Britain has shown that it is more democratic than the US by allowing parliament to vote for or against Syria war. The outcome of the voting was against war and they are going to respect this decision.

Whereas in the US, there is no sign of any voting, it is more or less a unilateral decision by the President's office. What is the point of having Senate and Congress if they cannot make any important decisions that could change the face of the earth.

The rhetorics of war has always  been one sided towards the aggressor. The aggressor justifies attack because Syria supposedly killed 1000 people, but the imposed war could kill 100,000 people or more like was the case in Iraq/ Afganisthan.

So ultimately the US rhetorics of war is this. You are not democratic, you killed 1000 of your citizens, now we will bomb you to depose your government even if 100,000 are killed.

Giordano, instead of parroting the same ignorant foregone conclusion, why don't you agree to disagree? unless you are the epitomy of all knowledge and you are always right

Rething, I agree with you. This forceful war makes American government's bullying tactics very clear to the whole world and it will gain more enemies. I hope Obama is stopped by congress from this insane war.

 @illumnation.....obama won't stop now. if congress fails he will attack the syria as he has that power

Giordana, ok so your lord OBAMA is all powerful god for you. We get it.

Here's top 5 reasons why Obama should not attack Syria

1. The “Credibility” Argument — “America cannot be seen as weak,” as the pundits and war hawks put it, is a lousy reason to go to war, to paraphrase MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. We should never go to war because we are worried about the opinions of dictators and tyrants.

2. The “Future Tyrant” Argument — “If America doesn’t send a strong message that you cannot use chemical weapons, future dictators will use these weapons of mass destruction at will.” There’s not much evidence to support this argument. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons and we did nothing, and then no one else used chemical weapons for two decades.

3. The “Humanitarian” Argument — “1500 people died a horrible death by chemical weapons. We must do something about that.” Well, I got news for you — 98,500 additional Syrians have also died a horrible death, by conventional weapons. If we could prove that military action would stop the death toll (from all weapons), maybe, just maybe, it could be justified. I have not heard anyone posit such an argument, because even though we have plenty of wrongheaded arguments for military action in Syria, nobody is so deluded to think the Syrian conflict will end because of American intervention.

4. The Assad “Change Course” Argument — “If we send a strong message to President Bashar al-Assad, he will stop using chemical weapons.” We would have to make sure we wipe out his entire chemical weapons capability to make such an assurance because someone desperate enough to use chemical weapons in the first place is not likely to learn a lesson from the West.

5. The “Geneva Protocol” Argument — “In 1925, nearly every country decided the use of chemical weapons was abhorrent and banned their use.” Sure, chemical weapons are horrible, but so are conventional weapons. You don’t have to marginalize your morals by establishing an arbitrary standard for how to conduct a war. There should be no war. Sending a message attached to the side of a cruise missile stating that killing people with chemical weapons is wrong, is also wrong. Any humanitarian should see the moral compromise we make by deeming one weapon of war unacceptable, leaving the remaining weapons as viable options.

Giordano, since you are so sure your most powerful Obama will attack Syria no matter what, this might be interesting for you. Let's hope you won't have to hide in a hole once you see that the collective power of right versus wrong will prevail.

President Obama could lose big on Syria in House

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.

That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week — which is no sure thing — the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

(VIDEO: VandeHei, Allen analysis on Syria situation)

Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen “yes” votes in favor of military action at this time. The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit.

But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference.

That would mean the vast majority of the 200 House Democrats will need to vote with Obama for the resolution to pass. But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes.

(Also on POLITICO: Pelosi enforcers wobble on Syria)

High-level congressional sources believe there is some time — but not much — for Obama, Boehner and Pelosi to turn things around. But any vote to authorize an attack on Syria will be extraordinarily close, according to people in both parties with direct knowledge of the political dynamics in the House Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus.

Boehner and Cantor back the president’s plan for “limited, proportional” strikes in Syria. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is not convinced it’s the right decision. McCarthy’s calculus seems to be more in line with many House Republicans — he has spoken to many of his allies in the last week, and the support for a U.S. strike on Syria is incredibly low, sources familiar with those discussions says say.

House leaders plan to takes up the Syria resolution only if it passes the Senate first.

(PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

The political climate, of course, can change. Pelosi is a legendary whip and has an uncanny ability to move her members. Since Congress is not in session, many lawmakers haven’t been lobbied by the Obama administration or attended its classified briefings. Obama hasn’t taken to the Oval Office to address the nation about Syria — many hope he’ll do that when he returns from the G-20 in Russia. The White House has already canceled a planned presidential trip to Los Angeles on Monday so the president can lobby lawmakers.

And rank-and-file House Republicans — especially some key members — are holding back their positions, waiting to see what happens next week when Congress returns.

“Republicans have traditionally tended to break toward the president” on national security and defense issues, noted a senior GOP aide. But this aide estimated that the resolution to bomb Syria has only a “30 to 40 percent chance of passing right now.”

(Also on POLITICO: So far, President Obama’s political arm sits out Syria push)

POLITICO reported on Thursday that Obama administration officials have reached out directly to one-third of Congress in the last two weeks — at least 60 senators and 125 House members — with more contacts to come, according to a White House aide.

And AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, is poised to mount a major blitz next week in support of the Syria resolution, officials with the group said. AIPAC lobbyists and their supporters have been speaking directly to a number of lawmakers, especially senators, said House and Senate aides.

(Also on POLITICO: AIPAC to go all-out on Syria)

“At the end of the day, a lot of these Democrats are going to be with the president,” said a House Democratic aide close to the issue. “Because the choice is to vote against [the Syria resolution] and turn the president into a lame duck and destroy his credibility, or swallow it and vote for something that you’re not wild about. When you’re faced with that kind of decision, most of these fence-sitters are going to come aboard.”

Few of his wellwishers are worried about Obama's move against Syria, which could stain his popularity and may miserably fail him but House seems like "Go" for war. Pres. Obama seems like backing off going to war, so it seems he is seeking partners in crime I mean consent of other folks in the house. Conservatives want him to be stigmatized, so this war is imminent. Sept 9 onwards, news will be filled with destruction and chaos in Syria.

Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/iran-threatens-brutal-attacks-on-americans-obama-family-if-us-hits-syria/#ixzz2e7yYWXPn

How stupid are these US lawmakers who are willing to start a world war III and risk the lives of their own citizens, because of their own personal greed?

 @ illumnation,

collective power of right versus wrong will prevail re. LOL . So you saying Ashad is right? hmmmm......He is a dictator and has killed so many people. I am against the war too but wat I am only trying to say here is Obama has the executive power to go to war without the congress voting and that has been proven already in Libya. thats were our debate began. now if u r relating my things with other than god bless u again.

Giordano, What Obama did in Libya was unconstitutional and he was lambasted for that move. That is why he is currently scared to do the same thing in Syria. He sounded serious, he sounded like he was determined, but he does not have the guts nor the authority to do this again in Syria. That is why he is seeking congressional approval. Today, it is clear that the congress is not going to approve this war, so they are planning to not even put this on the floor since it would be an embarassing loss for Obama.

 Rethink,

"OK to Use Force for 60 Days

There have been numerous attacks -- including the Korean War, the Kosovo intervention in 1999 and the use of force in Haiti -- that were launched without congressional authorization. Each conflict sparked a debate about the scope of the executive's power.

Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith weighed in this week, saying he believes the Libyan action is constitutional.

Goldsmith, who worked in the Bush administration, noted that a combination of "indeterminate constitutional language" and the courts' having never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use force without authorization gives the executive "very broad discretion."

During the Vietnam conflict in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in part to make clear that there should be more limits on the president's power to use military force. The act allows the president to use military force without congressional authorization for 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise."

And do u guys even know why US prez is called commander in Chief??? If the prez can't go to war without congressinal vote just take out the commander of chief tag from his post but War power resolution provides him that tag. and yes he can act alone for military intervention. It has been proven many times in US history be it be in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Libya, Lebanon or Iran. Comparing Britains PM to US Prez by illumnation is a complete BS. Thats what I have been trying to prove but again I don't like wars. 

Giordo you are really stuck on the vested power of the president. First of all for every one analyst that believes that Obama has the constitutional right to go to war unilaterally, there will be another 10 analyst that believes that the move is unconstitutional. Check out links below.

• Washington post article says Obama is unconstitutional
• Tom Tancredo, 5 term congressman says Obama is unconstitutional
• 140 House members say Obama need congressional approval
• Washington Times article on Obama's unconstitutional war on Libya
• LA Times says, The constitution is clear that Obama needs congressional approval
• Earnest Istook from Harvard University's institute of politics says Constitution required Obama to accept congressional decision on Syria

And to top it all off, even Obama and Joe Biden said the same thing when they were campaigning for election.

• Obama himself said Military action without congressional approval is unconstitutional

So it would be naive to keep repeating your stance. But you are correct that there are people who believe differently, which is perfectly fine. But at the end there is no correct answer and everyone needs to decide with their gut feelings what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that he is commander in chief does not mean anything. Even Nepal army has Commander in Chief which does not mean he can go to war whenever he feels like it. They are answerable to the political system that gave them the position.

 LOL....you guys can google but cant use ur common sense....illumnati compare Britains PM with US prez and here comes this guy comparing Nepali Army Chief with US prez......Ayt constitution is all for same even for President. If he was unconsitutional why wasn't he impeached? 

And commander in chief mean nothing re. kati hasnu. lets say congress pass the vote to go to war but president don't want to he can veto it. If he wants he can. he is the one who gives the green signal not congress. thats wat commander in chief is. I have already given many examples above be it bosnia bombing by Clinton or Libya attack by Obama. And if you say it is unconstitutional what are the congress doing?? because they know he has that power.

Giordo your LOL's are decreasing the seriousness of your claim in the same way Obama is backing away from making any statements about Syria right now, after realizing he has very few supporters for this unnecessary act of aggression.

I think it's better to wait and see what happens instead of repeating the Libyan carnage like it was written in your bible.

 LOL again....wait and watch re....i said he already proved it...he doesn't have to prove it again....only if british parliament agreed to go to war he would have acted it alone......now dont repeat ur quran.

As we can see with the turn of events, Obama is scared shitless to make this unconstitutional move, which he did bashfully during the LIbyan episode.

No matter how much he roared at first claiming he had the authority, he knew that without Congressional approval, it was unconstitutional to go to war. So as it stands, the congress has disapproved Obama's request and now with UN and Russia taking lead to allow Syria to depose of their chemical weapons peacefully.

It seems like Giordano knows more about presidential power and the US constitution than the president of the US and the US congress.

 @illumnation,

Obama and scared? u must be drinking kool aid bro. syrian has agreed to give control of their chemical weapons. Now who is scared??? Obama still hasn't made up his mind. but again diff US prez on diff ages has proved that they have the authority to act alone. I have given many examples above be it by clinton on kosovo or obama on Libya. 

I am not talking about syria only but the past where US prez had acted alone so many times with out congress and u r like they don't have that power then tell me y the heck clinton attack kosovo and obama attack libya w/out congress? and if u say it was unconstitutional why weren't they impeached. got answer????

“The president, of course, has the authority to act, but it is neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken

Giordano you said ".obama won't stop now. if congress fails he will attack the syria as he has that power"

Congress failed him but he is not gonna attack Syria. Looks like you were wrong awwwwww sorry to have to burst your bubble.

Now stop crying like a baby and accept you were wrong.

 LoL illumnation I am waiting for my answer? Can u prove me y wasn't obama impeach since u told me it was unconstitutional. aba Syria le Obama ko agadi ghoda teke pachi k ko war ma janu ni but as i said he still has that power if not answer my question?by the way congress hasn't voted yet so he is not failed.