Syria?

[larryJ]

While I tend to stay away from the Politics thread, I agree with Wilma.  Let those idiots kill each other off however which way they want to do it.  I see no reason to get involved with this unless there is an attack on Israel with which we have signed an obligation to help.  Yes, I mourn for the innocents who are killed or suffering from these uprisings, but it is not our job to get involved.  I believe that with our current military operations winding down, the defense contractors in this country are looking for a new place to drop their bombs and fire off their missiles.  My questions are:

Why?
Are we being threatened?
Do we need another war or maybe start a major global conflict?
What's in it for the well-being of the American people?
How can a religion that supposedly practices peace in all things keep beating up on each other?
What can we do with the millions of dollars spent on this action to help ourselves?

In my letter to my congressman, I will emphatically state that I believe we should stay out of it and would ask that he/she vote that way.   

I say, stay out of it and let them sort it out by themselves. 

Larry (what am I doing in politics)j

[frawin]

Well said Larry, my sentiments exactly.  Both my US Senator and my Congressman are against it, and have lots of questions. The countries in the Middle East will never stop fighting, there have been Religious wars since the beginning of time and there will be religious wars until the end of time.

[Jane]

I will tell you the real reason we are in Syria. If Obama get his way the American people will forget about. Fast and Furious, IRS, NCS
and the 4 dead American's in Benghazi. The Syria problem will sweep all the other ones under the rug and we will forget about them.

[frawin]

Jane, I won't forget about them or any of his other blunders and liberal idiot actions. If we bomb, attack, take action against Syria, I think the Middle East American haters will attack Israel big time. The only reason Obuma sought  Congressional approval was to cover his rear when it goes bad. The only think good that would come out of it for me personally would be $150.00 crude oil.

[Jane]

Well that $150.00 a barrel would not hurt us either. The public does not want us to bomb and do not know why those idiots in congress do not listen.

[larryJ]

I got a glimpse of an interview with Sen. Blunderstein, one of our California senators.  She said that the majority of her constituents are against any action in Syria.  However, "those people don't know what I know and what I have heard."  unquote.  She is support of Obama's plan to bomb Syria.  I couldn't believe she said that.  What an idiot!  This is a country that is "of the people," etc.  If she has some information, as well as any other politicians, please share so we the people can make a decision on what we should do, if anything.  Have the politicians in this country gotten so cynical that they actually believe Americans are too dumb to understand what is going on or too low brained to know what to do about it?  

Yesterday, in a rare mood, I did send a letter to my Congressional Representative stating that I feel getting involved in Syria is wrong.
Then today, after seeing what good ol' Dianne had to say, I fired off a letter to her also.  I informed  her that I was one of those "dummies" who doesn't know what she knows.  I also told her I was one of those veterans that she declared was mentally ill.  That is another one of her statements back when she was talking about gun control.  Veterans shouldn't be allowed guns because "they are all mentally ill."

She is a Democrat so I have never voted for her.  

Larryj

[redcliffsw]

Lobbyists count for more clout than citizens or the Constitution.

Try this:
http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php/topic,15589.0.html

And this:
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/04/exclusive-house-staffer-tells-me-what-aipac-is-doing/

[Warph]

 

Lobbyists count for more clout than citizens or the Constitution.

Try this:
http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php/topic,15589.0.html

And this:
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/09/04/exclusive-house-staffer-tells-me-what-aipac-is-doing/

Red... Lobbyists have been at work from the earliest days of the Congress.  Going back to 1792, William Hull was hired by the Virginia veterans of the Continental army to lobby for additional compensation for their war services.  Hull wrote to other veterans' groups, recommending that they have their "agent or agents" cooperate with him during the next session to pass a compensation bill. In 1795, a Philadelphia newspaper described the way lobbyists waited outside Congress Hall to give a hint or advise said Congress member.  As early as the closing years of the eighteenth century, there were widespread suspicions that large, well-financed interests were receiving special attention from the government.  Today, there are over 34,000 lobbyist in DC. and parts unknown and at least 30% are corrupt.  Hell, probably over half of Congress lobbyed before election and after retirement.  The last thing the Gov. wants is to get rid of these special interest groups.  Money talks, Red... big time!

[Warph]

House Whip Count Shows Opposition To Syria Attack Growing: 42 Yes/Lean Yes Vs. 238 No/Lean No – Update: White House Claims Obama Will Get Enough Votes In House To Authorize Military Action

(In other words, this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House)

Via ThinkProgress:

As members of Congress consider President Obama's request to authorize military force in Syria, following evidence that President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons killed over 1,400 people, a ThinkProgress analysis of the public statements of 416 Representatives found that 238 lawmakers have either decisively ruled out supporting the measure or say they are unlikely to back it. Just 42 of the 416 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution.

A vote in the House is not expected until next week at the earliest. 136 members have publicly said they are undecided and the positions of 17 members are unknown. All told, 317 members either have not decided, or indicated they are willing to consider changing their position.

Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it. The numbers are a contrast to 2002, when Democrats in the House provided "the bulk of the opposition" to President George W. Bush's Iraq war resolution — though a majority of Democrats (61 percent) still backed war. Only six House Republicans voted against the Iraq war in 2002.



Update:

(Just a tad delusional)

Via Washington Examiner:
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes on Monday predicted that the White House would win enough congressional votes to strike Syria.

In an interview on CNN, Rhodes downplayed polls showing a majority of Americans oppose a military attack and weak support in Congress.

"We think at the end of the day the votes will be there in the Senate and the House," said Rhodes told "New Day" host Chris Cuomo.

Rhodes conceded that it would be a difficult vote for many members of Congress.

"We understand it's a tough vote for members of Congress but we frankly think it's important for everybody to come forward and to be counted through that vote because these are tough decisions that we have to make as a country," he said. "We're not going to win every vote but we believe that at the end of the day we have the strongest case to make that frankly inaction sends a message."