the resolution allows actions outside of Syria. BTW

[G_j]

'in connection with chemical weapons'


If passed, it would give Obama power to use the military in a way he deems “necessary and appropriate” in connection with chemical weapons to deter their use, and to protect the U.S. and its “allies and partners” against the threat of such weapons.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319825-obama-send-congress-syria-strike-resolution#ixzz2dv8o7Kyh

[cali]

1. what a shock. Not.

[G_j]

2. will members actually READ it?

[hobbit709]

3. About as many as read the Patriot Act.

[Earth_First]

4. I'm sure AIPAC was not without it's meddling in this clause...

More and more this is playing out like an affront to involving ourselves in Iran on behalf of Israel.

[G_j]

7. certainly

leaves the necessary loopholes

[another_liberal]

5. We will have to attack Lebanon, of course.

As to Iran? It would be the logical next step (toward the gates of hell, that is).

[G_j]

6. Iran

kinda rings a bell

[rdking647]

8. anyone who thinks we would use the resolution to attack anyone besides syria

is really paranoid. syria deserves a targeted strike,hopefully aimed as assads family (like his brother) to show that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated

[n2doc]

9. Probably true.

If Iran gets directly involved against us we won't bother with a resolution before attacking them.

[G_j]

11. what tends to make me just a bit "paranoid"

is deliberately ambiguous wording in resolutions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Dear Congress

WE WERE NEVER THREATENED UNTIL WE ROPED OURSELVES INTO A WAR OF CHOICE OVER EGO!