Congress may vote ‘No’ on Syria attack

The fact that they even consider it is proof positive that they are simply terrorists, and that whoever they represent, it sure isn't the American people that I've read and heard from, it sure isn't for the benefit of Syrians(we can hear and see what they think with just a few clicks).

Anyone with a brain cell would understand that the first US missile that hit Syria would be an act of outright aggression, no more and no less. Syria have not threatened, declared war on, or hurt America. Even a moron can figure out that the motives cannot possibly be well intentioned, not unless you somehow think you can 'help' people by killing people. Which is a pretty brain dead logic of course.

It's an utter disgrace that good people are sitting there while these effing lunatics, chancers, traitors and scumbags play god with people's lives.

The only small saving grace is that Cameron scored a fail when he tried to drag us into it, Blair style.

Congress? Remains to be seen. It strikes me that the nefarious cabal were sure that the same narrative would work smoothly as before, and have discovered that it hasn't.

People are not buying their reason, their logic or their 'evidence'. People are not buying their proposed tactics either. It may well be that the nefarious cabal will press ahead regardless. That would be the worse case scenario for everyone save for them. Or it may well be that they decide to figure out a way to back track and still come out looking good(they need to, feeds their giant ego).

This was interesting...


"According to analysis conducted Think Progress, lawmakers in the House are leaning towards a “no” vote with regards to approving a strike against Assad to retaliate against his alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilian last month outside of Damascus.

Compared to earlier in the week, lawmakers in the House are now more likely to vote against authorizing a strike. The website reported Thursday morning that 199 US representatives are expected to shut-down any strike against Syria, with 49 lawmakers in the House looking towards voting yes. "

Think Progress says their latest research reveals a drastic change that has occurred literally overnight. According to their reporters, 30 new lawmakers are now likely to vote against a strike, while the group of those expected to approve military action has only accumulated three new representatives since the previous day.

The latest figures posted by Think Progress were updated Thursday morning, only hours after lawmakers in both the House and Senate discussed what action, if any, should be taken to reprimand Assad’s regime.

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-to-7 in favor of using military force in Syria, but the full chamber will have to weigh in before a strike is agreed upon. Meanwhile, the House isn’t expected to vote until next week, and at this rate the lawmakers in the Republican-controlled chamber of Congress are likely to reject a plan that would target Assad.

The Obama administration said previously that they want to launch a limited, proportional strike in Syria that would degrade Assad’s capability of using chemical weapons in the future. And while the Senate committee gave him the initial go-ahead on Wednesday, others in Congress aren’t quite certain how to move forward.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), a libertarian-leaning lawmaker with staunch isolationist views, said he opposes any use of force overseas. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), another leading Republican in Washington, complained earlier this week that the latest plan of action isn’t aggressive enough.

According to Think Progress, 149 Republicans in the House are likely to disapprove a strike on Syria, while only 13 are expected to vote in favor of using force.

http://rt.com/usa/congress-syria-vote-no-466/

 

Military attack on Syria will prove not in American people's interests , except for the armaments suppliers who'll no doubt profit from it.

"NY residents have their say on Syria in town hall"

As a vote on US military action in Syria looms, some US lawmakers are holding constituent meetings to hear from the voters directly.

The BBC followed Congressman Tom Reed, a Republican from New York, as he spent a day speaking to his constituents.

Many of the people who spoke opposed US action.

"What I'm hearing today is, which something I've heard consistently across the district, is great concern about authorising military force in Syria," Mr Reed said.

While others at the meetings argued the US should act, by the end of the day Mr Reed was leaning towards voting no.


Watch video :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23975600



U.S. intervention in Syria is a slippery slope. If initial military measures don’t work, pressure will build for stronger action using the argument that American credibility is even more on the line. With a $17 trillion national debt and war fatigue from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the American public, as shown by opinion polls, has no stomach for the deep involvement in Syria that the pundits crave.


-----
....

 

I wish RT would go all the way and stop calling them 'rebels'. FFS, if Britain right now were having to fight against a few thousand thugs and extremists, imported from other countries, would we be calling them 'rebels'? If an external force were to fund various fringe nutter groups in the US who then tried to attack the US army and citizens, they would be called murderers and terrorists.

Anyway, with that being said, here are your 'rebels'. This is the side that the US state/Gov are on. Not you American people. Your usurped and out of control Gov and all it's hangers on, your McCain's, Kerry's, even old bastards like Kissenger never seemed to just FO in US politics.

Listened to the entire interview that Assad was gracious enough to afford some American called Barbara Walters. How he had the patience to field her inane questions framed in a brain dead manner is beyond me, but he did and he did well.

I long for a day when we can crush that Murdoch media empire here and simply disallow them from publishing or broadcasting anything, as they have shown themselves not fit for purpose. People talk about 'hate speech', but his entire media network routinely promote hate speech in one form or another. Among other filthy little acts they've been found culpable of. And while we are on the media here, I long for the day the BBC can be purged bottom to top, and if it cannot be so, then it has lost any standing it ever had.

During said interview Assad was asked if he would let foreign journalists in. He said yes he would (Walters, the dummy had been there for two days!). However, he said this would only be done within the guidelines of the Syrian constitution, in other words, those journalists would have to respect it and adhere to it while there. What's wrong with that? I doubt Americans would welcome an influx of foreign media into the US, if they just did and went wherever they liked. He was asked if the journalists would be permitted to go around without the army, to which he fairly pointed out that if they went into the areas in which the terrorists are, without the army, they would be putting their own lives at risk.

Which is again a good and valid point.

How many people know that Syria plan elections for 2014, in which his Presidency will be up for grabs? He has made that public declaration, as well as making the declaration to stand aside if a rival emerged that simply had more of the backing of the Syrian people. It's nearly the end of 2013, so what's the problem? A change to that sort of process takes time, and to commit to it for 2014 strikes me as fine(not that it is really anyone's business what style of Gov Syria or anyone else want).

Anyway, here are the terrorists being supported by McCain etc.

**

A video smuggled over the Syrian border by a former rebel features a mass execution of government soldiers by the Jund al-Sham group fighting Assad. The latest example of rebel brutality comes as Washington prepares to intervene into the conflict.

[video=youtube;YYTkttBBIfs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YYTkttBBIfs[/video]

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-execute-soldiers-497/

 

This is fundamental to anybody with influence. Should they vote for illegal and aggressive action North America will become an outcast from the union of civilised States. Just like that other criminal entity, eh ?

 

Don't forget these 'cravers' ...

U.S. Jewish groups call on Congress to approve use of force against Syria’s Assad


http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.545297

 

Yes Jack, that sounds encouraging but still I suspect that in the end the Republicans will cave and go ahead and vote Obama his unprovoked war into existence. I hope I am wrong, but I feel it in my bones that they will collectively turn into spineless little weasels on this issue after doing a certain amount of political posturing beforehand.

 

Good. There are no positives for America attacking Syria. None.

 

Sadly, I have to agree with you.

 

what about profits for the war machine ?

 

Obama's handlers know that since this is his last term, they can pretty much get him to do whatever they want, since his re-election does not hinge on it. They could get him to sanction something that will make him hugely unpopular in the US, but when the dust settles, it won't matter to him, and it won't matter to his handlers.

Why would it? What is the worse that can happen to him? Nothing. He would be retired anyway, and they would probably find him a cushy job doing something, or he would be put out to pasture giving 'talks' for big money.

I really sense, esp away from just forums, that Americans are really not buying this at all. I've sensed their frustrations gradually grow for a time now, they don't want to be stained by another action such as this, they want their Gov to take care of some matters at home for a change. Which is what logically would happen were there Gov not merely agents for internantional bankers and the war machine.

Possible scenario. Obama gets his orders to issue the orders to strike Damascus. Results, length of time, the blowback is all(surprise surprise), far worse than they will try to convince you right now(too late to put the genie back in the bottle once they do it though).

Things really start to escalate bad in all manner of ways. The anger of Americans boils over at their Gov, given that they do not want this. They take to the streets in large numbers, larger than for many years. Obama gets his order to give his orders to confront these Americans. Robustly. Americans get shot and killed during the protests.

How tragically ironic would that be?

And where could it then go from there? I know for a fact that there are ex armed forces, current armed forces and law enforcement agents who do not support what is going on with America. If Americans were shot by their own police or troops even during a mass rally, I honestly think we could see many of those former troops leading the fight back. I think they have known it was coming for some time. And I think the state have known it too imo.

[video=youtube;XunOXRiOv0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XunOXRiOv0E[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

I think he means for American people.

 

Israel is really egging this thing on behind the scenes.

 

Well, I've said this before - a large part of the vote that put Our Glorious Messiah in office were the same people that hated W's war policies - and there's no way His Majesty can do the same thing without reprecussions, especially for the Dems running for (re)election in 2014. He'd alienate his base of anti-war liberal loonies - but as long as the Legacy Media loves him, you won't see too much of that on the air.

That he'd become just like Assad, firing on his own people? It would be ironic, although Our Awesome One would get compared more to Nixon with Kent State - like Obama isn't being compared to him enough already.

 

There is no ideological difference between the chemical attack or a strike with cruise missiles (both tyrannical in nature), the overall effect is the same. That is the ongoing organisation of the Syrian and US populations (chemical attack or cruise missile strikes both cause terror and/or fear, and by that change and organisation) And resisting tyranny will also cause mass organisation (that's why there are two kinds of media, pro system and anti system (in mind), compare e.g. CNN and Infowars, opposites, but the propaganda from both is causing the same; change and mass organisation. What will happen after a no vote on Syria, will the Syrian people see more tyranny, or will this episode end and shift to Iran again?

 

You mean the military industrial complex? No.

 

I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I was against the invasion of Afghanistan, because I didn't see how we could win either of those situations.
Our military is very expensive, but they just aren't capable of prevailing in those conditions.

With Libya, it was different, it was the kind of thing that our military is good at, supplying a little english to a situation to help it fall a certain way.
And Moamar Ghaddafi was a terrorist who had attacked the US, and despite his being welcomed back into the good graces of the nation by W, I still felt we had a score to settle there.

With Assad, it's a tough call, on the one hand, we won't get involved beyond a few airstrikes and some missile launches, and it's in our interest to keep the Baathist party weak, the main goal of the Baathist party is to bring about the state that T.E. Lawrence wanted to see, and what the vast majority of arabs wanted in 1919, a united Arab state, which would be a military and economic power far beyond anything there now, and lets face it, if such a state had been created in 1919, there would be no Israel today. And such a state would essentially change the balance of power in the region, to the detriment of Israel.

But if we are to finally become non-interventional in our policy, I applaud, and look forward to the substantial savings to be realized by reducing our military to a self defense force, rather than foot the cost of being the global police.

 

the military industrial complex is a lie because both MSNBC and FOX agree that it doesn't exist

 

Balderdash.

 

Will russia and china chose to defend americans against them terrorist?

 

Absolutely so.

Here is what they were trying to get me to believe yesterday.

Don't take a sip of anything while reading this, as you may choke with laughter.

They were actually trying to sell me the idea that Washington and Tel Aviv are effectively at odds over this.

They were claiming that Israel want Assad to remain in charge. Lol. Oh really. So this (if true), would mean beyond all doubt that what Israel want and what the US Gov want are opposed to one another.

What else can it be, since the US Gov have shown their hand and already said those two words 'regime change'.

Yup. This is the garbage I am expected to believe. That the Israeli Gov would rather have Assad, and that by definition the US Gov are doing all they can to remove Assad, which would put their objectives on a collision course were it true.

Of course it is not true. Tel Aviv and Kosher Washington dovetail just fine on this, as they do with everything else. To even suggest that they have a conflict of interests here is just a scream -

Moreover, if this really was the position of Israel, one must ask why two thirds of Israeli's polled voted for a strike on Damascus. After all, they want Assad to remain in power do they not? If that were true, then Israeli's would be voting the other way in those polls.

Furthermore, Jewish groups in the US came out last week and stated their position. They 'urged' Congress to murder people in Damascus.

This distinctly sets them apart from everyone else, be they American, British or French, who all polls indicate do not want action against Syria.

Meantime, something to ponder...

[video=youtube;ND0w9HaN-go]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=ND0w9HaN-go[/video]

[video=youtube;bRxb5pQB_T0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=bRxb5pQB_T0[/video]

 

How? What can possibly happen to Obama? Please tell me. What? What happened to Blair, Bush, et all? Nothing. That is the whole problem man, they are their handlers have positioned them above the law. Obama would be retired, and probably be given more prizes and awards, as well as a role as 'Middle East Mediator'. Or just be allowed to fade into the background.

He doesn't care about the next election. He doesn't care about the Democrat party, or any other party. He has no true ideology, and neither does either party in the US anymore, and neither does any of the establishment parties in London anymore.

Think of it like a one party state but with different sides to the party, to give the impression of choice and representation.

The ONLY way Americans (just good people all over the World actually) will ever shift these gangsters and sex offenders out of our establishment is not to hope we can vote them out, or that they may suddenly wake up one day and see where they have been going wrong. The only way is going to be out there in the streets, and getting in their faces as much as possible.

If Cameron worked some tricks to get us back into it, against the wishes of the people, then it is going to the streets bigger than ever.

I will stand right at the front, and know what, if the British police or army want to open fire on me, a British citizen, then so be it man. We all have to die somehow, some day, and it would prove to others how far they are prepared to go against US, the people. Likewise, if during it they killed any other protestors, I would regard it as an act of war against the people of my country and act in accordance with that.

 

s this what your chosen people are planning to do?

Bombing Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, & Iran is not America's Target.

They are the target of those who hate what America really is.

They hate the American Western Civilization that brought so many miracles to the world.

And Syrian Christian Israel culture is the Foundation Stone of Western Civilization.

 

You mean as opposed to all those times they each did so for us in the past? According to history, the answer remains 'no'. Why do you ask?

 

What if Syria shoots back with deadly aim?

 

List of countries bombed by the United States under the pretext of establishing democracy since the end of World War II:

- China 1945-1946
- Korea 1950-1953
- China 1950-1953
- Guatemala 1954
- Indonesia 1958
- Cuba 1959-1960
- Guatemala 1960
- Belgian Congo 1964
- Guatemala 1964
- Dominican Republic 1965-1966
- Peru 1965
- Laos 1964-1973
- Vietnam 1961-1973
- Cambodia 1969-1970
- Guatemala 1967-1969
- Lebanon 1982-1984
- Grenada 1983-1984
- Libya 1986
- El Salvador 1981-1992
- Nicaragua 1981-1990
- Iran 1987-1988
- Libya 1989
- Panama 1989-1990
- Iraq 1991
- Kuwait 1991
- Somalia 1992-1994
- Bosnia 1995
- Iran, 1998
- Sudan, 1998
- Afghanistan, 1998
- Serbia 1999
- Afghanistan, 2001
- Iraq in 2003
- Libya 2011

 

Big thanks Jack for the list of USA democracy slaughterfests.

In the meantime,
On 7 December 1941, 56 ships and 414 aircraft of the Empire of Japan carried out the equivalent of a 21st Century “surgical strike” against the United States territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor causing the destruction or crippling 16 ships and 347 aircraft costing the lives of 3,649 dead and wounded Americans. The following day, 8 December 1941, the United States declared that a state of war now existed between it and the Empire of Japan thus entering America into World War II.

Today the full might of the United States is preparing for its own Pearl Harbor type “surgical strike” against Syria utilizing at least two aircraft carrier strike groups, at least 10 cruise missile capable destroyers and submarines, countless numbers of B-1 and B-2 bombers, and an intelligence apparatus that guarantees near virtual success in destroying just about anything they so choose. The day following this anticipated US strike against Syria, World War III will have begun.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1704.htm