The question is not so much the UN security Council vote, but how that process is thwarted by Russia. The only member of the UN Security Council with a direct involvement is Russia - the arms supply to the Syrian regime- and of course a "yes" vote is a non-starter. China as usual abstains.

The US policy is to bypass the UN and go with an International coalition. Such participants were burnt once by Bush - Iraq. They are now Chamberlin-like and do not see the need to stop any government from acquiring WMD and use it. This is n contrast to the US policy.

The US President war powers (to protect the US, especially after 9/11) and the constitutional ruling of Congress as the body to declare war, are nebulous matters in the decades since Nixon. Obama has wisely chosen to involve Congress. His challenge is to get others in addition to France to go along. NATO and the Arab League are partially there - condemning the us e of chemical weapons - but shying short because of the Iraq hangover.

Obama was presented with an economic mess (and a determined blockade by a TEA-Party insurgent GOP), and now with the terrorism mess his hands are further tied (by previous allies) because of actions of the previous Administration. He has a challenge indeed.

Most Americans are against the war. All Obama has to do is take a poll. 

United States also votes against issues at the UN.

Security Council votes...D-G....Security council.....

The Syria initiaive by the Obama Administration is not about the imminent danger to the US. It is about Israel and Iran. Remember Obama's "shot actoss the bow" talk? It's to send a message to Iran to not go nuclear or else. Israel will simply not go away. It has enormous nuclear weaponry and an air force that is sophisticated and skilled. Other than the thorny Jerusalem question Obama sees a historic opportunity (like universal health care) to get a Mid-East peace. Israel is investing heavily in the West Bank high-tech inductry and other than the Hama-backed Gazans the Palestinians are ready for peace with the border question and reparations almost settled.

It will be interesting if Congress votes down the planned attack how Obama reacts. I think if he doesn't convince Americans to attack in the limnited way he proposes, he may well back off and the Syrian civil war that started as a protest for bread and butter until Assad reacted in the only way he knows, will spread with more outside money, weapons and jihadists.

Of course, Security Council votes is the focus, Kari.

Syrian civil war that started as a protest for bread and butter

Kari where did you get that from.

It was a continuation of the so called "Arab Spring" which did not turn out as the US wanted.

We have long lost the moral capacity to defend Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and right now, we don't have the financial resources to continue down that road.

That said, I sincerely hope the Arabs learn sooner than later how to live together harmoniously or their demise is going to be sooner than later. They cannot continue to destroy each other as well as their resources at the rate that they have been over the past half century.

And I am never concerned about Iran because the Iranians have been around as long as the Roman Empire and they don't have a history of invading other nations and I doubt they will start now. I never get swayed by the government 's doom and gloom stories about Iran.

The Arab "Spring" was about throwing off the dictator yoke that kept a stranglehold on the people AND about bread and butter. One fed (not pun intended) into the other.

I'm not sure how you jump to "did not turn out as the US wanted". This "opinion" of yours reek with a built-in bias before you begin a sensible discussion, PointblankMind. The Tunisians have a government that's not doing the job of democratization. Morsi tried Islamic dictatorship. And in both cases the people are letting the new democratic governments know about it. Where on earth did "turn out not as the US wanted it" factor into all this.

Stop being plain stupid!!! You are better than that. Keep any Islamic anti-US bias out of this and think of the PEOPLE. Islam is getting hijacked left, right and center, and good Muslims need to take control - like the Christian Reformation when it was 1500 years old (like Islam today) that weeded out the destructive elements (the Crusade and inquisition and witch-burning; etc.). We Muslims have to put an end to our witch-burning.

Kzaaaz....good points. The Persians are a proud and educated group of people.

The Arabs are splintered along old tribal lines and with some divergences from orthodox Sunni practices of Islam. We all do not like the Israelis "Jewish" state and the occupation and apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians. These are things that historical forces like the holocaust and the shipping of non-Semite Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe and those West European Jews who fled to Brooklyn, helped shape. Israel now is in a position that Arabs have to cooperate with, and the sooner the better to end the injustices of Israel.

And that is why it is necessary for the Arabs to learn to live with each other. Of course a United Arab League does not get rid of Israel because Israel is there to stay. But a United Arab League puts pressure on Israel to discontinue their illegal operations especially the continued illegal expansion of settlements in Palestine.

There are too many tribal differences, each with its own interpretation of how to exercise Islam.

If they can get along with people of different religious, social and economic background I don't see why they can't get along with people of different tribal background.

We uppity Georgetowners had no problem getting along with folks from out of Georgetown.

The present day disunity has more to do with outside interference than tribal differences. Look back to the 1916 Sykes Picot agreement.  And today, with oil, the West still wants to interfere.

The British and French agreed to divide up the Arab world between themselves. The British were to take control of what is now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey.

quote:

The political mess that Britain created in the aftermath of WWI remains today. The competing agreements and the subsequent countries that were created to disunite Muslims from each other led to political instability throughout the Middle East. The rise of Zionism coupled with the disunity of the Muslims in that region has led to corrupt governments and economic decline for the Middle East as a whole. The divisions that the British instituted in the Muslim world remain strong today.

TI --- the prestigious historian.......

Americans are still on a guilt trip they let the Jews go to the slaughter house under the Nazis. Their support for Israel has little to do with morality and more to do with regrets their own anti antisemitism allowed jewish genocide.  It is also not about financial resources since the size of this economy is still the highest contributor of global GDP. Further, commensurate to quality of life it is still the greatest lure.

And the Persians do have a long history of invading and pillaging and plunder. Iran's problem is mullah rule.  When the official interpreters of holy writ is the ruler as well there cannot be good outcome to government. It already has the drag of its build in bias