chemical weapons

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--is-o...151321791.html

President Barack Obama, sure to fall short of getting explicit U.N. approval for any military strikes against Syrian strongman Bashar Assad’s forces and facing potential divisions inside NATO, has instead been assembling allies and partners in a coalition of the willing that recalls the Iraq War.

And where then-President George W. Bush at least got Congress to authorize him to use force against Saddam Hussein, Obama shows no sign of asking lawmakers to do so, preferring instead to engage in “consultations” with key players.

This time, with polls showing weak support for intervention in Syria, lawmakers show no inclination to launch a formal debate on whether to use force against Assad.


so, the un isn't unanimous....neither is nato, with germany not wanting to engage.
congress seemingly won't be asked to weigh in (so much for checks and balances) and the american people don't support intervention either.

there's definitely a lack of consensus. so now what?

to what end do we engage? what goals?

to wage war three things are necessary:
authority of the sovereign
a just cause
a rightful intention

of course that's from st augustine, not the constitution....



does obama have the authority?
what is the cause he wishes to fight for?
what is his intention if we wage any kind of war?


of course there's another quote about three things being necessary to fight.

those would be money, more money and yet more money.

[bigrun]

No win situation for him...damned if he does and a puzzy if he doesn't

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

No win situation for him...damned if he does and a puzzy if he doesn't

since there's not a consensus, we can bow out. if both nato and the un aren't in support...

and like i said, what is our goal? is it in our interests to intervene? if so, what interests are those? and how do we intervene? drop a couple bombs? for what?

how does killing people dissuade assad from killing people?