IMO, this was his best way out. It's a very pragmatic move, meaning that he believes he has the power, but realizes how unfavorable the option to use it is. If he goes to congress and they tell him no, not right now, he gets to save face, while coming out more popular all around as opposed to straight unilateral action. In the end, the congress gets to really exercise their views and the President gets to save face.

No way it's approved. I'd be very surprised if for some reason it is. But, at least he goes with the congressional blessing.

Personally, the vote was the best idea that I could come up with. We need to turn up the pressure on those who are in the middle east to police their own. They need to be called out and pressured for their own lack of action or passive acceptance of the status quo.

Kudos to Obama. The way all of these military actions should be decided whether this has a purely political motive or not. And as a political move... A+.

I'd respect him more if he simply said he believes the red line has been crossed, but realizes that going forward without any international support would cause a lot of harm to American interests.

He looks weak if the vote fails. If it succeeds, it's his to carry, just like Bush gets to represent Iraq in the needless my-ego-was-challenged war Hall of Fame. And it's no-win in the Middle East. Either he supports the Muslim Brotherhood as he did tacitly with Egypt, which is not our friend under any circumstances, or he goes against a ruling party/dictatorship that could have at least been non-hostile (look how the Egyptians feel about him today).

As bad as he's been on domestic policy, his work in the Middle East has distinguished him as hopelessly not ready for the international stage.

It really seems like the process of becoming president eliminates any potentially half-decent candidate long before we get to vote.

I like the whiplashed description. Its good that he thought it out.

The White House walk-and-talk that changed Obama's mind on Syria - First Read

Isn't that basically what he said?

Looking forward to the Sunday pundits talking. I think the scenarios are

1) Congress votes no, Obama does nothing much
2) Congress votes no, Obama goes ahead with some military action
3) Congress votes yes, Obama does nothing much (unlikely)
4) Congress votes yes, Obama goes ahead with some military action
5) Congress delays/defers vote, Obama does nothing much
6) Congress delays/defers vote, Obama goes ahead with some military action

I think its either 2 or 6 with some non-UN coalition cobbled together.

No doubt its 5 or 6. The spineless house will never put their names to a vote on something like this. The GOP can't go back to their districts and face their voters after voting not to kill more brown people and the Democrats can't rebuke their president. (Wonder if they do end up voting and voting against Obama if it will be because they are racist like every vote by the GOP against Obama is always explained)

I am hoping for 1 or 3. The media is spinning this already as a historic backdown by the United States. Like JPhillips mentioned earlier we have been involved in 40+ years of endless war and now if we don't bomb Syria then the world balance of power will shift overnight. I'm sure even if we don't go to Syria that we will continue bombing Yemen and Pakistan and probably be in Iran by the end of next year. I don't see this as the end of US meddling in the Middle East. (unfortunately)

Have we figured out where the chemical weapons were built? Russia? Korea?? USA??? Iraq????

...or can they just build them themselves?

Isn't it about time to bomb Japan for WMD?

Seriously, this is a huge problem that nobody in charge seems to care about.

Off topic for the thread but I just saw a commercial attacking Paul Ryan from the right on the topic of immigration.

Is it just me or are Republicans as splintered as I've seen in my 31 years? The Democrats have been there too, I know. I just wonder what the endgame here is for Republicans.

Doubling down on more and more rigid views for years now isn't a path to continuity.

I think the party is going through a pretty big evolution at this point. There's a lot of Republicans like me who want the religious/overly conservative part of the party to go f%$# themselves. They're so out of touch with anything that they're a detriment to realistic policies. As you note, it happens in all parties every now and then. It's going to take some time to figure out whether the two sides of that battle can work together, if at all.

I want to agree but there are some Muslims more aligned to us which we should try to help. Good to see Sarah back in the headlines.

Sarah Palin: 'Let Allah Sort It Out' In Syria

I suspect you answered your own question there, to the point where I believe it was almost rhetorical.

The MBBF wing vs the JIMGA wing of the Republican party :)

Painful watching Kerry this morning, feel sorry for him. "we are stronger for it ..." is a reoccurring phrase.

I would seriously consider resigning if it as him. Not his fault but he was embarrassed.

The media needs a sideshow. Might as well quote Justin Bieber, too. Neither would have much chance of locating Syria on a world map.

In the s hook lunch debate...I want someone to figure this shit out.

So apparently the dept of education partially finds school lunches, and so long as a kids lunch meets certain guidelines it meets criteria for funding. A my sons school, a daily lunch is 3.25... No complaints.

But only if he gets 1 entree, 1 fruit, 1 additional carb side (pasta, potato or rice), 1 grain (a roll), and a milk.

My son ( who is pretty darn healthy at 5'11" 155lbs and wearing a size 14 shoe at 12) doesn't like the pasta,potato, rice option and doesn't drink milk. So his usual school day lunch is the entree of the day (usually pizza, burger, chicken sandwich or whatever else they serve..occasionally meat loaf ) an apple and water. If he doesn't take the milk, carb and roll he has to pay a la carte pricing.

That's 7.00 for a piece of pizza and an apple.
So his solution (according to the district food services group) is to take the extras and throw them away...if he shares his food or milk with another student that is grounds for expulsion..."to prevent food tampering or poisoning".

My son doesn't drink whole milk, th school doesn't offer skim milk..so he throws out an unopened milk carton every day...along with some rice and a roll.

Stupid.

And don't even get me started on the composition of that meal.

Don't agree with you on much, but you'll get no argument from me on this.

Stupid & inflexible for sure.

I know this is probably dumb but ... what do they do with kids that have dairy or gluten allergies?

Do they just screw 'em to the ala carte plan?

Good for Kerry. Wonder what he really thinks of Obama.

In Syria delay, Kerry may prove himself a team player - The Washington Post

Hopefully some additional support is coming. I get Turkey (with airbases etc.) but what can Saudi and UAE really do to help.

Sources: 3 countries offer military assets for U.S. attack on Syria - CNN.com

Shits getting real - England up their national security level ...


(sorry couldn't resist)

Who knows what Syrian rebels were carrying in Turkey? But you know things are a mess when Russia is making the most sense when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama is playing Twilight Struggle and he has no idea what future cards may contain. This bombing cannot happen.

I find it amusing that the conservatives (mostly on tv and in Congress but could be applied to some on here) all of a sudden have found Jesus and are anti-war and the world is going to come to an end if we attack Syria. Don't get me wrong I am anti about every conflict the United States meddles in but...

A) Obama is just continuing a long tradition of the United States trying to police the world. Why he is getting so much backlash is a bit suspect.

B) If Obama does decide to strike Syria it will lead to civilian casualties and likely United States soldier casualties but not WW3 and not anything of the order that is being predicted.

It's hilarious that the same groups of people that were all up Ron Paul's ass after the Republican primary debates about how we can't show any weakness in the Middle East have now adopted basically every reason he gave back then as reasons on why we should stay out of Syria. (Which I guess I should be happy they now believe though I have trouble believing 95% of them really mean it)

I find the straw men amusing when it comes to defending our president's rash and ill-considered international policies. If you can't defend the policy, just make stuff up about those who criticize it. This is a proposed bombing that will serve no purpose other than preserving Obama's own ego.

Of course, I've been wrong before. When Bush decided to invade Iraq for different but equally specious reasons, my reaction was horror with a little bit of relief that there was no way he'd be re-elected in 2004. We all know how that worked out. Wars may play poorly on the international stage, but we Americans seem to love seeing them on CNN from the safety of our own living rooms.

The bottom line in both cases is that there is/was no national interest in going rogue and starting a war with little-to-no international support. And we might be unpleasantly surprised by the Russian toys Syria has accumulated in recent years. We have absolutely no idea what the end game is here. Russia, laughably in its case, has made a strong but reasonable statement. Far more long-term gain will come from listening and holding the Russians to it.

Sure it can.

It shouldn't ... but it can.

Add me to the list of people who are tired of us being the world police.

Same.

EDIT: There is something to be said for fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. However, I think we need to be more selective in how we do that.

SI

I'd add the same for many of these economic aid packages that we send to some of these countries. There's some situations where that needs to be yanked on the spot if certain countries don't step in line. I mean, we're talking billions of dollars going to countries that don't even support us for the most part.

I'm not sure I've ever agreed with Mark Steyn, but he nails this:

"If you don't do what we want, we'll have TSA agents at every checkpoint and stop and frisk in every major city." Then we'll see who wants to mess with us...

SI

Some wins include Panama, Bosnia, Serbia, Grenada, Iraq (Kuwait), Libya.

With that said, I'm not convinced that we can win Syria but think we can certainly help the more moderate rebels survive.

Another perspective, can't disagree at their conclusion. But respectfully, its not as if Israel's foreign policy is something we want to emulate either.

Israeli sources on Obama's Syria approach: 'Not how a superpower acts' | Fox News

Yawn. Hard to tell that Israel is even our ally these days, the way they act sometimes.

SI

What I got from that Israeli quote is that they are butt hurt that Obama didn't reflexively ask "How high?" when they said "Jump!".

Like if it made our gas prices go up.

Agree. Only correction I would make is all the time.

At this point, if there is a strike, I hope it's merely to kill Assad. But I'm tired of this, this is old school foreign policy that doesn't work. Our influence in these situations is always a negative. I am horrified at the deaths of the people in Syria though, I watched the videos. My feeling is that if America really wanted to win this, it would provide as much assistance to the refugees. If you could protect them, even evacuate them, you are providing to the rebels the ability to win the war as well as incentive to show that you can do something other than blow things up (generally with innocent people suffering as a consequence).

A few thoughts and or questions:

1) I don't it's just parents working that have kids are in more in structured activities or afterschool, but isn't part of it that it's become a bit of an arms race to make their children into the perfect people who believe it's the path to the best college or athletic success? Parents believe that their little Johnny or Susy are going to be Mr. or Mrs. Perfect.

2) With all of these structured activities and afterschool, how much independence and imagination/creativity is being lost? My friends, and I would go off on our bikes and race, play football in the yard, or just hike through the woods and play games.

3) In regards to eating foods/meals that are healthy and fresh, have prices inflated beyond regular inflation percentage rates? Is it too expensive? Ground beef is the standard go-to dish we ate, but when you look at things like wildly-caught seafood, it's pretty damn expensive per pound. How much worst has the quality of products gotten over the years due to processed crap, pesticides, hormones, GMOs, ect.?

4) It's quite scary how cooking seems to be becoming a bit of a lost art these days. It's not tough. Stocking up on easy-to-make "out-of-the-box" products or eating out all the time seems to become the standard dietary lifestyle.

Well, when you're told from top to bottom what "slots" need to be filled on the college application to even have a chance, at some point it's hard not to see what you're being asked to do. I'd say that's pretty much the motivation for at least 80% of the extracurricular activities (both school-related & not) of the highest achieving kids I know. Otherwise I suspect they'd actually, you know, rest & stuff.

I agree, parents and kids looking to be well-rounded, or look good on resumes and applications is another big piece of that, and moving down in age group every year. I think even outside of parents who are ambitious in that sense though, lots of families have two parents working and so need the structure for other reasons. It's a combination of both. Lots of other factors too, including the type of neighborhoods and communities people live in now which often don't promote or provide that space to play.

My kids benefit from parents who work at home, and so do our neighbors, so we're a rare breed. But I definitely think it hurts the imaginative, creative side, it's why we've chosen to work at home and be able to provide this while the kids are young. Hurts us financially for sure, but it feels like a good investment when I watch the kids playing out in the yard.

Huge part of the reason we as a nation are so fat.

It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't sugar/HFCS added to damn near everything. I probably ate the same volume of food when I lived in Italy, but in their packaged foods, sweeteners are almost always far down the list. For example, take a look at a jar of Prego or Ragu. One of the first few items if HFCS. None of that in a jar of sauce in Italy. A jar of Barilla sauce sent to the US has a different make up than a jar of Barilla in Italy.

The reduced amount of calories from sugar/HFCS, coupled with a higher activity level from having to walk most places makes a huge difference. I weighed 175 when I lived over there, and within a year of being back in the US, I was up to 190.

It's crazy how much sugar or corn syrup is in food here. It's hard to avoid even in things that you don't think of as sweet. We're not talking ice cream here but, yeah, examples like the above spaghetti sauce or salad dressing or any other soup or sauce or pre-made food.

SI

I agree if you're chasing after the top schools. But you have a ton of parents who want think their child is going to get a athletic scholarship to college.

So the foreign relations committee agrees with Obama about the need to intervene in Syria. I admit I sometimes miss things but can someone fill me in on how a country currently on "sequestration" is planning on paying for this.

The answer ...

The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates

Then again, I see a shocking number who do just that. And I don't just mean athletes that would stand out as anything beyond ordinary in some cases. My favorite anecdotal examples have to be the friend of the family who got 2 years of soccer scholarships from her D2 school, despite having never played a single second of soccer in her life, being 30 pounds overweight & never playing any sport above rec softball. Or the kid at my son's school who was offered a baseball scholarship from a baaaaad program in California, despite having only one hit in two seasons as a mercifully rarely used pinch-hitter. Things happen.

Still, I was really thinking more along the lines of non-elite athlete students who need to fill the "Sports" line item on their applications. That's a tricky thing in cases where you have to be training on your own just to make the team

I'm thinking of those like my kid - who will never be anything more than an average tennis player at best - who spent 4 days a week all summer working on his game just to have a chance at maybe being the last guy to see action in a varsity match sometime over the next two seasons. Or the guy back in my rural hometown whose daughter will struggle to ever make a below-average HS softball team because every single player that made the roster is playing travel ball & she doesn't. At least in many cases in Georgia, if you're going to play pretty much anything then you better be training on your own at a pretty high level & frequency. Otherwise, you aren't just riding the bench, you aren't making the team period.

And with better colleges getting several times over the applications they can accept, every single line on the resume counts.

We are not mercenaries. The US Military is not the French Foreign Legion...of course, they are mercenaries, perhaps the Arabs should call them. Or...you know...take care of their own business.

Regardless of why, right or wrong ... we are going to do it anyway. its smart to get them to pay for it.

I disagree. We will lose control and credibility...and what if they dont pay? And what are they paying for? We already put ships and missiles in the region....the cruise missiles are paid for....what other major costs are we about to inherit? 75000 ground troops? Because the financiers said so? Who are the financiers in bed with? The Al Qaeda? No thanks. Id rather we just go it alone for our own interests.

I'd rather we had hit them within 24-48 hours of the initial gas attack. Now it's like spanking the puppy when you discover his poop in the house 8 hours later: you might feel better, but he didn't learn anything from it...

Yep. I lost 27 pounds in 4 months in Spain, and 18 pounds in 2 months in Japan. It's the diet and the higher activity level. Both cases, I came back to the US, and I ended up gaining all the weight back and then some (currently sitting around 210, and I was around 185 when I got back from Japan last summer after being 203 when I left).

Reading your quote from Kerry above it sounds more like a guarantee to pay if we put boots on the ground in a full scale government overthrow than for a missile strike.

#1: I agree with Dutch that we shouldn't start having other countries fund our military excursions. (American lives have always had a dollar value but never had it been made this clear)

#2: I agree with Dutch again... so what happens if they don't pay? More invasions?

#3: How much for a missile strike? How much for a bombing? How much for troops on the ground?

I give Kerry credit for at least half-answering the question instead of the normal DC dodge but the answer is still ridiculous. How are they going to pay for it out of the budget? Obviously the Arab countries are not going to pay for this.

I know the answer... more debt. I just want to hear it from the warmongers.

I feel like with each passing day that we drag this out (in making a decision), it makes Obama and Congress look even more foolish.

Just to clarify, this wouldn't be the first time other countries have contributed cash towards a military exercise conducted by the U.S.

I watched some of the hearing the other day on TV. The entire thing looks ridiculous. Sitting there on a TV that is broadcast worldwide announcing everything we're going to do and what our end purpose is makes us look like total buffoons. I'm much like some of the other posters. Either drop a bomb on them when they don't have any idea it's coming or don't do it at all.

Discussion about who the real bad guys are in this fight.....

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West - NYTimes.com

OK but I serously doubt they are going to completely fund it and reimburse us for all of the costs. So again for a country that had to cancel White House tours due to the dire financial circumstances where do we get the money for this?

Good. They should look like fools, its a foolish idea and even their tv networks can't spin the video of hearings to make them look good. And good grief give me a break that all of these countries are waiting to gas their citizens and just waiting for the United States to do nothing so they can go ahead with their own mass genocide. How arrogant a notion that without the US bombing brown people all the time the ruthless dictators all over the world will kill everyone. (Not directed at you MBBF but the media and worldwide spin that they need the US to do something when we all know they will critisize the US 10 minutes later)

Home cooking. Smaller meals. More active lifestyles.

I've started home cooking far more (I've been trying to be 'active' for a fair few years now) - I'm also avoiding any American snacks, although I have imported a fair few English potato chips (Wotsits and Quavers being my favorites) sporadically (88-96 calories vs 200+ for the equivalent American pack) to stop my kids from rebelling against my healthy crusade ;)

MV: See, these are HEALTHY potato chips!

Sorry, made me chuckle. You're right that eating at home more often is by far the best way to control the calories.

dola

Ridiculous move by the IRS. Likely going to get rid of automatic gratuity at our events at the winery. Yet another way they're only hurting the little guy in the end. Businesses will just drop the practice so they don't have to account for it all. Wait staff will see a decrease in tips because people will get sticker shock at big dinners or events and will short the tip to avoid having to pay more than they already are.

IRS Rule Leads Restaurants to Rethink Automatic Tips - Yahoo! Finance

Damn them for, you know, making sure people actually report their taxes properly and not cheat as easily.

SI

Also, I am /shocked/ that yet again, the government does something and you blast them for making it harder for you to cheat your employees and pay your fair share be it by giving them automatic tips under the table or forcing you to give them health care.

SI

LOL!!

Should we also tell Mizzou that tips are technically income and should be reported on 1040s?

Disagree with your last sentence. I don't think I know anybody who would get sticker-shock at a big dinner (and I've been to some big dinners) and short the tip. If anything, it's the opposite in my circle. We tend to overtip, and having the automatic 18% gratuity for large parties has probably led us to just consider that the tip and under-tip where as a smaller party we might tip 20% or so.

Fwiw, I've seen it happen quite a bit at stuff of that sort, so I do get where he's coming from on that. People can & do flinch when they realize how much somebody was about to get for "a couple of refills & carrying a plate"

How is it in any way, shape, or form cheating his employees?

Servers will be forced to report their tips as income. Costing them money.
Employers will have to pay a payroll tax on that income. Costing them money.

Who is benefiting here, aside from the government?

The whole tipping industry is so bizarre. Why don't we tip on how many times somebody has to help me instead of the cost of food? Just always been a bizarre concept to me.

If you get sticker-shock at the cost of the tip then you shouldn't be going out to dinner IMO. Especially if it's a nice dinner/a huge group of people.

{shrug} I'm just confirming that it happens in this specific situation. And it's something I've heard servers talk about for years.

I don't control who goes out to dinner nor how they react to the bill nor the tipping custom.

We don't have dinner in my case. We'd be talking about the alcohol bill. People will agree to have an open bar for a certain amount or all night long. Then at the end of the night, you present a bill for anywhere from $2,000-5,000 depending on the size of the event. Suddenly, the tip on even that $2,000 bill goes from $360 assuming a mandatory tip of 18% to a tip of $200 or 10% even when great service is provided. While $200 may be a good amount of money to any person, it doesn't work out well for our staff. It's a tough situation.

I find that most of the time automatic tips = crappier service. The whole tip-based idea is so that if you get good service you can reward the server (who in turn rewards the busser, etc). If you get crappy service, you don't have to tip as much (fwiw, I usually tip 15% as a minimum but I've been tempted to hit 10% on a few).

Yeah, I didn't do the best job of splitting up the subject and verb there so it got muddled:


cheat your employees = forcing you to give them health care
pay your fair share = by giving them automatic tips under the table

Wages should be taxed as if they were from any other source. I can't possibly see what is wrong with a situation where an employee is put in the awkward position of being expected to not report all income because it allows the employer to pay them sub minimum wage.

It's the same with any labor black market, be it paying cash to construction workers or nannies or yard work. It drives the wages for everyone else down.

SI

If similar to Libya
Here's How Much A Military Strike Against Syria Would Probably Cost - Business Insider

But its all dependent on the scope ...

Of course. National Security. Want transparency in Washington DC? No chance, a gas attack on Syrians is at the utmost level of our national security! If we don't act now... oh wait what exactly is going to happen to threaten the national security of our country?

It's an old mantra, much like "for the children" for any sketchy law that is passed. Oh well at least I am getting Hagel's lie so I will multiply that by 10 and should be close to the actual cost. Couple hundred million. Cancel more White House tours, close the national parks, because bombing this Middle Eastern country should finally bring peace to the Middle East once and for all. Nothing could possibly backfire with these rebels. If only we had any similar overthrow that happened in the past 1-2 years in the Middle East.

I like this guy's approach.

Arm and Shame - NYTimes.com

I liked the Onions suggestion of the 'offensive' consisting of sending all the politicans over there myself ;)

I second the aforementioned motion

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

SI

Well this makes 'American Intelligence' look reliable if its true ...

Syrian Rebel admits to using Chemical Weapons

Disclaimer - I have no idea about the websites reliability at all; but I've seen other sites such as the BBC indicate it wasn't clear which side has been using the weapons.

This one is probably the scariest foreign policy decision of my life. I was never real worried about any of the other "wars" we got into. There seemed to be international support. With Syria, I can see a major world conflict erupting. A WW3 type scenario.
Here is my worst case. And this is what worries me.


We bomb Syria or land troops or whatever other plan we have. Iran attacks Israel, Russia jumps in on Syrias side. North Korea sees an opening and invades South Korea. Japan jumps in on the SE Asia problem. UK has to become involved because they have to. China, worried about their U.S. holdings jumps on Russia. Or maybe sees an opportunity to own the U.s. and helps the Syria, Iran, Russia axis. And I see nukes in this one. End of world type of stuff.

Of I see bad things ahead. Lets just let it ride this time.
Or I could be paranoid.

I can see Iran attacks Israel. I can see Russia supporting Syria but not direct confrontation with US (are their anti-aircraft any good?). North Korea probably can't invade South Korea but could lob a nuke.

Japan is pacifist. They'll hang back and protect home turf. UK will side with the US. Don't see China jumping on Russia or helping the Axis of Evil part deaux.

I don't see end of world but could see another market crash.

You're forgetting about the stimulus effect. We'll actually make money by bombing Syria.

All I know for sure now is that Syrians did it, so while our smart bombs are not going to be effective in this regard, the carpet-bombing B-52 will still suffice.

Daily bombings are a great way to lower their morale and get them to stop fucking around.

EDIT: I mean, as an alternative to doing nothing, that is.

So what you are saying is that I should rethink my Disney investment?

Yes.

I admire McCain for standing up for what he believes in and facing up with his constituents.

McCain again faces skeptical constituents at Syria-focused town hall - First Read

This is something I seriously don't get about politics.

Chemical weapons are bad .... makes sense.

So to reinforce that Chemical weapons are bad its best to kill people using convention weapons (i.e. smart bombs etc.) regardless of collateral damage and death toll .....

I'm sure thats a great consolation to the dead, what killed them undoubtably makes all the difference to their families.

Seriously - as far as I can see its a dirty war on both sides in Syria - there are no 'good guys' and its not likely to stop regardless of whatever posturing or action America takes; so the only reason for America taking action appears to be in order to say they did.

Stuff like this just drives me crazy. Forget about where the money is being distributed. Why the hell are we giving $150M to the Palestinian Authority???????

Palestinian Authority takes $148M from US, doles out ‘grants’ to convicted terrorists | Fox News

I think Obama is really digging himself in a hole. The Red line statement he made the other completely backtracks against what he CLEARLY said a year ago. His statement from August 2012:

“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Now, he said this statement this week:

“First of all, I didn't set a ‘red line,’ the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty.”

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America’s and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

If you're going to take a stance, back it up. And then trying to spin a statement you clearly said a year ago on behalf of the US, then to switch the blame on the rest of the world, when they aren't supporting you, isn't going to work. Not a fan of trying to play all sides, and I think it really is making us look weak internationally, and makes him look weaker, and most importantly, he doesn't seem to have the support of his citizens on a grand scale. He's really painted himself in a corner, and one that could have big implications.


Home cooking just tastes so much better too--provided you're using raw ingredients and can follow a recipe.

Are the restaurant portion sizes bigger here than they are in the UK?

Massively so, and also people just don't eat out as much in the UK as they do here. A restaurant or fast food was maybe once a month treat in our household and I don't think that was that unusual (maybe more so now)

May I ask, What SE Asia problem?

I don't see it. Iran supports war-by-proxy against Israel, but won't initiate anything unless someone tries to bomb their nuclear facilities. Despite the rhetoric from the old religious guard, Iran likes the idea of progress as much as anyone in the region.

North Korea is all about North Korea. It's a volatile situation, but they know if they actually initiate an attack that destabilizes that region, that's the end of China's support. Best thing we can do there is quietly praise China for keeping the peace. Or more importantly, not doing anything to embarrass China.

I can't see any scenario where China initiates an attack against Russia. Too expensive for so many reasons, and I think the bottom line there is that there's still a lot of resentment and pain for what Japan did to them. They would be reluctant to be the aggressor.

Sadly, the biggest wild card here other than individual terrorist activity is whether the U.S. is willing to bomb Syria without international support. Then Russia will help Syria, but without committing troops. Syria's citizens take even more damage, and we'll eventually go home, tail between our legs. Hezbollah, with Iran's support, probably starts another round against Israel, most likely from Lebanon. Israel, hopefully, can defend itself without taking out what's left of Beirut from the last round.

The really shitty part of all of this is that a lot of people suffered under Mubarak in Egypt, and Assad in Syria is just as bad, if not worse. But the alternatives suck even more.

I don't know where Obama is going with this. He confused or pissed off just about everyone in the region over Egypt and Libya and I doubt he even knows it. Every adviser worth anything has long since left him to his own ego cocoon.

At least if you are against the war like me you know that Hollywood always takes a principled non-partisan stand on important issues like this. I love what Sean Penn had to say... " " and Tim Robbins was his usual brilliant " ".

Mark Vaughn, I think you may be misreading me. I am in support of the elimination of chemical weapons from Syria as a first step. I could honestly say that I don't care to support limited, ineffective military strikes because it won't achieve that goal. So, if we don't go all out--first as a "united nations" and then as the lone world military super-power--then I say we do nothing (at least for now).

I do not support "pin-prick" strikes, embargos, no-fly zones, or other limited policing/limited political victory bullshit that does nothing to keep these weapons out of the hands of our true-adversaries (modern day international terrorists like Al Qaeda) that train on how to properly and effective strike fear into the hearts of everyone by any means necessary.

I find that the western European argument for "look away and do nothing" extremely disappointing after all the bemoaning after Iraq about limited involvement. That shows weakness on the part of the Europeans and Russians moreso than what Obama is experiencing by their rebuttal, to be honest. I was encouraged by the French willingness to support, however.

Until I see the "united nations" as willing to do something, rather than nothing, I support Obama's unilateralism effort. And until I see Obama explain the end state/goal of military strikes towards an acceptable end-game (the elimination of Syria's ability to use *or export* chemical weapons) then I don't support his efforts either. This is something that we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I realize it's tough to be a hard-ass on the world stage, but the Arab world is politically rigid right now and there is no room for anything but for us to dictate what they can and can't do with WMD's until they provide modern, responsible leadership for their people and their neighbors. The USA and Russians are playing a dangerous political game, but the reality is that the Arabs cannot be appeased and will never be appeased under the current hard-line ideology of terror-hostage based Islam rules. The Europeans and Russians would be wise to at least acknowledge that instead of pretending that the Syrians are the victims of "American aggression"...and we, as Americans would be wise to acknowledge that this fight doesn't end with some random cruise missile strike on a "pharmaceutical plant" in the Syrian desert.

Yes hugely so - back home more emphasis is generally placed on 'quality' when eating out rather than quantity ... although I did notice in the last 5-10 years that a few lower rung establishments have started going with the 'larger' portions rather than better quality (Hungry Horse pubs etc.).

In a similar manner if you're vegetarian or similar eating out in the UK is a breeze compared to here (my wife watched a pro-veggie film the other night and is considering going back to being vegetarian, she was when we first met).