War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Redfish]

1. The United States have vital national security interest all over the world. You would have to go back to the 19th century to find a time when US vital national security interest was just about what was inside the borders of the country.

That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. It's simply an unsupported statement. "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason. Again, I asked for specificity. You gave us a bullshit talking point.



And big bombs aren't? Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages". Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military. Please.

Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.



Evidence? Link? Anything?

Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments. Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US. Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.

So far, that's one big fat fail...

4. Chemical Weapons use in Syria has proved more deadly than conventional weapons which is not a surprise. The facts: 1,469 Syrians were killed in the early hours of August 21, 2013. That is by far the highest death toll for any day in the Syrian conflict. It is higher than any single day in the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq. On average over the past year, 6,000 people are killed in Syria per month. In just a few hours on August 21, 2013, 1,469 people were murdered. If the weapons fired had been conventional explosives, the death toll would have been LESS THAN 10% of what was seen with chemical weapons!

So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons? How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?

Hint: It isn't.

Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.

Fail again.

Wow dude, that's just sad. You want to get us into another war, we get it. But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so. What you put forth is just pathetic.

1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.

2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.

3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

If all that is true, if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack? Where are our allies? Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Australia, Vanuatu?

Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?

BTW, why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs? He is just as dead either way. I would really appreciate an answer

 

[U2Edge]

Since the Syrians have had time to move all of the poison gas delivery systems into schools, mosques, hospitals and populated urban areas where Obama will NOT send his cruise missiles, what purpose will a strike serve?

It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.

A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.

Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands. Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized. Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.

With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will. We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then. The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.

Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads? That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.

I'd prefer that too seeing Assad gas 10,000 people in his next attack.

 

[Redfish]

1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!

3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.

4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!

5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.

6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.

7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!

8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.

By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.

That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.

Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.

flawed logic. Its none of our damn business. Let them kill each other until someone wins. Why are we the world's referee?

No one doubts the capability of the US military, we don't have to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.

 

[Redfish]

It is not so easy to move chemical warfare manufacturing facilities and military command and control hubs which would be the primary targets of such a strike.

A strike will also serve notice to any asshole contemplating using chemical weapons in the future that there will be expensive negative consequences.

Chemical warfare manufacturing facilities will not be targeted for fear of dispersing poison gas into the air and killing thousands. Military command and control hubs are legitimate targets, but will probably be empty or underground by the time a strike is authorized. Cruise missiles are not bunker busters and would be ineffective.

With his rocket launchers safely hidden he can resume gassing his people at will. We will probably be out of cruise missiles by then. The expensive part is the cost of replacing several hundred tomahawk missiles.

Are you prepared for two or three days of bloody pictures of dead Syrian men, women and children with missing arms, legs and heads? That is what will be broadcast to the world after a US missile strike.

I'd prefer that too seeing Assad gas 10,000 people in his next attack.

he has already killed over 100,000 with bombs and bullets-----but those people don't count? only the ones killed by gas count?

 

[RandallFlagg]

1. This not a humanitarian intervention. Its a missile strike designed to deter the further use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world.

2. Chemical Weapons are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The most deadly day in the Syrian conflict is August 21 when 1,469 people were gassed to death. That is SEVEN TIMES that average death toll per day in the conflict across the ENTIRE country. This is 1,469 people dead in a few hours in just the Damascus area!

3. Victory is the prevention of the further use of chemical weapons in Syria which will be accomplished by the missile strike.

4. The United States is not planning a no fly zone nor is it planning to take away Assad's chemical weapons capability. The goal is only to PREVENT, DETER the further use of chemical weapons and that will be accomplished with a cruise missile strike!

5. Well, technically anything is possible, but its not likely.

6. The United States is not trying to depose the regime with this missile strike.

7. Congress, the people representatives, will get to vote, and all indications are is that congress will support the missile strike. You'll find the polls all in favor once the missiles have been fired!

8. This is not about the Syrian Civil War, this about Assad and his use of chemical weapons and deterring further use of chemical weapons. That's it.

By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.

That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.

Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.

And again, were I you, I would leave this forum immediately and head to my nearest Army recruiter to get my Army career started - to protect the people of the United States.

Oh, that's right! I'VE already served and fought in a war.

Better get moving! Times a-wasting!

 

[U2Edge]

They will laugh off a limited strike. The US has to be all in to send a message. Like Charles what's his face said, if a limited strike is all you want, its cheaper to send a text and just as effective

-Geaux

They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.

You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.

You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.

Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!

I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.

 

[RandallFlagg]

A major poll today showed only 19% of Americans in favor of this war!!

Is it really wise to go to war with that kind of opposition??

Oobop could get impeached, couldn't he?

Breaking NEWS

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10-7, approves a resolution authorizing a U.S. military response to chemical weapons use in Syria!

Great, once again we declare ourselves the world's morality police and put our citizens at risk.

Every congressman who votes for this lunacy should be tarred and feathered.

Im no Constitutional scholar, but I KNOW this: The president can NOT authorize a declaration of war and the Congress can NOT wage war. Once the "limited action authorization" is given, it is up to Barry HOW it is implemented. it is solely up to HIM how the action is taken.

the left might trust this fool, but I do NOT.

 

[Contumacious]

[

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

Lethal Weapon

FBI's Use of CS Gas Questioned at Davidian Trial


After the first tank assault came the ferret rounds. FBI agents, riding inside M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, began shooting 40mm ferret rounds containing CS gas into every available window at Mount Carmel. (CS gas gets its name from the two American scientists who invented it -- B.B. Corson and R.W. Stoughton.) The agents used Army-issue grenade launchers to fire the projectiles, each of which contained 3.7 grams of CS gas dissolved in 33 grams of the solvent methylene chloride.

Any chance that a friendly country will fire warning shots into DC to stop them from using gas against their citizens?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[U2Edge]

Look at the bright side, if the rebels win and we help defeat them then we will have armed Al Quaida with WMD. But at least Hezbollah and Iran will be weakened right? Good for Israel right, good for Quatar and Saudi too! Good business for everyone. Go Amerika!

Essentially, that is 100% correct and something that the vast majority of these "Let's support our Supreme Leader Obama" types have failed to recognize.

(1) If we launch attacks on these sites - we will do nothing more than hit dirt. Assad has most certainly moved these stockpiles to a different location(s) and, probably continues to move them now. The NRO is probably tracking movements, but can only do so as long as the satellites are in the proximity of their last movement. It's really not that hard to move under the cover of darkness. HUMIT would be tracking them, as long as there are assets in the area. As in Iraq, it's really not that hard to move something, if you are inclined to do it.

(2) If/When Assad is driven from power, the "rebels" (or "Students" as Barry likes to call them) will take control of the country and will have access to the (estimated) 200 tons of CBR capability.

The idiot Martin Dempsey (I served with the man - he is an IDIOT) states that we can "insert special operations personnel to take charge of the munitions". Again - he is an IDIOT. You would need (at the very least) 2-3 battalions of Rangers to even BEGIN to have a clue - I'm sure that Russia and Iran would sit idly by for that.

Nope. We are sitting this up for Al Queada to swoop in and take yet another country.

You have to hand it to Barry though...He is most definitely "fundamentally transforming" not only America - but the world.

Just heard on the radio that Barry says "I didn't set a "red line", America set a red line. The WORLD set a red line". Jesus. What an incompetent slob.

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.

2. The strike is not designed to overthrow Assad.

3. There will be more than enough military targets to hit once the cruise missiles are flying. The Syrian military is engaged in the middle of a war. Many of the things the rebels can hit, can also be hit with U.S. Cruise Missiles.

 

[RandallFlagg]

They will pretend to laugh, but you won't see them using chemical weapons again. Assad is in the middle of a civil war and is struggling to survive. He can't afford to have US intervention against his military. His military already have enough on their plate fighting the rebels.

You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.

You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.

Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!

I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.

Uh-huh. So as long as men, women and children are being killed, to the tune of 145,000 - you're fine with that. But 1,500 are killed by Chems, and suddenly YOU are concerned. Gotcha.

I ain't buying your BS for one second.

 

[Contumacious]

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
.

Shalom

How are things in TelAviv?

How the **** do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?

.

 

[U2Edge]

That's not a specific reason why chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. It's simply an unsupported statement. "Because I say so" isn't a valid reason. Again, I asked for specificity. You gave us a bullshit talking point.



And big bombs aren't? Just because you label a weapon as a WMD does not make the case that chemical weapons in Syria are a danger to the US. And I call bullshit once again when you state these weapons "erode conventional military advantages". Are you actually suggesting the Syrian 'army' is threat to the US military. Please.

Still looking for that specific evidence of a threat to the US.



Evidence? Link? Anything?

Sorry, the "Because I can see the future" argument is as lame as your previous arguments. Chemical weapons have been around a long time, yet you provide no evidence that they'll be used against the US. Sorry, you don't know the future and you don't know what's best for everyone else.

So far, that's one big fat fail...



So you're bitching about the effectiveness of such weapons? How is that making a case that these weapons are a threat to the US?

Hint: It isn't.

Further, I can show you NUMEROUS instances in which FAR more deaths occurred on a single day than 1,469 using only 'conventional' weapons.

Fail again.

Wow dude, that's just sad. You want to get us into another war, we get it. But at least you should have some semi-coherent reasons for doing so. What you put forth is just pathetic.

1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.

2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.

3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

If all that is true, if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack? Where are our allies? Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Australia, Vanuatu?

Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?

BTW, why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs? He is just as dead either way. I would really appreciate an answer

China and Russia are not U.S. allies.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.

Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.

The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.

 

[U2Edge]

By your "reasoning" our overthrow of the Iraqi government after they used chemical weapons should have prevented their use in Syria. Didn't work then, won't work now.

Still haven't made the slightest case of any threat to the US.

Pass.

That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.

Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.

flawed logic. Its none of our damn business. Let them kill each other until someone wins. Why are we the world's referee?

No one doubts the capability of the US military, we don't have to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.

Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.

 

[U2Edge]

You are a walking contradiction. It's Ok to slaughter men, women and children. No problem there. Use Chems and we're all over you.

You really don't have a clue, do you? You're nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for that idiot in the White House. If you want to lick Obama's boots, that's your business. Just be honest about it.

Assad's use of chemical weapons threatens US National Security. His use of conventional weapons in this particular case, does not!

I understand the difference between conventional weapons and WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That's what this missile strike is about. Its not about the Syrian civil War, its about the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

By the way, I'm a registered Republican who has yet to ever vote for a Democrat.

Uh-huh. So as long as men, women and children are being killed, to the tune of 145,000 - you're fine with that. But 1,500 are killed by Chems, and suddenly YOU are concerned. Gotcha.

I ain't buying your BS for one second.

The point is that the use of chemical weapons opens up the proliferation of such weapons around the world. If the US does not respond here, Iran, North Korea and other countries around the world will not think the US is serious about stopping the proliferation of such weapons, let alone nuclear weapons.

 

[Redfish]

That's because the Syrians believe the United States is war weary from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason they mistakenly believe the US wouldn't respond is because there are lots of people who think the United States shouldn't. Just look at this message board and poll. This message board is a place where Assad would find some hope.

Because Assad and other possible adversary's around the world think the United States is war weary and won't respond makes launching the missile strike even more important.

flawed logic. Its none of our damn business. Let them kill each other until someone wins. Why are we the world's referee?

No one doubts the capability of the US military, we don't have to lob missiles into Syria to prove our strength.

Its not the capability they doubt, its the willingness to use that capability which is in doubt by some around the world, due to US war weariness.

91% of americans do not want us involved in Syria. Isn't congress supposed to do the will of the people? or are they so pious and powerful that they can ignore the people who sent them to DC for lifetime jobs?

 

[Mustang]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

 

[U2Edge]

1. The strike is not designed to target ANY of the chemical stockpiles.
.

Shalom

How are things in TelAviv?

How the **** do the military knows where the chemical stockpiles are?

.

Because of the facilities that are needed to produce them and then store them can be identified by various intelligence methods. That does not mean they know where everything is though.

 

[Redfish]

1. It is a specific reason. Proliferation of the possession and use of chemical weapons threatens United States interest all over the world. If no one responds to Assad's use, then other countries around the world will see that there are no consequences to using Chemical Weapons. They will gradually stock up and use the weapons for their own ends. That will make the world a for more dangerous and unstable place and be a threat to the United States military.

2. Sorry, big conventional bombs are not considered weapons of mass destruction. Biological, Chemical, and nuclear weapons are because rather small devices of each can often yield casualty figures under the right conditions that are 10 times, a 100 times greater than a single conventional munition.

3. The evidence and the links are the very small use of chemical weapons in the late spring and early summer by the Syrians. Nothing was done, so the Syrians decided to go with a larger attack in August thinking they could get away with it. If there is no response now, not only will Syria feel they have a green light for even larger chemical attacks, but so will countries like Iran and North Korea etc. Iran also will no longer think that the United States is serious about confronting them on their nuclear program.

4. Ok, please tell me on which day since March 15, 2011 were 1,469 civilians killed in a single attack, in a single country? This should be interesting! LOL

If all that is true, if the entire world wants to punish the use of chemical weapons, then where is the rest of the world on this attack? Where are our allies? Where is China, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Australia, Vanuatu?

Why does this fall only on the US to mete out punishment?

BTW, why is killing a person with gas worse than killing him with bullets or bombs? He is just as dead either way. I would really appreciate an answer

China and Russia are not U.S. allies.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emerites have offered to help. But this initial strike is being done by Cruise Missiles. Most United States allies don't have Cruise Missiles. The United Kingdom and France have some.

Its in the United States own personal interest to do this whether or not other countries come along. The United States has one of the largest military's in the world which naturally gives it a much better capacity to carry out high tech, or difficult military strikes.

The issue is now how a single individual dies, but that chemicals used effectively can kill 10 or 100 times as many people as a conventional artillery shell. That is why it is called a weapon of mass destruction. Their use is great threat to the rest of the world and erodes the US's greater capability in conventional military strength.

I did not say that China and Russia were our allies. I was responding to your claim that the entire world wants the use of chemical weapons punished.

blowing up some runways and buildings will not deter Assad. He is fighting for his life. Unless we target him personally like Reagan did to Kadaffi, we will accomplish nothing but to piss off the rest of the world and put Israel in grave danger.

 

[Kondor3]

Who's advocating war? My understanding is that the administration is proposing a limited attack, not a full scale George W. Bush invasion like what happened in Iraq.

Limited-scale missile strike, a single bombing sortie, one rifle fired from off-shore against Syrian troops, or full-scale invasion to rival D-Day in Normandy...

It's all the same, from a legal perspective...

Those are all Acts of War...

 

[Kondor3]

Senate committee votes to authorize military strike in Syria

.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn., center, hugs Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) while Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) looks on after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday giving President Obama authority to use force in Syria. (Jim Lo Scalzo / EPA / September 4, 2013)

LA Times - By Paul Richter - September 4, 2013, 1:17 p.m.

WASHINGTON –- A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted narrowly Wednesday to authorize a punitive U.S. strike against Syria, opening the way for a vote in the full Senate next week.

The vote was 10 to 7, with Democrats and Republicans on each side. Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) supported the measure, as did ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has repeatedly urged President Obama to do more to aid the Syrian opposition.

Opponents included conservative Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and liberals Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who voted for the resolution, said it would send a clear message to Assad. "This won't be a limited, but a powerful response," he said.

The resolution, which was shaped by Menendez and Corker, called for a more limited use of force than Obama had proposed Saturday, when he announced that he would seek congressional blessing to strike Syria. But it also incorporated language from McCain calling for the United States to seek to shift the balance on the battlefield against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government.

...

Senate committee votes to authorize military strike in Syria - latimes.com