Congress Will Oppose Military Intervention same as UK Parliament.

I will keep this simple and to the point.

My theory is that Congress will vote against military intervention in Syria.

Think about what this represents according to the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE-

- Assad regime uses chemical weapons against their own citizens.

- West sticks to their 'democratic' values and puts military intervention down to a vote. Both the UK and US vote no.

- Further down the timeline, the west is then 'punished' for their 'inaction' or 'appeasment' of an evil dictator who supports terrorism.



By going to a vote, most Congress members will go with what the people want, ie, not another war that America cannot afford.

But this suits TPTB who are controlling Obama, as it upholds the illusion of democracy (as it went to a vote of Congress who 'represent the people') whilst pointing out the 'mistakes' of appeasing a tyrannt 'who uses chemical weapons'.

It potentially paves way for a full on military intervention down the line. They are not going to stop until Assad falls, and I think this 'vote' is a great way for America to try and look like the good guys on the international stage whilst Obama and Kerry (under control of their masters) know full well intervention will take place further down the line.

Thoughts?

I disagree.

Congress will vote for military action because members of congress are more influenced by the contractors who help rebuild war zones and private "security" firms who take over the action when Americans feel that the military has done enough, then they are by American citizens who vote them in by those wonderful and God-sent democratic principals.

They probably won't listen to the Generals who are against it either. These generals know that Syria has modern and conventional weaponry whereas Iraq and Afghanistan do not. It would be a totally different type of war that soldiers would have to be re-trained to fight. Fighting counter-insurgents is like live training. Fighting someone like Syria would be the real deal.

I feel that politics drives very little of the people in Washington who want to move up the ladder. Getting in good with the lifers of Washington who have made millions by being lifelong politicians with tight connections to big money, that's what drives the "political" machine.

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but that's the way it is and needs to change.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Obama said that he would not like to have an chance in the current regime..
thats weird couse an rebel victory means the end of the regime

point1 why does he support the rebels
point 2 IF it were the rebels who used gas will he bomb them?
my opinion:
its all political BS

Originally posted by Peacetime
These generals know that Syria has modern and conventional weaponry whereas Iraq and Afghanistan do not.

It would be a totally different type of war that soldiers would have to be re-trained to fight. Fighting counter-insurgents is like live training. Fighting someone like Syria would be the real deal.

These Generals also know that we won't be sending in ground forces but rather concentrate their air superiority on Assad's forces where they are making the most gains on the Rebels.

The Counter-insurgents in this scenario for the Generals are Al-Qaeda and their extremist linked subsidiary groups.

We won't be fighting Syria as much as lobbing targeted missiles on them selectively where we see fit so the Rebels can make advances.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I'm really not sure whether Congress will vote no or not. I have already contacted my reps and senators (who are all Republican) that I want them to vote no, but I imagine they will vote yes. I know Chambliss seems to be pretty gung-ho about it, because that's how he is.

Regardless, if Congress does not authorize military "intervention" I believe that this administration will go ahead anyway, this based in part on seeing Kerry on ABC's This Week today (Sunday, Sept 1).

Whether the administration has to manufacture more evidence, lie, or create some other type of incident in the region to justify their rabid eagerness to go is a different story.

They'll bomb Syria, in some form. It's just a matter of when. :/

I'm ashamed of my country.

****

And, there is no logical reason for Assad to have used the chemical weapons. He has NOTHING to gain by using them and EVERYTHING to loose, so why would he? I highly doubt he would.

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

I'm really not sure whether Congress will vote no or not. I have already contacted my reps and senators (who are all Republican) that I want them to vote no, but I imagine they will vote yes. I know Chambliss seems to be pretty gung-ho about it, because that's how he is.

Regardless, if Congress does not authorize military "intervention" I believe that this administration will go ahead anyway, this based in part on seeing Kerry on ABC's This Week today (Sunday, Sept 1).

Whether the administration has to manufacture more evidence, lie, or create some other type of incident in the region to justify their rabid eagerness to go is a different story.

They'll bomb Syria, in some form. It's just a matter of when. :/

I'm ashamed of my country.

****

And, there is no logical reason for Assad to have used the chemical weapons. He has NOTHING to gain by using them and EVERYTHING to loose, so why would he? I highly doubt he would.

You're right in general, but I really think my theory is worth consideration.

The whole event involving chemical weapons has been very polarised, I think there is a very real possibility this is a set up.

It takes some understanding of the situation, but if America votes to go in, it looks SO BAD on the international stage.

The key political figures want intervention, but this is the same in the UK. If Congress votes no intervention, you have an engineered scenario where the west have appeased a mass murdering tyrant (according to the official narrative) and that leaves room for something much worse to happen down the road, forcing the democratic world to act on a much larger scale, as TPTB want and Obama and Kerry work for.

How can I be the only one who sees this as a possibility?

Hey all, let me start by saying I am a old veteran and despite her faults I love my country and I would not want to live anywhere else. One of the few things I think I earned for serving my country is the right to complain. If you don't vote and contribute or serve this country in some way I don't think you should complain.

And if you are really ashamed well I think you should pack up and move to Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or some other poor country you feel sorry for or feel better about. I can promise that most Americans could go to Europe let's say. After about a month you will most likely be wishing you could go back home.

What you will find is even with all the problems we may have we still have and live in the best country in the world. You find that we do have more freedom and liberty t than anywhere else.

But guess what, since you were so ashamed of us we don't want you back and your stuck in that grass is not really greener country.

Ya I might grumble about congress and the govt but I earned that right and at the end of the day I am damned proud to be an American and support my country. If you are ashamed and unhappy go somewhere else but don't feel bad when we don't want you back lol.

The Bot

The Syrian rebels are terrorists. They are the Al Qaeda, our sworn enemy. Why would we come to their aid by attacking the sovereign nation's government that is at war with them?

Im from the UK so i wouldnt profess to have any knowledge of how your congress would vote however, what i can add is that even in the UK a lot of effort via propoganda is still being pushed. This is even to the extent where today, the MSM is reporting that pressure is being put on parliment to now hold a new vote with regards to a strike on Syria.

Its the main story on Sky News at the mo, here is the link.

Syria: Pressure For New Vote On UK Strikes

Doesn't seem like I was that far out.

This is a set up, as outlined in the OP.

What's the betting some of the chemical weapons are hijacked during transit by the Islamic extremist rebels the MSM has been pointing out over the last few weeks??

reply to post by Wonderer2012

i think we'll have another benghazi-esque attack blamed on assad, then obama will say "you grilled us for not doing anything last time, and now is the time to act".

oh, btw: if one of our embassies was attacked by "assad", obama wouldn't need congressional approval to strike. it's under the war powers resolution, he'd have 60 days to respond however he sees fit, and another 30 days as a "withdrawal" period.