Senate Committee Agrees to Allow "Tailored" Force in Syria

6.82K

Cord Jefferson

09/04/13 07:11PM

Filed to: syria

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee today approved a resolution allowing President Obama to use military force to intervene in Syria's civil war. The resolution passed by a vote of 10 to 7. The matter will now head to the full Senate for a debate and vote next week.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the resolution's success with a statement saying he and his colleagues "commend the Senate for moving swiftly and working across party lines on behalf of our national security."

The resolution opens by stating that it authorizes "the limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria. Whereas Syria is in material breach of the laws of war by having employed chemical weapons against its civilian population."

You can read the full resolution below.

[Image via AP]

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

Arden Cord Jefferson 09/04/13 07:49PM

I think it's just so gosh darn cute that the United States, the country that used Agent Orange (on children), Napalm (on children), and Atomic Bombs (on children) thinks it has the moral high ground in a discussion about chemical weapons use on civilians.

Fancypantz Arden 09/04/13 08:06PM

Yeah, because the US is a nation of hypocrites we should just ignore all international treaties and conventions from now on.

JustJakey Fancypantz 09/04/13 08:34PM

I don't think there's any provision in a treaty that obliges the U.S. to launch cruise missiles every time some country violates international law. Can't we try a different tack for a change?

Context-Free Kelsey Grammer Arden 09/04/13 08:45PM

If I have to listen to one more fucking person compare Agent Orange to Sarin, I am going to throw up. If you get a tiny drop of Agent Orange on you, you will feel nothing but you might have a higher chance of getting cancer in 20 years. If you get a tiny drop of Sarin on you, you die a horrible death, foaming at the mouth as your nervous system shuts down, your brain screaming at your lungs to take a breath as your diaphragm is paralyzed. The two substances are not fucking comparable!

I'm not saying Assad ordered it, but whoever launched Sarin at a neighborhood full of civilians was not trying to fucking defoliate the rebels. They were not doing so out of an indifference towards their long term cancer rates. They were trying to kill the fuck out of as many people, combatants or civilians, as quickly, efficiently, and terribly as possible, knowing full well that they had absolutely no way to shelter themselves or otherwise avoid the gas.

Raphael Jarvis Sloan Arden 09/04/13 09:13PM

Ancient history, shill for Assad plz go...

Young Mozzarella Sticks Cord Jefferson 09/04/13 07:31PM

Fuck all the Obama-bots who were fear-mongering during the 2012 election that a Romney president would end the world.

What has the Obama's second term brought us?

-A new war in the middle east.

-The appointment of a deregulation-fetishizing plutocrat as the next head of the Fed

-The embrace of the national security state and unjust persecution of whistleblowers.

cyclonus007 Young Mozzarella Sticks 09/04/13 07:40PM

If you could please explain how a Romney presidency would have not done any of what you listed, I would appreciate it.

Because even Romney couldn't get that message out and he was the actual candidate.

ARP2 Young Mozzarella Sticks 09/04/13 07:47PM

And you think Romney would have been a socialist dove? Obama is a centrist (at best). Romney was to the right of him, so all your complaints would be amplified under a Romney presidency.

Arden Young Mozzarella Sticks 09/04/13 07:51PM

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Sen. Obama, 2007.

I miss Senator Obama...I don't know who this guy in the white house is, but he's not the dude that was talking about Hope and Change to me all those years ago.

Obliterati Arden 09/04/13 07:58PM

Yeah, he should have totally taken this to congress before he started bombing Syria!

Err, wait...

nothinglikeadame Cord Jefferson 09/04/13 07:52PM

Rubio and Paul both against? A non-interventionist wing of the GOP is developing. Interesting. Perhaps a Rubio/Paul ticket in 2016. I think the Democrats are making a big mistake here. People are tired of war.

Arden nothinglikeadame 09/04/13 08:20PM

I don't know if it's so much non-interventionist instead of "do the opposite of what Obama wants"

get0ffmylawn nothinglikeadame 09/04/13 08:27PM

Well Rubio was saying we should have done more sooner and that we should be doing more now, so his objections don't really line up with Rand Paul's— not that that really matters. In the end he gets to say he voted against Obama's plan...

ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals Arden 09/04/13 09:00PM

I don't really give a shit what their "reasons" are. Your argument against aggressive military action requires much lower levels of purity.

WeirdNameYoullGetUsedTo Arden 09/04/13 09:31PM

How does that make sense? Many Republicans support Obama on this. Paul, as a staunch non-interventionist, doesn't.

Bill S. Preston Esq. Cord Jefferson 09/04/13 07:25PM

Why was it acting "on behalf of our national security"? I didn't think Syria was going to invade.

get0ffmylawn Bill S. Preston Esq. 09/04/13 07:32PM

I think the logic is that allowing anyone to use chemical weapons sets a dangerous precedent, which could be harmful to our national security in the future.

Lavarburt1 Bill S. Preston Esq. 09/04/13 07:35PM

You're probably confused by the term, I think you're using it in the conventional sense, used politically "our national security" means the business interests of my masters.

TheOmbudsman Bill S. Preston Esq. 09/04/13 07:43PM

This is about the use of chemical weapons, and the need to smack that shit down, hard and fast.

Where national security enters into it - if Assad (allegedly) used sarin on his own countrymen, and was allowed to get away with it, despite the Geneva Convention - then other parties may well feel they can use chemical weapons without consequence as well. And at some point, perhaps, on our people.

Bipedal Hominid TheOmbudsman 09/04/13 08:30PM

That seems like the rationale to me as well, but we sort of shot ourselves in the foot on that front when we admitted to helping Hussein deploy his chemical weapons against Iran.