Will Congress Vote to use force in Syria?

I voted no. There are three factions that together can (and I think will) kill this ...

A ) Lots of Dems are anti-war. Then two types of Republicans. B ) There's a significant and refreshing number of newer GOP types who came into office post-Bush that are anti-intervention. C ) The third batch are the Bush faction GOP types who have always believed in their core that using military force to installing democracy on irreconcilable Islamic nutjobs who don't want it is a fabulous idea but would still rather fock over Obama anyways because he's Obama.

So hopefully they collectively give a big FUCK NO! to the president, help him come to his senses. McCain has his finger on the pulse of Congress and he seems rather uncertain that he and Obama can provide enough votes get this done. NYTimes is predicting tough sledding for Team Invasion's attempt to round up the votes.

I for one am looking at how both the Dems and the GOP plays this. Foreign policy fockups are a big reason I can't vote GOP in national elections. But now with Obama going the USA World Police route, that's a major ground shift moment and deflater for the Dems. Obama beat Hillary in large part because of this issue and now he's disturbingly switched teams. So there are going to be a lot of Dems not on board for this. Can Obama round them up? Would Nancy Pelosi actually help him do so?

Meanwhile, The GOP has lots of leftover World Police enthusiasts, but they have an intersting twist. The chickenhawks are being pushed by a newer, younger group of sane people. We saw them step up in the NSA debate. They were also the catalyst that helped secure the deal that put the sequester in place. Plus all the GOP focking hates anything Obama wants, they hates to agree with or help him and are much more inclined to fock him over. So this will be an interesting topic to see play out in both parties.

A nice resounding bi-partisan "no" vote would warm my heart. I think we'll be seeing it.

What's he going to do next? This trajectory of more and more involvement is entering round two. Yesterday was we were just going to provide arms to the insurgents. We should have never done that. If this doesn't work, we can fully expect him to find some bullshit excuse to come around in a few months for round three. In an inch, in a foot, soon in a mile.

Obama keeps coming back asking for more each time. Pull the plug. We sent them arms. If they die, fock 'em. I really don't give a shit. We already did way, way more than we should have already. Tell Obama to go fock himself now.

We've armed the insurgents, we're going to bomb Assad. What if Assad gets the upper hand? ... oh, no no, he's our enemy we can't allow that to happen. Here's round three, round four...

Fock, let Assad win or fall. Let the chips fall as they may. The most important thing we can ever do in the Middle East is not to piss anybody off. I don't want US involvement escalating. We kill that off now.

It smells exactly like how we got into Vietnam.

Vietnam? Are you kidding me? All we're talking about here is lobbing a bunch of cruise missiles from the Mediterranean. Rain a little hellfire down on Assad's head to show him we aren't going to stand by and let him gas his own people.

I seriously don't understand how this is objectionable at all. Time was everybody agreed you DO NOT use chemical weapons, and whenever anyone did it was a moral imperative for the rest of the world to respond. Now? It's not our problem, let the women and children die.

When did we become such fucking pussies?

The USA itself dropped napalm on Vietnam. When Saddam gassed "his own people" we sold him more weapons, something I supported at the time (cough cough).

And you have to watch out where you use "his own people" because it's not correct. Were Alabama whities discriminating against "their own people" during Jim Crow? No. They were discriminating against the local ethnic minority group they didn't like.
 
As for using gas now, 2013, the UN doesn't care, Europe doesn't care. Big yawns all around I certainly don't care. My compassion button for Middle Eastern Muslims is irreparably broken.  Also, when Syria uses chemical weapons, it's cut and drywho the bad guy is:  they are. Everybody blames Syria. Good. When the US bombs Syria, now who's the bad guy? That's right we are.  Poor Syria getting bullied by the mean ol' USA. Poor Muslims always getting killed by the Great Satan. We must seek revenge for the blasphemy!

Bomb the Alawites and they will hate us forever. Let the Alawites hate the Sunnis instead. The biggest thing is don't p*ss off any Muslims if you don't have to.

Here's my priorities in the matter:

1 penny of US taxpayer money unspent on this >>> the entire population of Syria dying of ebola

What can we do instead? Well we can make a lot of noise about how bad Syria is for gassing the opposition and beat the drum for international condemnation. We can ask Russia to keep the focker in check even though they deny he's gassing anybody. Better bring some damning evidence they did or STFU. Then there's the new leader in Iran. They elected the least nutty guy running. He actually prsents himself as less loony than the previous dozen or so leaders and wants to have an outreach to the US. I say we take him up on it. OK, Mr. Happy Iranian Sunshine, here's your big chance to impress us and improve relations. If you can get your buddy in Syria to give up the chemical weapons gig, we'll be hella hugely impressed.

Volty - napalm is not a gas. Hth.

I think we became pussies around the 8th time we were fooled by a moral imperative.

Also our missiles will collaterally damage more people than were gassed.