Should the fact that so many people are opposed to intervention in Syria

[hedgehog]

itself be a reason not to intervene? That is, without the firm support of a majority of the American people, we should stay out of this?

If so, what would be the threshold number, 51%? 60%? 75%?

[GeorgeGist]

1. 67%

[polichick]

2. Well, it would be in a democracy.

[mike_c]

3. in my mind, public support or lack of support is irrelevent....

An unprovoked attack is a war crime, plain and simple. And the leadership that orders or directly abets war crimes is best described as criminal. That in itself should be enough to deter our leadership from launching military hits for any reason other than self defense. But a steady belief in American exceptionalism seems to be a prerequisite for high public office these days, so that the crimes we commit aren't really crimes, you know? Unless they're committed by someone else.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Well, the decision to go to war shouldn't be a public referendom.

Thats what we send elected officials to Washington to do. However, when a substantial majority of the public don't view war in Syria as a compelling national security issue, and are mistrustful of the barrage of propaganda and lies emminating from the WH, then members of Congress should give great weight to public sentiment when casting their votes. "Should" being the key word....what will actually happen is scores of lobbyists will descend on the Capital, grease the palms of Congress, and Congress will vote their benefactors.

[hedgehog]

6. Can you give your reasoning as to why going to war shouldn't be a public referendum?

I can see why we shouldn't go to war in the heat of the moment, but should Congress ever approve a war that the public does not approve? (Not would Congress ever do so, but should it do so.)

[delrem]

8. Have a vote: go to war again, or go to a Lady Gaga concert. What's the dif?

Who gives a shit if the US is or isn't attacked, or even threatened? It's all for entertainment.

[hedgehog]

10. I think the attitude you are expressing is becoming more common, and shows

that people are losing faith that the US is a representative democracy. If the US takes military action against Syria without the majority support of the American people, the worst damage may be here at home.

See Reply 9 for a similar reaction.

[delrem]

11. So why not have a vote for a mega Gaga concert?

At least Gaga is an american. The Syrians are not, and voting to blast away yet another ME country according as the PNAC/MIC schedule is kinda... *illegal* under international law, y'know. "US democracy" doesn't cover votes for/against bombing shit out of countries that haven't attacked the US. Like Iraq. Regardless of the fact that the US population likes feeling that important and powerful and ... moral to the point of godly.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. We stopped being a representative democracy long ago. nt

[HooptieWagon]

12. Because most of the time, the public is wrong.

Examples:
Spanish-American War... William Hearst's newspapers beat the war-drums to generate popular support for war against Spain, then the Maine explosion (which was a smoldering coal bunker fire that migrated to powder storage hold) was falsely represented as a direct Spanish attack. Although the US won an overwhelming victory, and picked up some former Spanish colonies, the war served no real purpose. 45 years later, the Colonial Era ended.

Iraq War- concieved from the get-go by NeoCons to profit corporations, the war had something like 90% public approval due to claims Saddam had WMDs, was responsible for 9/11, etc. We know how that turned out.

WW2- An opposite example. There was strong isolationist sentiment during the thirties, despite it being well known Germany and Japan were building up war machines in over-drive, and making their imperialistic plans quite evident. Even as war broke out in Europe, public sentiment was strong in staying out of it. FDR faced a lot of public resistance in supplying England and France prior to US entering the war. Outrage over PH caused a 180 flip in public sentiment (causing some to claim it was LIHOP)...but one has to wonder what would have happened if the Japanese hadn't bombed PH and invaded the Phillipines (US Colony at the time). Quite possibly public anti-war sentiment would have kept US out of the war, and Germany would have held on to Europe. Britain already had repulsed German air attacks, so they would have held off an invasion...but for how long?

So, the public in large is misinformed, vulnerable to propaganda, and unaware of capabilities of US military (tendancy is to over-estimate). Thus, the public should not be the final decider...ie: a public vote on war. However, that doesn't mean Congress should completely ignore the will of the people either. On paper anyway, they are in DC to represent the people (although we all know who really pulls the strings)

[hedgehog]

13. Good points.

[Rowdyboy]

16. You expressed my views better than I could have myself. Doesn't mean I support

bombing in Syria, just that popular opinion is not the way to make major decisions about anything.

[LibAsHell]

5. Just look at the conservative response

Even most of them don't want it. When you've got those people against military intervention, you've got your answer.

[Chan790]

18. Many of those conservatives automatically oppose anything the President supports...

as a reactionary position.

If the President wanted to give them ice cream and Ronald Reagan lapel pins, they'd declare ice cream a communist plot and Reagan a liberal.

[LibAsHell]

19. True

In this case, I'll take it.

[malthaussen]

7. The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

The Congress is instituted to be the representatives of the people.

-- Mal

[wandy]

9. Without the support of the UN.......

Without the support of NATO.
Without even the support of a collation of the foolish.
Without support of the American people.

Just like the ignored plea for reasonable gun regulation, when the cruise missiles fly, it tells you who is in charge here.

And it Ain't us.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. This ain't no Democracy.

[Jeneral2885]

17. Were that many people opposed when

the US and NATO bombed Serbia/former Yugoslavia in the 1990s without Congressional vote?

[SunSeeker]

20. 90% wanted universal background checks for gun purchases and that didn't pass. nt

[Cha]

21. Oh crap.. there is that. Anyway, this debate is far

from over. As Senator Warren said.. "We are now in a state of flux."

Sunseeker

[Myrina]

22. POTUS is always saying "Make me do it" ...

Well, in this case we are saying - loudly and clearly - "DO NOT DO IT".

Think he'll listen?