To my American cousins:

Do you think the vote will be in favour of or against the military action President Obama desires?

It could go either way, depending on how well the administration makes the case that Syria must be sanctioned militarily for violating international agreements by nearly all of the world's governments prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.

It is good to see that the President stayed true to his pre-election promise and will not initiate action without Congressional approval. This is the way it should ALWAYS be unless our nation itself is under threat of imminent attack. Then and only then, should the President be permitted to unilaterally use force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

I am greatly relieved that the President has chosen to do the right thing. (But I guarantee he'll get attacked for it by those whose only interests are to seek political advantage in any crisis.)

My guess, though, is that a limited strategic strike against chemical weapons delivery sites and systems will be authorized. But the vote will be close, particularly in the House of Representatives.

I have no idea how it will go.

I am glad the president showed the backbone to do the RIGHT thing. This is the right thing no matter what he spoke about red lines. I have to say he showed political courage. I commend him.

As should we all.

If you are reading this thread, Danny, don't worry. On your behalf, I have already reported that your account was hacked into.

:)

If the vote is influenced by party politics, do the lines fall roughly into Hawkish Republicans and Dovish Democrats, or does each party have its own divisions?

In foreign policy matters both parties definitely have their own divisions. Neo-con Republicans, for example, will likely favor intervention, while those who lean toward libertarianism and the tea party will probably be opposed. And there are hawkish Democrats as well, particularly when if the issue is seen as a matter of protecting innocent citizens from the use of chemical weapons. The whole hawks and doves dichotomy has changed considerably over the last forty years.

Thanks, Bob. How about your local representatives, do you have an inkling as to how they will vote?

Anyone else in other parts of the US, how do you think your local representatives will vote?

I'm really not sure how they will vote. Again, a lot depends on if they are persuaded that the situation demands this kind of response and that military action will produce a positive result. And, frankly, I'm not so sure myself how I would vote if I were in their position.

I'll listen to the Congressional debate and then decide which position is more persuasive to me.

For sure. I gather that the main meat of intelligence has been supplied by Mossad, who have a reputation for efficiency and ingenuity, but of course have a vested interest in Syrian politics, understandably.

After the Syrian Governent have been taken out by our American cousins and changed to one which is an enemy of our American cousins, then what are our American cousins going to do next I wonder.

Commit troops.

Our American cousin Obama is in SHOCK after FSA admit they did the CHEMICAL ATTACK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VVEC8Aro7w

But it is intersting that our French cousins are foaming at the mouth for war, ain't it?

Very.

Incidentally, President Obama said that the UK Parliament "failed to pass" a similar motion. I would suggest that, in fact, the motion was "rejected".

Don't get too hung up on the phrase "American cousins", Tommy, it's the language of diplomacy, nothing more.

Don't "failed to pass" and "rejected" mean the same thing? Kind of like, "He failed to win the election" and "He lost the election."

The US government will be at war in Syria , sooner or later.

I see you're back with the links to Alex Jones's BS. The fact that you give credibility to anything that crazed conspiracy theorist rants about never ceases to amaze me.

I think it would be accurate to say that David Cameron "failed to pass" or better still "failed to get through" the motion. Parliament, made up of elected members, did not fail to do anything, they voted against it, with a reasonable majority; they rejected it. In the same way, when Parliament passes a bill, they do not succeed, they vote in favour of it, they accept it.

It is slightly nit-picking, but the devil in politics is in the detail, as it is in so much else. If our democratically elected Parliament had voted in favour of this motion, I dare say President Obama might have said that Parliament had voted in favour of the motion, not succeeded in passing it.

Tom.

It's fun to nitpick about silly things sometimes. True, it wasn't Parliament who failed, it was the motion that failed.

I think Obama, had the motion passed, would probably have said that military action had received the support of the British people. (Sounds a lot broader than just saying "Parliament.")

Yes, that has the sound of Obama. I listened to the live broadcast and pulled my wife in to hear it. Even though we both have nuanced views on this issue, she couldn't help, as always, being carried away by his delivery.

(Apologies for getting sidetracked. This thread is really about US politics, not our parochial nonsense.)