Britain has shown that it is more democratic than the US by allowing parliament to vote for or against Syria war. The outcome of the voting was against war and they are going to respect this decision.

Whereas in the US, there is no sign of any voting, it is more or less a unilateral decision by the President's office. What is the point of having Senate and Congress if they cannot make any important decisions that could change the face of the earth.

The rhetorics of war has always  been one sided towards the aggressor. The aggressor justifies attack because Syria supposedly killed 1000 people, but the imposed war could kill 100,000 people or more like was the case in Iraq/ Afganisthan.

So ultimately the US rhetorics of war is this. You are not democratic, you killed 1000 of your citizens, now we will bomb you to depose your government even if 100,000 are killed.

Giordano, What Obama did in Libya was unconstitutional and he was lambasted for that move. That is why he is currently scared to do the same thing in Syria. He sounded serious, he sounded like he was determined, but he does not have the guts nor the authority to do this again in Syria. That is why he is seeking congressional approval. Today, it is clear that the congress is not going to approve this war, so they are planning to not even put this on the floor since it would be an embarassing loss for Obama.

 Rethink,

"OK to Use Force for 60 Days

There have been numerous attacks -- including the Korean War, the Kosovo intervention in 1999 and the use of force in Haiti -- that were launched without congressional authorization. Each conflict sparked a debate about the scope of the executive's power.

Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith weighed in this week, saying he believes the Libyan action is constitutional.

Goldsmith, who worked in the Bush administration, noted that a combination of "indeterminate constitutional language" and the courts' having never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use force without authorization gives the executive "very broad discretion."

During the Vietnam conflict in 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in part to make clear that there should be more limits on the president's power to use military force. The act allows the president to use military force without congressional authorization for 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise."

And do u guys even know why US prez is called commander in Chief??? If the prez can't go to war without congressinal vote just take out the commander of chief tag from his post but War power resolution provides him that tag. and yes he can act alone for military intervention. It has been proven many times in US history be it be in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Panama, Libya, Lebanon or Iran. Comparing Britains PM to US Prez by illumnation is a complete BS. Thats what I have been trying to prove but again I don't like wars. 

Giordo you are really stuck on the vested power of the president. First of all for every one analyst that believes that Obama has the constitutional right to go to war unilaterally, there will be another 10 analyst that believes that the move is unconstitutional. Check out links below.

• Washington post article says Obama is unconstitutional
• Tom Tancredo, 5 term congressman says Obama is unconstitutional
• 140 House members say Obama need congressional approval
• Washington Times article on Obama's unconstitutional war on Libya
• LA Times says, The constitution is clear that Obama needs congressional approval
• Earnest Istook from Harvard University's institute of politics says Constitution required Obama to accept congressional decision on Syria

And to top it all off, even Obama and Joe Biden said the same thing when they were campaigning for election.

• Obama himself said Military action without congressional approval is unconstitutional

So it would be naive to keep repeating your stance. But you are correct that there are people who believe differently, which is perfectly fine. But at the end there is no correct answer and everyone needs to decide with their gut feelings what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that he is commander in chief does not mean anything. Even Nepal army has Commander in Chief which does not mean he can go to war whenever he feels like it. They are answerable to the political system that gave them the position.

 LOL....you guys can google but cant use ur common sense....illumnati compare Britains PM with US prez and here comes this guy comparing Nepali Army Chief with US prez......Ayt constitution is all for same even for President. If he was unconsitutional why wasn't he impeached? 

And commander in chief mean nothing re. kati hasnu. lets say congress pass the vote to go to war but president don't want to he can veto it. If he wants he can. he is the one who gives the green signal not congress. thats wat commander in chief is. I have already given many examples above be it bosnia bombing by Clinton or Libya attack by Obama. And if you say it is unconstitutional what are the congress doing?? because they know he has that power.

Giordo your LOL's are decreasing the seriousness of your claim in the same way Obama is backing away from making any statements about Syria right now, after realizing he has very few supporters for this unnecessary act of aggression.

I think it's better to wait and see what happens instead of repeating the Libyan carnage like it was written in your bible.

 LOL again....wait and watch re....i said he already proved it...he doesn't have to prove it again....only if british parliament agreed to go to war he would have acted it alone......now dont repeat ur quran.

As we can see with the turn of events, Obama is scared shitless to make this unconstitutional move, which he did bashfully during the LIbyan episode.

No matter how much he roared at first claiming he had the authority, he knew that without Congressional approval, it was unconstitutional to go to war. So as it stands, the congress has disapproved Obama's request and now with UN and Russia taking lead to allow Syria to depose of their chemical weapons peacefully.

It seems like Giordano knows more about presidential power and the US constitution than the president of the US and the US congress.

 @illumnation,

Obama and scared? u must be drinking kool aid bro. syrian has agreed to give control of their chemical weapons. Now who is scared??? Obama still hasn't made up his mind. but again diff US prez on diff ages has proved that they have the authority to act alone. I have given many examples above be it by clinton on kosovo or obama on Libya. 

I am not talking about syria only but the past where US prez had acted alone so many times with out congress and u r like they don't have that power then tell me y the heck clinton attack kosovo and obama attack libya w/out congress? and if u say it was unconstitutional why weren't they impeached. got answer????

“The president, of course, has the authority to act, but it is neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken

Giordano you said ".obama won't stop now. if congress fails he will attack the syria as he has that power"

Congress failed him but he is not gonna attack Syria. Looks like you were wrong awwwwww sorry to have to burst your bubble.

Now stop crying like a baby and accept you were wrong.

 LoL illumnation I am waiting for my answer? Can u prove me y wasn't obama impeach since u told me it was unconstitutional. aba Syria le Obama ko agadi ghoda teke pachi k ko war ma janu ni but as i said he still has that power if not answer my question?by the way congress hasn't voted yet so he is not failed.