect they will not stamp their approval on this action...especially with public support so low.

        But it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong on something :)

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:47:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site