With a Thursday night vote in Parliament restricting UK Prime Minister David Cameron from joining the U.S. in a military attack on Syria, the question now forefront is whether or not President Obama will ignore larger calls for caution against intervention and launch an unilateral military assault against the war-torn Middle East country.
If he does so—and the White House indicates the president remains undeterred—the U.S. will be proceeding without a mandate from the U.N., a war resolution from Congress, or even a NATO or broader international coalition designed to legitimatize such an attack.
Click Here: new zealand chiefs rugby jersey
As the Associated Press reports:
And the British aren’t the only ones backing away from earlier statements about the urgency for military intervention, with McClatchy reporting:
Also striking, especially in contrast to the Parliamentary action in the UK, is the continued absence of real debate inside the US Congress over the use of force against Syria. As The Nation’s John Nichols wrote on Thursday:
And going further, author and peace activist Norman Solomon writes at Common Dreams that though consultation and a vote by Congress is key in terms of democratic process and constitutionality, no one should be fooled into thinking that congressional approval will somehow make an assault on Syria a just or wise course of action. Solomon writes:
_______________________________________________