by deciding to go to the Congress to ask for approval for military intervention in Syria, what are your thoughts on the wisdom of intervening in Syria..
On one hand innocent children, women, and civilians are getting killed, but on the other hand this is their internal struggle and there is no imminent or any threat to United States' security. On the other hand, getting involved in the internal matters can escalate the issue with Russia, China, and Iran (who have strongly opposed US intervention) and can cause concern to US security in form of direct attack or terrorist attacks. On one hand its America's image that's at stake, while on the other hand the question remains whether United States should get involved in the matter that doesn't concern it directly... Do you really think that Congress will pass this.. I will definitely holding my breath to see how the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will vote, as both are considered probables in 2016 race. I am voting for both of them to vote against intervention..This is a Sunni vs Shiite sectarian war. I don't believe American intervention will do a single thing to quell this conflict.
I don't know why America is worried about it's perceived image, does this nation suffer from narcissism? I don't think America should get involved directly.
I believe congress will vote in favor of military intervention. How each individual congressmen votes, I'm not sure. I will say this is a smart move by Obama, he won't take all the blame. Once the admin receives bipartisan congressional approval.
Finally I believe this is has more to do with Iran, then Syria.
Our closest ally, Great Britain defeated the motion in the Parliament.. Were you sleeping on Thursday?
If America doesn't get involved directly there won't be anyone getting involved.
Senate might vote in favor (although it could go either way..) but I don't see the House supporting it..
I must ask you. What would be so tragic about the US not getting involved?
Once the US gets involved the number of deaths will escalate. Military intervention will take place. After America does get involved, GB will come around.
There will be others who say that US could have stopped the genocide... What happened to the beacon of democracy and freedom..
That being said, I am against intervention...If Russia and China get involved, it won't be any short of World War III..
I would be more comfortable with US intervention, if we were told the real reasons for wanting domination over the region. Instead of the US's illusion of a white knight, humanitarian mission
but it's an interesting perspective from the other side.
No way Congress okay's this. Britain gave them cover for voting no, as have their constituents (more importantly. This potential conflict without end is actually less popular than congress itself in the latest polling I saw.
If America doesn't get involved directly there won't be anyone getting involved.
Senate might vote in favor (although it could go either way..) but I don't see the House supporting it...
who votes how....
How do establishment Republicans like Jonn Cornyan and John McCain et al vote..
How does the Tea Party Crop.. like Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Rand Paul vote.
How does the moderate left and the far left vote...
It would definitely be interesting to see...
-- Modified on 9/1/2013 2:21:11 PM
You are right... and since Hilary does not have to vote she gets a hall pass on this one. Not that BO is in the habit of helping the Clintons... Interesting and tragic at the same time.
How do establishment Republicans like Jonn Cornyan and John McCain et al vote..
How does the Tea Party Crop.. like Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Rand Paul vote.
How does the moderate left and the far left vote...
It would definitely be interesting to see...
-- Modified on 9/1/2013 2:21:11 PM
If you do, you will understand he just stuck it the Republican Congress.
I am waiting to see the response from the Ted Cruze tea party and Ran Paul Libertarians. Not to mention US Congress ratified no use of chemical, biological and nerve gas type of weapons along with 97 other countries.
They just walked into the trap nicely set for them, this is what cerebral people do.
ENJOY!
And all the blood & treasure spent will be by vote of individual Representatives following the wishes of their voters.
Let's see;
No immediate "OIL" concerns, yet ANOTHER civil war of mud hut living, middle East, religious whack-o terrorist nut-jobs, a "war weary" US populace, and an oath to the principle of "small government" here at home.
Obama sure handed Boehner a big stinking turd. This could get interesting. 
The weakness of game theory is that it addresses courses of action and their outcomes and assumes that all parties are acting logically. But the biggest pitfall is that game theory doesn't address strategy or strategic thinking. And that has been the president's problem in the Middle East. He lent no support for the demonstrators in Iran and Syria, both of counties have been defined as supporters of terrorism by the State Dept.. He lent significant support to the revolutionaries in Libya. And he supported the overthrow of the Mubarak and Sale-ah regimes in Egypt and Yemen, two governments that have aided U.S. interests for decades. The U.S. now finds it's self in a position where it has no influence in the events in Syria, weaker governments in Libya and Yemen, and a military regime in Egypt who have no trust for the U.S.. The only ones who will gain will be the Russians, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
You have confused game theory with economics or haven’t studied or taught game theory
the more involved we get into the middle east the farther we are drawn into a religious civil war that can and probably will involve the whole region. I don't think we will see peace there in our life time and we could very easily bankrupt our already unstable nation.
I've spent time there and most of the people just want clean water and food for their families but there are %15-20 that want nothing more than to kill anyone with different religious view point, even in the same religion. It's been mentioned that the only way to achieve peace in the middle east is to turn it into a big piece of glass; I'm not sure I totally disagree with this no matter how cynical that sounds. We cant police the middle east as a whole and don't have the heart to do what it'd take to end it. I read a quote yrs ago from a former Isreali politician that hit pretty close to home for me "the only way to end terrorism is to kill the terrorist, his family and friends". It seems abhorrent but terrorism tends to encompass whole families. Look at it just from terrorism that's happened here. The boston marathon bombers were brothers and I don't think their parents would have tried in the least to stop them. Or his friends trying to get rid of evidence. it doesn't matter though because we'd rather spend billions trying to change the way they think.
On one hand innocent children, women, and civilians are getting killed, but on the other hand this is their internal struggle and there is no imminent or any threat to United States' security. On the other hand, getting involved in the internal matters can escalate the issue with Russia, China, and Iran (who have strongly opposed US intervention) and can cause concern to US security in form of direct attack or terrorist attacks.
On one hand its America's image that's at stake, while on the other hand the question remains whether United States should get involved in the matter that doesn't concern it directly...
Do you really think that Congress will pass this.. I will definitely holding my breath to see how the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will vote, as both are considered probables in 2016 race. I am voting for both of them to vote against intervention..
agent orange, 2 tomic bombs and napalm to just name a few examples...Not to forget about The white phosphourus we use over the middle east ... ALL THE TIME...
WE USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS .. The world is tired of our hyprocricy
HELL, we even helped sadam gas the kurds http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
-- Modified on 9/1/2013 11:59:47 AM
I would favor military action because rouge state and other actors can't be allowed to think their will be no response to NBC warfare. If strikes could dissuade N. Korea, Iran, or non-state actors from using such weapons then the strike would be successful. As for Syria, the point has been passed where any action form the U.S. or any allies would have an impact favorable to our interests. If you want to get an idea how we got here and how this ends, put "2016: Obama's America" in you Netflix que.
We can't keep on being the police force of the world. Every conflict we enter into costs us millions if not billions of dollars. And if Iran and Russia decide to back Syria up this could become a full fledged world war III, which means I'll have to quit my leisurely job as an escort and put my combat boots back on 
Amen!
and pulling your naval fleet back home which will never happen even if libertarians come to power by fluke of nature.
To be a true isolationist, we will have to cut of all ties starting with trade and cancel all trade agreements, not going to happen.
As I mentioned before, 97 countries signed and ratified an International Law against using Chemical weapons and if you stand idle, the consequences are far reaching and extremely dangerous.
Indeed, it is tricky situation because the so called rebels are unorganized and the most powerful at the moment is Al Queda which presents a conundrum to western countries. This was the exact reason none of the western countries supplied arms to the rebels. Arms were supplied by Saudi Arabia.
The best possible solution would be for the Arab League led by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Quatar to step up and NATO to support them with air power as Clinton did in Bosnia.
We can't know 100% for certain that Assad was the one responsible for the attacks. It makes sense for the rebels to pin the blame on them to incite the world's wrath against Assad. All we know is what the media tells us, and it seems behind every war or military campaign there seems to be an ulterior motive.
Quite honestly breaking off some of the trade agreements would at least bring back some jobs to the US. We have nearly everything we need here at home. I was more thinking the Swedish or Australian route, they mind their own business.
all we invite is wrath of the nations that we are trying to help.....
The only relationship we need to have with the outside world is for the purposes of commerce.
There are close to 900 military bases outside US (figure that come up during GOP debates in 2012)... I'm sure a lot of them could still be closed and we could still be pretty powerful...