I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
I oppose likewise, but why do you fear - or even care - that some Republicans might be doing the right thing for all wrong reasons? In politics, that is the best you can get, most of the time.
Having voted "for Iraq" and preparing to vote "against Syria" also may have explanations different from partisan rancor. Saddam had a history of international aggression; Saddam perpetually made threatening noises toward the West and Israel; Saddam was killing and torturing fellow Iraqis in high-throughput manner (in the absence of a civil war) - and, most importantly, the delusions regarding nation-building and, eh, "assisted democratization" still had be decisively exposed as such.
There's a small - but not so small anymore - group of vocal Republicans who oppose operations of this sort on a mix of libertarian and paleoconservative reasoning: Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, et al. They are a pretty consistent bunch, and I don't see any special reasons to doubt their authenticity as war skeptics.
As for the rest of the crowd (including nearly all Democrats), I honestly haven't observed much consistency in their thinking or actions in the last couple of decades. Who knows what drives them? A mix of partisanship, self-interest and some haphazardly shaped convictions, in most cases, I guess.
