I wish we would do what is the easiest thing to lock the election up in one day

[RB TexLa]

Wag the dog. When the president gives his acceptance speech just say that he is cutting it short because he just ordered the Syrian regime to be taken out and he needs to go and monitor the bombing.

[WI_DEM]

1. you've got to be kidding?

[RB TexLa]

3. No, I'm not.

[CreekDog]

24. it's as good as any idea you've posted here

[unblock]

2. can't say i agree, but if they're doing that, it would be in october.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. I hope like hell we don't-

can't agree with this at all.

[panader0]

5. Unrec

You really want the US to have another war??

[pscot]

15. Another Unrec

That's an insane idea.

[JaneQPublic]

6. Syria would be more like Iraq than like Libya.

Perhaps even as messy as Afghanistan.

Syria has a sizeable air force with lots of current technology, not to mention Russia on their side.

Rather than lock up the election, doing what you say would lose him the election.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Unilaterally going to war without even consulting Congress and without approval by the UN

would be a violation of the War Powers act and, arguably, be a case of aggressive war.

Because Iran has sworn to act if the U.S. attacks Syria we would quite possible be at war with Iran.

Russia, has consistently opposed any use of force against Syria and would block the UN from approving such, and would certainly feel compelled to rattle its saber.

People who are happy that Iraq is finally over and willing to see if Obama actually means to leave Afghanistan would be irate, and possibly just not show up to vote for the man who started another mideast war.

Who would actually vote for Obama that will now vote for Romney now?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. It would be horrible and not something I would be in favor of

but it most certainly would not be a violation of the War Powers act.

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. Syria has not attacked. us, so it could not be claimed as defense.

The President, under the War Powers Act, is required to consult with congress as a first step. If we are attacked, or if we are called to aid in a treaty agreement you can get around it. Even with Libya, President Obama consulted with leaders of the House and Senate before comitting U.S. forces. Siimply attacking Syria without consultatin with Congress would violate the letter of the act.

Would congress actually do anything? I don't think they will. They tend to be gutless in that respect. But he still must go thorugh the motions or it is a violation.

The U.N. is hogtied beause Russia and China can veto anythiing in the Security council and do not want the U.S. involved. So he would not have UN coverage for an attack.

NATO is not calling for us to lead on this, so he does not have a treaty obligation that would give him clearance.

Link to the text of the War Powers Act

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. I disagree

SEC. 3.
"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances..."

All it takes is for the President to say that circumstances, intel, whatever, were such that he couldn't consult Congress beforehand. So long as he does consult them within 48 hours, there is no violation.

Again, not something I think he should do, but it still wouldn't be a violation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. So you want the President to lie to Congress?

I didn't like that with Bush, and I won't accept it from Obama. Obama lying us into another war is a sure way of losing support from the left.

(1) We are not under attack, or even threatened by Syria.
(2) American citizens are not under attack or threatened.
(3) Our allies in the region are not under attack or threatened.
(4) The UN Security Council has not sanctioned involvement.
(5) NATO has not called for us to do this.
(6) Iran has said they will become involved if we do.
(7) The Russians and Chinese will not accept unilateral U.S. involvement and blocked a Security Council resolution.
(8) Starting another mideast war is not in our economic interests or world economic interest.
(9) Wagging the dog, in this way, doesn't win one vote already committed to Romney and it will cause problems with those of us, me included, on the left who are opposed to unnecessary wars.
(10) It will absolutely require that the Congress stop the reduction of military spending that they signed off on and are already trying to find a way to get around, and certainly will lead to a temporary increase in the military budget, which will hurt the economy.

We need jobs not another unnecessary war.

[randome]

8. Hide under your bed and we'll come get you when the election is over.

[arcane1]

9. Easy for who? Not the troops, or their familes. Not us, who have to pay for it.

Certainly not the Syrians.

[neverforget]

10. Put men and women in harms way just so the President can look strong? I think I am

going to be sick.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. We've already lost 3 wars so a president could look "tough". Why not one more?

[russspeakeasy]

12. Are you mixing your meds ?

[DearHeart]

14. That'll just piss off Iran

We do not need a war with Iran...not to mention, we can't afford it.[link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE87405Z20120805|

[Missycim]

16. Why would we attack Syria?

they pose no threat too us.

[Fumesucker]

17. Don't go changing..

We love you just the way you are.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. I can't believe I'm even reading this on DU! Advocating war??? W.T.F.????

People starving in the streets, living under bridges and makeshift tent cities right here in our own Country, and you want to advocate spending billions of dollars, along with killing and maiming more of our troops?? Has your cheese done slid off its cracker??

This is a joke, right??

edited cuz I can't spell lol...

[JVS]

21. I don't hope for starting wars as a cynical means of political gain with you!

[ret5hd]

31. Wait for a nastygram accusing you of stalking.

[quinnox]

23. Well, this tops your wondering why any American would object

to a military style police state on every corner. Yea, lets go bomb and kill some brown skinned foreigners, just like Bush did!

[MineralMan]

25. Well, that's a terrible idea.

For many reasons. And, it wouldn't have the effect you suggest it would at all. It would have the opposite effect.

Uff da!

[Brigid]

26. Ummm . . . no.

Now go take your meds before you hurt somebody.

[peace13]

27. No more war!

If it sounds grand replace your home town with the intended target and see you you feel!

[Odin2005]

28. This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

[leeroysphitz]

29. Yeah, and then he can nuke Tehran the day before the election.

Or maybe all he needs is a few Terror Alerts. Break out the Color coded threat levels again.

[marmar]

30. I think you post this stuff just to f**k with us.

nt

[Nye Bevan]

32. Please self-delete this. If it was humor, it fell flat.

If not, it is disgusting. I don't want a President who would order the deaths of thousands, probably tens or hundreds of thousands, to win re-election. After denouncing Bush for his illegal wars based on lies, what you are suggesting would be the ultimate last page of "Animal Farm".

[Generic Other]

33. You need to get out of the sun there...

In severe cases, heatstroke can cause brain damage...

[hughee99]

34. Lock up the election for who?

I don't think, "Hey, I just started another war" is going to lock up an election for him.