My Rep voted no on Obama's Syria plan. Here's why:

[cali]

Congressman Peter Welch voted against the plan because he says it has virtually no chance of succeeding and will put the U.S. in the middle of a Syrian civil war.

Welch says this vote was one of the most difficult that he’s had to make in the eight years he’s served in the U.S. House.

Welch says there’s no question that the organization known as ISIS is a terrorist group that’s promoting a radical agenda by using extremely violent tactics in the Middle East and he says it’s clear that ISIS must be stopped.

But Welch says he has serious concerns about the President’s plan to arm and train Syrian forces.

“This plan does not have any reasonable prospect to success,” said Welch. "What it would do essentially is have us be trying to train five to six thousand Syrian rebels and it would get us engaged in the middle of a three year old Syrian civil war.”

Welch says one of his biggest concerns is that the plan will drag the United States back into a very difficult situation in the Middle East and that American troops will eventually be needed.

<snip>
http://digital.vpr.net/post/welch-votes-no-obama-plan-arm-syrian-forces

He's a really, really good rep- just as good as Bernie was.

[trumad]

1. Bernie was?

[cali]

2. Bernie was in the House before he was in the Senate. n/t

[trumad]

4. Got it.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. I oppose, too!

[Enthusiast]

6. Kicked and recommended!

I agree with Congressman Welch.

[scarletwoman]

7. So did mine, and I'm glad.

http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2014/09/house-passes-syria-measure-mccollum-nolan-bachmann-oppose
<snip>
Nolan has long been opposed to wading into any conflicts in the Middle East. In a Tuesday floor speech, he said the United States should focus on targeting terrorists that attack or kill Americans, but not fund or undertake a long-term mission against them.

“We have given arms to every element in this conflict with the notion that somehow the enemy of our enemy is our friend, and at the end of the day we have no friends in this conflict,” he said. “It’s time for this Congress to step up and assume its responsibility.”

[RoccoR5955]

8. Good. I am against it too

For two main reasons:
1) You cannot bomb people and expect them to respect you. This just breeds more terrorists.
2) This is part of a civil war, and it is not a good idea to take sides in a civil war. Let the people in the country settle it for themselves.

My alternative would be to start a Manhattan Project style program to get renewable energy to EVERYONE, and give it to anyone, anywhere who wants it for free. This would be good for our economy, and great for the environment. It would also make the resources that is the main reason for fighting in the Middle East, oil, obsolete, and make groups like ISIL irrelevant.

[sammythecat]

9. I'm with you 1000% on that

Especially the Manhattan project part. It's that important. Trouble is, big oil and the other owners of the government are in no hurry to get off oil. There's just too much money to be made the way things are right now. Unless, of course, they themselves come up with a patentable cheap alternative energy.