Will history be more kind to Obama if he drops the bombs on Assad?

[kentuck]

Or will they be more kind if he follows the Constitution and international law?

Will history treat him more kindly and portray him as a strong decisive leader or will he be remembered as the President that continued the Bush Doctrine?

Damn! We're in a tight spot!

[David__77]

1. I think this would be worse than the Bush doctrine.

At least US troops actually did provide a modicum of security for Iraqi people. No, there weren't enough troops to secure the whole country. But simply bombing the hell out of Syria will only pile misery on the Syrian people but leave them at the mercy of the various armed factions.

[kentuck]

3. Are you saying it would be a major blunder?

And it doesn't have to happen.

I would prefer the President go thru the UN but anything he would propose would probably get vetoed by the Russians or Chinese so he would have to go thru NATO to get help?

Perhaps he could talk the British into having a second vote. If he had France, Germany and England with him, then they could send a few troops to Damscus and separate the warring factions with their "inspections". Of course, bullets may be flying. And the war could get heavy in a short time.

[David__77]

5. Yes, it would be a blunder.

To be clear, I oppose any US intervention in Syria.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Germany and the UK having declared no military involvement

are unlikely to use the NATO backdoor - their populations wouldn't fall for that stunt. Germany in particular is prone due to imminent Federal elections 22nd September.

Forget the 2nd vote here in the UK - that has definitely been ruled out.

The British government has no intention to hold a second parliamentary vote on taking military action against Syria, AFP reported. “Parliament has spoken and that is why the government has absolutely no plans to go back to parliament,” a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said. “The position we are in is that parliament has expressed its will and that is the basis on which we will proceed.” http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/09/uk-govt-has-no-plans-for-second-vote-to-attack-syria-2753526.html

Clegg confirmed that today too.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has waded into the row over the Commons vote on military action in Syria saying he couldn't "foresee any circumstances" where the matter would return to parliament.

Mr Clegg insisted the government would not "go back" to the House of Commons on the issue.

"We're not going to keep asking the same question of Parliament again and again," he said.

"We live in a democracy, the executive cannot act in a way which clearly is not welcome to Parliament or the British people, so we're not proposing to do so."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-crisis-nick-clegg-rules-out-second-commons-vote-on-military-action-as-boris-johnson-increases-pressure-on-cameron-8793985.html

[HardTimes99]

6. Everyone should re-read novelist Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," esp.

this passage:

Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech—and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives—he called them enemies!—hidden out of sight somewhere.

[LittleBlue]

2. Assassinating foreign leaders is a dark path

If we legitimize assassination against other leaders, we legitimize it against own.

I don't think we want to go there. And it may not actually matter if he has a recognized successor.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Yeah, leave the dying to the paeans.

[LittleBlue]

8. Where did I say killing anyone was okay?

A leader doesn't only represent himself. Killing leaders has implications far beyond the life lost in the assassination, and assassinations often have disastrous outcomes.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand sparked a war that killed millions.