Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on Will There Be Another Government Sponsored Commo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on Will There Be Another Government Sponsored Commons Vote On Military Intervention In Syria By Year End?
David Cameron said today ‘Parliament spoke very clearly and it’s important to respect the view of parliament so I’m not planning to return to parliament to ask again about British military action.’
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think it highly unlikely. Something very significant would have to change on the ground. Plus, it could be lose-lose for the Government. If the vote is No, then that's double defeat with a side order of not accepting the will of Parliament the first time. If the vote is Yes, that's a vote for an unpopular war and means repeatedly asking the same question until the 'right' answer is given. As Clegg has said, that's clearly unreasonable and unfair (although he might pause to consider that it's also exactly how his beloved EU behaves all the time).
F1: Horner insists that Ricciardo will not be a number 2 driver, and that Ben Affleck is a universally popular choice to play Batman:
http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/123057.html
It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians. There are just a handful of exceptions (mainly Saddam Hussein), but broadly speaking this is one compartment of Pandora's box which virtually every country in the world has agreed to keep firmly shut.
That's good, right? Just because we haven't been successful in agreeing to rule out all sorts of other nasty things, is hardly an argument to throw away one of the few really nasty things we have managed to rule out. And chemical weapons are particularly well worth keeping completely banned because they are very dangerous, extremely cheap, and above all are particularly well suited to the mass murder of men, women and children in wars of ethnic cleansing by mad dictators.
The fact that we've almost entirely succeeded in averting at least this evil is something worth preserving, is it not? The alternative - the use of chemical weapons to kill thousands of children first by Assad, then by other Middle East tyrants, and other tyrants around the world - is surely not something we can contemplate with equanimity.
There won't be a second vote on Britain taking part in action, but there could be a vote supporting US action.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html
Perhaps we could do with some of that Texan justice here - our police would have most likely freed the rapist under some human rights pretext.
cough
Also the bet references "govt sponsored" - unlikely that it wouldnt be a joint sponsored bill to ensure the pusillanimous Miliband didn't get a call from UNITE on the way to the lobby.
@Richard_Tyndall
I know you work in the oil industry, and I am a mere finance person (albeit one who has spoken at the AECO conference in Texas a couple of times), but the US will not be an oil exporter in 2016.
Current US oil consumption is around 18.5 million barrels per day. Current US oil production (2012) is around 6.5 million barrels. On my forecasts, the US gets to 10 million barrels a day by the end of the decade (and maybe a little more), with the big increases coming from the Bakken (which is not a shale, but is being opened up thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing), the Permian and the Eagle Ford.
It's worth remembering that these wells have *huge* decline rates, so that increasing production means big increases in overall drilling intensity. (To put in context, because of the rise of shale gas, natural gas has a blended average decline rate across the US of 23-24%. If the US didn't drill another well, production would fall by almost a quarter in the first year. Tight oil - which is a better moniker than shale oil - has much higher decline rates than conventionals.)
While the US will become a natural gas exporter in the next few years, as Lake Charles and Sabine Pass and Cove Point and various other LNG terminals are built, it is highly unlikely to become an oil exporter. (Unless, of course, we start to see GTL plants like Pearl being built in the US. Which, for environmental reasons I suspect we won't.)
What puzzles me a bit is why Assad did not factor this into his decision to use chemical weapons.
He must have known gas would have been a no-no with the west. Why not take the Russian and Iranian backing and grind the rebels down conventionally? Why add to your list of active enemies hugely for very little gain?
Something still doesn't add up.
Like you, my first reaction was that it seemed odd. But the evidence is absolutely overwhelming - unlike in the case of Iraq, every Western country seems to agree on the facts.
You can include other liquid by-products (NGLs, Butane, etc.) in the US oil production numbers if you wish to flatter the figures, but as your car won't run on ethane, this is slightly misleading.
By the way US oil production has increased by around a million barrels a day in 6 months and stood at 7 1/2 million barrels a day in July.
Maybe Assad also noticed that countries like Britain were paring defence spending to the bone. In fact beyond the bone.
The very politicians who defanged the wolf are now asking it to bite - and people like Lord Ashdown should be asked why, if they are so keen to intervene around the world, they have rendered our armed forces to spectacularly unfit to carry out their bidding.
That's an insane amount - you'd want to be seriously long Halliburton (pressure pumping), sand quarries, railroads, and the drillers (Nabors, etc.)
I remind you again how we have been mislead by this same combination of intelligence operatives and politicians in the recent past.
Anyway the main players here - Cameron, Hague, Obama, Kerry and Biden - are hardly Blair, Straw, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.
In the dying days of the Third Reich, when everything was crumbling, Hitler did not order the use of his advanced chemical weapons stocks against Allied troops. He used every other weapon in his armoury, but the chemical weapons were left in their tanks.
Why would such an evil man not use every weapon at his disposal? Perhaps because he had been the victim of mustard gas in WWI, and knew its horrors.
1939 Diary (continued)
September 3rd 1939.
I was aloud outside as usual on my tricycle this morning and saw the barrage ballon go up from the common. Dad and Uncle Harry finally finished taping the windows.
The air raid siren sounded and I was rushed into the house.................
I'm in a train with my hurriedly packed family travelling to Durham of all places to stay with my Uncle Lou. ( i was told later that that train journy took 10 hours!)
AFP: French President Francois Hollande calls on Europe to unite on #Syria crisis
Ed's best mate no more.
Read what I said.
By the way, your comments about red lines and not accepting the use of chemical weapons are about 30 years out of date. I am not talking about Halabja but about the widespread use of chemical weapons by Iraq in battlefield situations against the Iranians. Something that raised hardly a murmur of disapproval in the West. But of course the victims were those nasty Iranians and the Iraqis were being armed and supplied by the West. The CIA were actually providing Iraq with intelligence and reconnaissance to better help them target their chemical weapons.
In 1986 the UNSC issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and guess what... the US voted against it. So much for Pelosi and her red lines.
Dan Hodges whining that being the offspring of a Labour Mp is now a hindrance
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100234094/being-john-prescotts-son-doesnt-make-you-popular-in-the-labour-party-these-days/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"Can you imagine what it’s like being Tony Blair’s son in Ed Miliband’s Labour party? Labour’s process of political definition is wholly predicated on consigning his father, and his legacy, to the dustbin of history. Everywhere he goes, every meeting he attends, Euan Blair is treated to the spectacle of Lefty rent-a-gobs mouthing off about how his father is at best a traitor and at worst a war criminal."
"But Labour has new masters now. People like Len McCluskey dispense the real patronage. Ed Miliband’s inner circle is the one into which those with parliamentary aspirations must ingratiate themselves. Having once had the ear of Peter Mandelson no longer cuts any ice.
Not so long ago the offspring of Blairism would have secured their passage with the flash of a surname. Now they have to prove they spent their gap year down a pit, their twenties on a sink estate, and their thirties teaching in a Rwandan leper colony. Or, alternatively, that they once went raving with Chuka Umunna."
Secondly, if he was bothered about such things, why had he built up such a large stockpile of chemical weapons over the years? (Allegedly hundreds of tonnes of agents.) (1) And why did he have a secret alleged nuclear program? (a reactor site was bombed by the Israelis in 2007)
Thirdly, you assume that he is winning. He is in a crisis that threatens his regime and his life - he will have seen what happened to Gadaffi, Saddam and others. He might judge that the threats from the west - so far toothless - are of less immediate concern to him than the conflict in the Damascus suburbs. Deal with the immediate threat from the rebels, and then deal with the international community later.
The important thing is to ensure that the effects of the international response (whether diplomatic or military) to the use of WMD are greater than the tactical advantages gained from their use.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Why did you list Rumsfeld and not Powell? Is Rumsfeld more 'evil' in your eyes and so more useful to your point?
If Assad stops using chemical weapons we're apparently prepared to let him - as we have been for the last 2 years - kill his own people in equally horrible ways. Knives and guns and bombs are just as dangerous, cheap and well suited to the mass murder of civilians as chemical weapons.
Will lobbing a few bombs at Assad stop his use of chemical weapons if he still has access to them? Unlikely. If we really wanted to stop this appalling civil war we'd have to do a lot more than anyone is seriously contemplating. You cannot win any war - let alone a civil war - let alone a civil war in the Middle East by dropping some bombs from the air. If Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon and Iran and drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia have taught us anything, they should have taught us that.
If Assad falls from power, what next? That's the question we should be asking ourselves - and answering before embarking on military action.
If the answer is something worse than we have now, then we have to ask why it is worth doing? We have a choice here between the awful and the likely more awful.
I wish - I really wish - it were otherwise.
Out of touch FOP maybe but not war criminal.
Should be grateful really
Surely you can understand that those guys, unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld, are not exactly chafing at the bit to find an excuse for military action.
As for the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, of course I know about that (you can see my name, for heaven's sake!). But that was a rare exception to the general success since 1925. Indeed, in retrospect the world would have been a much better place if the West had reacted more firmly to it, and especially to Halabja. It didn't, but that's not an argument for repeating the mistake.
Then why aren't we equipping our forces to uphold the treaties??
People talk about war weariness, but I don't think its really that. It's war unpreparedness weariness.
People are completely fed up of our superb armed forces personnel being sent in in numbers which are too small and completely under-powered. And when you come back its p45 time for you sunshine. And your family lives in a sh8t hole while you serve. And you earn absolute peanuts.
We've got champagne intervention tastes on a beer budget. And it just won;t do.
The warmongers have to earn the right to send our boys in - and they haven't. And therefore the voters have quite rightly taken away with train set. And more power to them.
You want to intervene buddy? double our defence budget.
I agree entirely that does not mean we cannot put it right this time (if we are willing to commit to actually putting troops on the ground in a religious civil war as that is the only way you will get any reasonable result here) but the idea that the US can now claim to be drawing red lines on moral grounds to uphold decades old inviolable treaties when they helped to break those treaties on a massive scale 30 years ago is just garbage. It is no wonder the rest of the world don't take them seriously.
If one person escapes a murder charge through police corruption, does that mean the law of murder is invalid for a crime committed thirty years later?
Of course not.
So let me ask you a question: do you want the chemical warfare treaties to remain in place and part of international law?
This is hardly a controversial observation, is it?
The argument here is not about ends - we'd all like chemical weapons not to be used and for Assad to stop killing, by whatever means, fellow Syrians. The real questions are whether we can achieve that by the means proposed or whether we risk making an appalling situation even worse.
If you are serious about wanting to deal with the whole situation and negating the dangerous elements in both sides of this particular war the only way would be full scale invasion similar to Iraq or Afghanistan. And even there - as we have seen - that is no guarantee of success.
Once we have agreement on that we can then start discussing how we will persuade the public that it is in our best interests to commit underfunded and overstretched troops to yet another Middle Eastern War.
I'm assuming he felt the victims in the camps were a lesser class, and could not fight back with such weapons. That's a fairly blind guess, and probably as far as I'd want to go investigating Hitler's mindset.
But the fact remains, whilst he used virtually every other weapon available to him against enemy troops, he did not use chemical weapons.
I'm also very concerned about what we can achieve, and the effects of any action. But inaction also has terrible risks in both the short and long terms.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/libya-oil-supplies-tripoli
"Libya: Violent Response to Tripoli Prison Mutiny"
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/03/libya-violent-response-tripoli-prison-mutiny
"Daughter of Libya’s former spy chief abducted after released from prison"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/daughter-of-libyas-former-spy-chief-abducted-after-released-from-prison/2013/09/02/e122a554-140e-11e3-b220-2c950c7f3263_story.html
But I will repeat it again: we need to make the consequences of using chemical weapons greater than the tactical advantages gained from using them. That could be done by means other than invasion, which you seem rather fixated on.
What about you?
But you are still talking in platitudes.
Stop making vague statements and start explaining clearly what we should and could do to:
1: actually punish Assad (if that is your desire)
2:send a message to the rest of the world (which they will ignore since the rule seems to be you mustn't use chemical weapons unless you are our ally in which case we will help you target them)
and most importantly
3: do this without making the civil war on the ground far worse and incidentally killing lots more civilians with western bombs rather than Arabic chemical weapons.
Oh and if you could also try and make sure that when you punish Assad you don't do it so much that he actually loses and we end up with a virulently anti-western regime in Damascus that would be great.
"I'm also very concerned about what we can achieve, and the effects of any action. But inaction also has terrible risks in both the short and long terms."
Agreed: there are very heavy risks of both action and inaction. I share your and Richard N's concerns about the important principle to be upheld; I disagree with you about the means and, indeed, about whether Britain can do anything effective at all, given the state of its military and the fact that it hardly covered itself with glory in Iraq in any case.
I think that the burden is on those politicians wanting to intervene militarily to make the case for intervention - and rather better than they have done so far (which has tended to be of the "oh how horrible, we must do something and BTW this is not like Iraq 2003" variety).
(As for Hitler, I specifically referred to civilians because Assad is targeting civilians - though presumably his justification is that they are all terrorists or harbouring them - and that seemed a better comparison.)
History makes for strange bedfellows...
So for example if a country is seen as the softest touch as far as illegal immigration is concerned - ease of entry, minimal deportation, eventually getting a passport as a reward - then that country will get a disproportionate amount of the the pool of illegal immigration.
If cheap labour made countries rich then all the poorest countries in the world would be the richest. Cheap labour has a negative effect on innovation and productivity and is a drag on the economy long-term
'Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production."'
If it's so compelling show us the documents.
1) Is it just to destroy Syria's CW capability? Then what next?
2) Is it aimed at bringing Assad to the negotiating table (what other parties will be at the table? Al Qaeda?)
3) Is it aimed at bringing Assad down? Full on regime change? Again, then what next?
I'm not convinced that air strikes alone would be enough to bring about 1and 2, and what will be targeted? Assad's palace? Are his Mrs and kids fair game?
Bringing about 3 definitely need boots on the ground, and who is going to fill those boots?
Is it the Chemical attacks that have bought about the seemingly urgent need for action, or is it that the civil war has dragged on, and there looks no end in sight?
Do we really want to dive straight into Syria, after failing so miserably in Iraq, and ceding Afghanistan back over to the Taliban in the next few years?
"Turkey has already been attacked."
Fair point Tim but what I had in mind was the start of a regional war which drew Turkey in.
It only makes even the slightest bit of sense if you deliberately exclude the entirely foreseeable consequences of the action you are proposing.
This is why the regime change lobby won't admit the problem of our heart-eating allies on the ground. They know it blows their case out of the water.
They know it. That's why they won;t address it.
Assuming there is an "it" at all and it wasn't a store of chemical weapons in tunnels under Ghouta going off by accident or design.
Cameron, then Kerry, then Obama made it clear that action would be limited and focused as a response to the use of chemical weapons. That seems sensible.
We're not allying ourselves with AQ or heart-eaters. We are saying to the perpetrator of a violation of international law: stop.
Look at it like a boxing match. They are fighting, fair enough. If one of the competitors started to bite, say, the ear of his opponent, the referee would step in.
As for your questions, I think I've answered them well enough in my earlier posts (which I won't reproduce because, apparently, they're BOOOOR-ING!). But it all comes down to making the consequences of using chemical weapons greater than the tactical advantages gained from using them. That can be by many means, including both diplomatic and military force.
Given you've accused me of vague statement when I've been fairly precise on a way forwards (unlike you), there seems little point in continuing this. I've set out my stall: you disagree. Neither of us want more deaths, increased usage of chemical weapons, or wider escalation in the region.
We just disagree on what is the best thing to do in a terrible situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Hama_massacre
As I have said passim, they may not think in the same way we do. What is logical to use might not be to them, and vice versa.
It seems to me you do actually understand that just dropping bombs or lobbing missiles at Syria will achieve nothing substantial so we come back to that same question again.
You say something must be done. What must be done? What actual military action would you take that would fulfil the criteria I set out of achieving your deterrent/punishment without making the civil war far worse, killing large numbers of innocent people and eventually leading to a victory for the rebels which, to my mind, is probably close to the very worst outcome we could have?
By the way I do not consider your input boring at all.
NEW DELHI: British Prime Minister David Cameron mistakenly named India among countries which had concluded that Syrian regime forces were behind a chemical attack near Damascus, India's foreign ministry said Tuesday.
[...]
A spokesman for the British High Commission in New Delhi admitted the "innocent mistake" and attributed it to an oversight during hurried preparations for the emergency debate.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-raises-British-Prime-Minister-David-Camerons-mistake-in-Syria-speech/articleshow/22258914.cms
Fortunately lots of wealthy Gulf States to look after them.
Second: both sides are guilty of perpetrating war crimes. We are less bothered - apparently - by war crimes committed by those opposing Assad.
Finally, the US now seems to be moving to some sort of military action leading to regime change which is rather wider than a limited, focused response to use of a particular weapon. That risks being both incoherent and open-ended; alternatively the US does something; it achieves nothing and we shrug our shoulders and the killing - by non-chemical means - continues. What then has been achieved?
And do you still expect anyone other than George Galloway to take you seriously after this?
Unfortunately, once Horta-Osario left the studio, the Sky 'experts' reverted to predicting a housing bubble.
One can only conclude that Sky commentators suffer from the same unwillingness to respond to facts as PB lefties.
"It is very simple. Since the Geneva Protocol of 1925, mankind has been quite remarkably succesful in outlwawing, almost entirely, the use of chemical weapons to kill even troops, let alone civilians. There are just a handful of exceptions (mainly Saddam Hussein), but broadly speaking this is one compartment of Pandora's box which virtually every country in the world has agreed to keep firmly shut."
But its surely outdated. When chemical weapons were banned by agreement in 1925 nuclear bombs weren't invented. The notion that chemical weapons would have been banned and nuclear bombs that can maim and disfigure and kill up to 1,000,000 people in a one minute strike wouldn't had they existed at the time is quite simply ridiculous
"Barack Obama has been inspired by calling on Congress to vote. Now the congressmen and senators will rally behind him, wanting to support their country and president in foreign policy."
antifrank interjects: "but that's exactly what David Cameron did, and that didn't work for him."
"It was stupid of him ever to think that Ed Miliband would ever do anything other than oppose [long series of rude remarks about Ed Miliband redacted]."
I do not agree with my other half on Barack Obama's politicking. If he wants to bomb the hell out of Syria, he should not have sought the permission of Congress. It's a very dangerous gamble.
YES/LEANING YES
Senate (14)
Bob Casey (D-Pa.) — Said Saturday that it’s in the U.S. interest to respond to most recent chemical attack.
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — Said Saturday a red line was crossed a long time ago and the U.S. “must respond.”
Chris Coons (D-Del.) — Said on MSNBC he’s “inclined” to support the president, but made clear that he is not a firm yes.
Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) — Said before Obama’s request for congressional authorization that world could not let heinous attack pass without meaningful response.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — Working closely with the White House on Syria.
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) — Said chemical attack requires “a strong response that will prevent this from happening again.”
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) — Isakson said he supports military action.
Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — On Facebook, said he’d support “a narrow authorization for a missile strike targeting those responsible for using chemical weapons.”
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — Judiciary Committee chairman is revising the White House’s resolution.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) — Said it would be “catastrophic” if Congress rejects legislation.
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — Foreign Relations panel chairman is working on the measure.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) — Has called on the president to act before Congress votes.
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — Senate majority leader backs the president.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — The third-ranking Democrat in the Senate said he could support a limited strike.
YES/LEANING YES
House (14)
John Boehner (R-Ohio) — Speaker to support military action in big boost for Obama.
Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — Boehner’s second-in-command also backs strike.
Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) — Tweeted Monday that the evidence of a chemical attack is strong.
Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) — Said on Twitter that he stands behind Obama’s call for a “targeted and limited response.”
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) — The top Dem on the Foreign Affairs Committee backs the president.
Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — Second-ranking House Dem tweeted Friday that he agreed with White House that use of chemical weapons by Syria was unacceptable.
Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) — Backs limited strike.
Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) — Has publicly backed the president.
Luke Messer (R-Ind.) — Before attending a classified briefing on Sunday, Messer said on MSNBC “I could support a strike on Syria.”
Jim Moran (D-Va.) — In a release, Moran said, “Now it is up to one of the most divisive, least productive Congresses in history to authorize an intervention and protect the credibility and viability of a U.S. response to Assad’s horrific crimes against humanity.”
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — House minority leader will be a key player on resolution.
Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) — Intelligence panel chairman predicts resolution will pass Congress.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) — Democatic National Committee chairwoman said on CNN tat the “world cannot let such a heinous attack pass without a meaningful response.”
Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) — Supports the president.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319933-the-hills-syria-whip-list
Senate (4)
Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — "I do not believe we should become directly involved in the Syrian Civil War."
Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) — Ranking member of the Armed Services Committee disagrees with McCain, says cannot support action because of budget cuts.
Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) — Said U.S. "cannot afford another conflict that taxes our resources without achieving goals that advance American interests." Moran heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — 2016 possible White House candidate has been a critic of military intervention in Syria.
NO/LEANING NO
House (31)
Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) — Told 48 News he needs to be convinced there is a direct threat to the U.S., adding he doesn't believe that now.
Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — Firm no.
Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — Tweeted that she's "adamantly opposed" to military action.
Michael Burgess (R-Texas) — Burgess says action is U.S. action in Syria would be very risky.
Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) — On Sept. 1, he told 41 Action News he would vote no if vote were that day.
Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) — Tweeted Saturday it was impreative that Obama explore alternatives.
Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — House deputy whip is leaning no.
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) — Said on MSNBC is leaning no.
Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) — Iraq war veteran is against military action in Syria.
Sam Farr (D-Calif.) — Recent remarks suggest he is leaning no.
Randy Forbes (R-Va.) — Said on Fox News on Sunday that taking mlitary action is not in nation's best interests.
Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) — Says the president has not yet convinced the public.
Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) — Iraq war veteran said on Facebook he urges a no vote.
Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) — Grayson is rallying support against the measure.
Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) — Leaning no.
Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook that he agrees with constituents and sees no evidence of U.S. interests in Syrian war.
Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — Critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a firm no.
Pete King (R-N.Y.) — Said on Fox News Sunday he is leaning no; he didn't believe Congress needed to vote on Syria.
Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) — Senate candidate told WSAV-TV he is leaning no.
Tom Marino (R-Pa.) — Marino is "absolutely opposed to any intervention in Syria at this time."
Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) — Wants answers to many questions.
Candice Miller (R-Mich.) — "...case has not been made."
Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) — Nolan is strongly opposed to a military strike.
Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) — Sent letter to Obama on Friday opposing military intervention.
Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) — Reiterated his view that the mlitary draft must be reinstated before an attack on Syria.
Scott Rigell (R-Va.) — Leaning no.
Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.) — Said U.S. shouldn't try to police Syria.
Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) — After attending Sunday's briefing, said in a statement he doesn't support military force at this time.
Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) — Citing Iraq and other reasons, Serrano says that "we must not get our country involved in another war."
Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) — Tweeted Monday that she doesn't think intervention is the answer at the moment.
Michael Turner (R-Ohio) — He says he's a no until sequestration is lifted.
Frank Wolf (R-Va.) — Leaning no. In a letter to the president, Wolf states he has deep reservations about military intervention
Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook an attack is "not warranted at this time."
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319933-the-hills-syria-whip-list#ixzz2dr4lk6dn
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Senate (10)
Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas) — The No. 2-ranking Senate Republican has called on Obama to address the nation on Syria.
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) — Has called evidence "circumstantial."
Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — Says there are "so many unanswered questions" during Sept. 3 CNBC interview. But also says if U.S. doesn't lead, world becomes a more dangerous place.
Angus King (I-Maine)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — Armed Services chairman said Obama made "strong case," but hasn't endorsed plan for military action.
Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) — Manchin is actively seeking advice from West Virginia residents.
Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — Wants more information on what needs to be done and what can be accomplished in Syria.
Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
UNDECIDED/NOT CLEAR
House (17)
Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) — Told ABC5 News: "I'm waiting for the president to make the case on the possible use of force and the aftermath."
David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — Said on MSNBC he is "skeptical."
Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) — Has not made up his mind but told WKRN-TV he is "extremely leery."
Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Jim Himes (D-Conn.)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) — Believes that the international community must some take type of action against Syria. Her statement indicates she's more likely a yes than a no.
Bob Johnson (R-Ohio)
Dale Kildee (D-Mich.)
Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) — Armed Services panel chairman is undecided.
Richard Neal (D-Mass.) — Noted in his statement that he voted against the Iraq war.
Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) — Wants details on what the mission will be.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) — Fourth-ranked GOP leader says she is skeptical.
Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)
Trey Radel (R-Fla.)
Martha Roby (R-Ala.)
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — "The president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria. He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security."
Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.) — Expressed concern about precedent the U.S. would be setting by approving an attack.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319933-the-hills-syria-whip-list#ixzz2dr50jy3v
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Not only is he content with both current GDP and manufacturing growth leading the G7 nations but he doesn't have to dip into his contingency pocket to fund overseas military adventures.
Master strategist indeed.
As to your points:
Well we are sort of the referee. If not us, the international community as channelled by the Security Council, then who? At the risk of a reverse Godwin, it is precisely because we were scrupulously neutral to belligerents, together with acquiescence to "Old Europe" interests, that Rwanda happened.
Secondly, yes. Both sides are but as imperfect as it is, we seem to have identified the use of chemical weapons by Assad. That is all we have, is not great but gives us some grounding to act.
And thirdly, yes, we shall see what happens when the US military genie is out of the bottle. I have no idea whether regime change is the plan or something short of it. I don't want regime change, I know we don't have the resources to change forcibly the political make-up of Syria, and I am extremely nervous.
But the principle of acting when proof of international law violations is uncovered? I'm on board.
One part of the JIC "evidence"
1) Assad has/had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons.
2) The rebels couldn't possibly have chemical weapons.
Just add
3) The rebels control half the country
to see how nonsensical that is.
“The United States should only engage militarily when it is pursuing a clear and attainable national security goal. Military action taken simply to send a message or save face does not meet that standard.”
*if*
it wasn't crossing a red-line that could get him attacked by the global superpower. That's the part that makes it literally unbelievably stupid.