Courtesy of NBC News:
President Barack Obama said Saturday he will seek authorization from Congress before launching any military action against the Syrian regime for allegedly using chemical weapons in a "crime against conscience" that killed 1,429 people.
Obama stressed that American warships in the Mediterranean Sea still stood poised to strike at any time, despite the move that would place a hold on any imminent military action.
"Over the last several days, we have heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard," Obama said. "I absolutely agree."
Just minutes after Obama's statement, the Syrian army recommenced its shelling of rebel-held Damascus suburbs, which had halted for several hours.
In his statement, Obama condemned Assad's regime, describing the alleged chemical attack as "an assault on human dignity" that "presents a serious danger to our national security." He had previously characterized the use of chemical weapons as a "red line" Assad should not be permitted to cross.
Obama pledged that any military involvement would be of "limited duration and scope."
"This would not be an open-ended intervention," he said. "We would not put boots on the ground."
While I am glad that the Preisdent will seek the authorization of Congress, I remain unsure of what we can actually do to stop Assad and to protect the people of Syria.
Add to that the rumors that Al Qaeda has hijacked the revolution and all I can say is that I am glad I am not in the President's shoes.
What do all of you think?
I think President Obama still wants to attack Syria, but the GOP will either block a vote from making it to the floor, or the vote will be no thus tying President Obama's hands. Then they will blame him when things get worse over there, or he will go ahead and send strikes, and the GOP will scream impeach him! Either way he is fucked.
ReplyDeleteAmazing to me is the fact that President Bush never secured Congress approval for his war! And, yet Republicans and the media are hollering 'anti war' all of a sudden when they have always been known to be pro war!
DeleteThere is zero for which to impeach President Obama - it's again a side show of the Republicans. They have zero on him!
As to Congress - make all the Syria conversation public as well as show each member of Congress cast their vote.
President Obama is doing the right thing and I trust him totally.
The U.S. has Naval and air capability sufficient to devastate the Syrian military, destroy their command structure and turn their installations into piles of gravel. This would open the door for the rebels who would likely install an Islamic government. Whether that government would be friendly to the U.S. or not is subject to debate.
ReplyDeleteAll of this is well and fine, I suppose... at least until the rebel government starts purging Assad loyalists. Then the shoe is on the other foot. If we take any action to stop that, even if the Islamic government started out friendly they would turn on us.
As a sideshow it is likely Iran and Hezbollah would attack Israel in response... we would rush to defend... Putin would knee-jerk and the whole region will be in flames.
None of this scenario even accounts for the largest stockpile of chemical munitions anywhere in the world. Following the fall of Syria's military, if not used these munitions would become unsecured... free for the picking by any terrorist organization.
As a sideshow it is likely Iran and Hezbollah would attack Israel in response... we would rush to defend... Putin would knee-jerk and the whole region will be in flames.
DeleteThis is exactly what the sick dominionists are hoping for. We canNOT fulfill their script for them!!!!
As you said "and so it begins" and hopefully this will be where it ends. I don't know about the rest of you but I've already emailed my Alaskan Senators and Congressman and let them know that I hope they will strike any plan to engage in Syria in any way, shape or form.
ReplyDeleteHave one question 2:50 - what if the government of Syria uses chemicals on other countries or our own?
DeleteIf President Obama goes down on this (due to Congress) and chemicals are used elsewhere, there will be another reason to show him as one of the best presidents the USA has ever had. There are already many other reasons he will hold that distinction in spite of the obstruction by the Republican party!
Chemicals were used in WWI and were supposedly never to be used again by ANY country!
I am glad too that he put it to Congress. Of course, they will not back him up on this just as they have not on anything else while he has been in office. At least, now it is on them.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Let them take the heat.
DeleteI feel like this is going to end up sparking a Civil War -- in the GOP.
DeleteMy thought is that they want to do something NOW to keep the al Qaeda affiliates from taking over?
ReplyDeleteBut it's either Assad the chemical thrower, or alQaeda. There is no one sane over there.
Deletecongress wants to finish its vacay until sep 9 I think....
DeleteThey are either trying to force PBO to "do" something on his own, or just trying to get out of voting.
I think all of them should be ordered to come back and vote.
@3:10:
DeleteThat sounds like something an anti-Arabic racist like Sarah Palin would say.
It is showing as to our 'non working' Congress EVEN in this matter which is very, very important!
DeleteI wish President Obama had called them back into session with the requirement that all discussion be made public as well as the voting process by each member of Congress.
I think they are suppose to return 9/8 or 9/9 - cannot remember for sure.
...tired, so, so tired.
ReplyDeleteThis is a time where I put my trust in the man who I voted for in 2008 and 2012. He's intelligent and he has all the intel. So far I have not been disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I sure don't want to see another war started but no one had any idea that Obama would take Osama bin Laden out either. Hopefully, he has another trick up his sleeve and waiting until Sept 9th when congress returns is a camouflage move.
DeleteI couldn't agree more. There is NO ONE who I trust more in this country than President Obama when it comes to reasoned, measured, thoughtful response and then action taken if necessary. It is a damnifhedoes and damnedifhedoesn't sort of situation he is in, but he has to choose and he is insisting that he doesn't choose it alone, and is making congress step up and take some responsibility. And for the record, I think they'll vote yes.
DeleteTotally opposed to another endless, winnable war. Obama said nothing about what he plans to do AFTER his supposed limited, no boots strike. With Iran backing Syria and Israel barking at Obama's heels to ramp it up, even a "limited" strike has the very dangerous potential to metastasize into a major ME conflagration.
ReplyDeleteIMO a strike should fall into the "I'm sorry I didn't do it category," rather than the "I'm sorry I did it" one.
New drinking game. Take a long pull every time Obamacare or abortion come up during House debate on Syria. Do we see Cantor, Boehner or any House members rushing back t do the peoples' business?
ReplyDeleteTwo shots if they put up a vote to defund Obamacare, and it's a deal!
DeleteOur POTUS has not failed me and I voted for him both times. He knows way more about what is going on in the middle east than do we or the Republicans. I'm tired of all the crap that is out there via the media. It's really getting old coming from many folks that know zero!
ReplyDeleteIt trust President Obama, VP Biden and Secretary John Kerry! It's so much better having them in the lead vs the likes of John McCain or Romney.
Me to. Absolutely..
DeleteKerry is from the Ratheon state...just saying.
DeleteIt's a "No Win" situation; Line drawn in the sand about Chemical Weapon use has been crossed; but no swift action. 2) Congress will vote to not intercede in any shape fashion or form, further degrading of US prestige in the area. Republicans will NOT accept the blame for this vote,but rather put it on Obama as "Poor Leadership". There is a flip side to this, in that Presidents since Reagen have taken more and more power from Congress in regards to taking the country to war. This "vote" will help swing this power grab back to Congress in the long term, but in the short term will be politizied tremendously by the Republicans in their efforts to block ANYTHING the President wants to do.
ReplyDelete3)The Syrian conflict itself is a no-win situation for anyone outside the country, the US has NOT learned the lessons of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq , which is supporting the opposition comes back to bite you in the sternsheets..We supported the Taiban against Russia, we supported the Shah in Iran, and we supported Hussein against Iran. The Middle East is a TRIBAL political area, and with the screwed up national lines drawn the West after WWI, will never be a settled region until the lines are redrawn to reflect the different tribes and their traditional regions. Providing arms or assistance to "rebel" forces bites you later on. Stick with supporting Israel, and stay out of the rest of the regions inter-tribal, inter-religous quarrels.
".....and when Russia rears its head, where's it gonna go?.....Aahlaaskaa!" Quitter Gov. 2008
DeleteThat's fine. Outfit the people with antidote and it's all good. Call or write your congressmen and tell them this is the US people's solution.
DeleteIf Saddam was still in power, does anybody think that this would be happening today?
ReplyDeleteOf course Obama wants to help his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can you expect from a Kenyan Muslim
Shouldn't you be over at CNS or WND?
DeleteYou're simply a stupid fuck.
Oh, brother.....
DeleteGo back to your sandbox now please.
DeleteThe adults are talking.
yawn
DeleteI'm glad the president is asking for a vote from Congress - make them own this, too. And I also agree with Anon 3:09 that this just might spark a civil war between the Republican Neocons and the Rand Paul anti-interventionist wing (hoping!)
ReplyDeleteI'm still undecided if a military strike is the right thing or not, remembering how we were misled about the intelligence in Iraq. The last thing we need now is another expensive war when we can't even feed our people.
You people all think that Assad did this to his own people. You never stop to think that the rebels (with US funding) did this to ignite an international war. Why? Because Syria (along with Iraq, Libra, and others) do not want to trade oil is US federal reserve notes, called petrodollars. ANY country that does not go along with this policy is attacked and destroyed by the US. Then, after we kill millions, we take over their resources, mainly OIL.
ReplyDeleteObama has been given his orders from his unseen masters and will give the order to attack Syria (with MORE thousands of innocent lives lost) to appease his masters. NO president is exempt from this.
This is how the REAL world works folks. Get your head out of your pollyanna rear ends.
You people?
Deletei could believe this. Nothing would surprise me ever anymore.
DeleteThe British Parliament did the right thing, and backed out of this questionable enterprise. MP George Galloway put it succinctly, saying "We do not need to be Al Qaeda's air force!"
ReplyDeleteWhat is the objective of whatever it is that Obama has up his sleeve? Listening to everything that has come out of his administration, I haven't heard one statement that qualifies the situation there as being something that threatens our security.
Sen. Begich and Rep.Young seem to be leaning against any military action. Sen. Murkowski seems to be leaning the other way.
When push comes to shove, though, on September 9th, Congress will do exactly - EXACTLY - as AIPAC tells them.
You sound like my son - he's always fuming about the extraordinary influence AIPAC has. And I do agree that AIPAC has a ridiculous amount of influence and the US has a slavish devotion to Israel that goes against our national interests. However, it is a good thing that Obama has gone to congress for approval. And I'm hoping that the time bought by this decision allows the situation to cool down. A lot will depend on what Assad does in the meantime, and what the U.N. inspectors say.
DeleteI agree that the situation in Syria is not threatening national interest. And a limited action would likely do no good, and may even prolong the killing. But I don't think that Obama is acting under AIPAC influence - I think he was emotionally gutted by the photos of dying children. Remember how he responded after Sandy Hook?
It will be interesting to see how congress responds. My son actually thinks that Israel wants an excuse war, so they want the US to attack. He's expecting AIPAC to endorse a strike. I do not want this. I hope congress listens to the will of the people (as the British Parliament did) and not the will of AIPAC.
I didn't claim Obama will do exactly as AIPAC desires, I wrote that congress will.
DeleteI still see no clear objective, and the AUMF Obama has submitted to congress actually allows us to attack Russia, as that is where some of Syria's older CW arsenal came from - back in the 70s and 80s.
If the US continues to circumvent the United Nations, we might as well just give up on the UN, stop dumping money in it, move the headquarters to Geneva and leave them to muddle along doing nothing. What is the point of pacts to ban chemical weapons, when there is NO legal remedy to inflict on the users, when there is no political will to enforce the rules?
ReplyDeleteHow does President Obama KNOW he's not being lied to about the evidence? It was lies, blatant lies that got us into Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAre the North Koreans murdering kids via starvation? Why don't we think cruise missiles are the answer for that problem?
ReplyDeleteNeither side in this civil war is PRO-AMERICA. Neither side supports human rights,women's rights, or gay rights. We should not get involved..
ReplyDeleteEverything is questionnable in this situation. So many avenues that could take a nasty turn. Yet, it's so hard not to do anything.
ReplyDeleteBeing a national leader takes a very strong character, and this President needs his home turf and U.S. citizens to at least, whether they agree with him or not, show him respect. The U.S. media has never been so vocal in their outrage in these situations; even during the Iraq invasion, the media was watchful and careful. There was anger, but only months after it was disclosed there were no WMD's in Iraq. No matter what this President has tried to say or do, before he even does it, he's maligned and dishonored by the yacking media and carnival barkers.
Whatever the outcome, this is probably the first time we see, in this blogging age, a people who make generalizations and accusations and speculations way too early.
Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical Liberals
ReplyDeleteLiberals who are often critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are hailing his decision to seek authorization from Congress to strike Syria, even as many continue to oppose the military action itself.
It is being seen as a step back from an increasingly imperial presidency in the post 9/11 era, on issues including indefinite detention, surveillance or global drone and cruise missile strikes.
Obama's move is also considered a rare act of genuine political courage. A congressional rejection would damage him politically, but he's pursuing it regardless in pursuit of a broader principle.
"It's great news that President Obama is seeking congressional approval for military action, an important precedent for all future presidents," said Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, generally a critic of the president. "After years of societal and international norms being thrown out the door -- and things like torture, violations of civil liberties, and war becoming normalized -- today's announcement is an important down payment on proper norms and regular order being restored."
Congress is granted power in the United States Constitution to declare war, but modern presidents have routinely marginalized the legislative body. Obama said during his Rose Garden address Saturday that he believed he had the authority to strike on his own, but was choosing to bring in Congress.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/us-attack-syria_n_3849748.html
http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/74829a0c5322b61a390f6a706700d1a0.jpg?w=1180&h=1658
ReplyDelete“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage”
ReplyDeletePresident Obama:
Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.
Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.
This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.
Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.
But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.
Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.
In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.
I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.
Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.
ReplyDeleteA country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.
Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?
We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.
So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.
I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.
And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.
Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.
ReplyDeleteBut we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.
So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.
Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.
We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.
I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.
Thanks very much.
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/31/im-ready-to-act-in-the-face-of-this-outrage/
...Sen. Franken said, “There are no good options on Syria. But as I’ve said, the use of chemical weapons to kill over a thousand people and injure many more is a horrendous act, and there have to be consequences for that. Whatever action the United States takes, it has to be limited action. This can’t be an open-ended commitment, and it definitely should not lead to American boots on the ground. Congress now has an important role to play, and I look forward to participating in a vigorous debate about the use of force and the best interests of our country.”
ReplyDeleteOf the two senators, Franken seems much closer to supporting military action in Syria. Even among Americans who cherish peace and deplore military involvement the most, it is difficult to make the case that our nation should look the other way while innocent people are being attacked by their own government. (It is important to keep in mind that the West had done exactly that as it relates to Africa for decades.)
It is apparent that President Obama’s decision to request authorization from Congress is designed to ease some of the fears that this action could turn into another Iraq. Obama isn’t going to act on his own, and ignore the concerns of Congress and the American people. Whatever decision we arrive at we will come to as a country, and I feel much better about the decision making process knowing that the voices of Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, and other key liberals will be heard.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/31/bernie-sanders-al-franken-call-assads-chemical-weapons-inhumane-atrocity.html
Bets on how long it will take them to try to use Syria as leverage for defunding ObamaCare?
ReplyDeleteSarin gas, the chemical weapon that Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad allegedly deployed against rebel neighborhoods in Damascus, is a vicious poison that attacks the central nervous system. Business Insider and the U.S. military report that the chemical has had a dark history since it was invented by German Nazi scientists in 1938.
ReplyDelete“Just a fraction of an ounce of this stuff, of sarin, on your skin could potentially be fatal,” said CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta in an interview Thursday on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” “It can be absorbed across the skin, it can be absorbed into the lungs, across the eyes. It’s pretty gruesome stuff.”
“It is so indiscriminate. It is tasteless. It is odorless. You can’t see it. And, so you don’t even know that you’ve been exposed, necessarily, until you suddenly start to get sick. And then, it starts pretty quickly and can degrade pretty quickly as well,” Gupta explained.
The poison is similar chemically to some insecticides. It works by disrupting signals in the nervous system, specifically the chemicals that turn glands and muscles on and off. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure can result in a myriad of symptoms, including contracted, pinpoint pupils, foaming at the mouth, muscle rigidity, respiratory difficulty and failure, burning eyes, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of nervous system failure.
Typically symptoms are rapid in onset. The U.S. military Chemical Warfare Weapons Fact Sheet on sarin, “Symptoms of overexposure may occur within minutes or hours, depending upon the dose.” At high levels, exposure is almost always fatal.
Scientists in Nazi Germany first synthesized sarin in 1938, intending to use it as a pesticide. After discovering its potency as human poison, even the Nazis decided it was too vicious a weapon to deploy.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/31/sarin-gas-a-vicious-gruesome-killer-with-a-dark-history/
I hope there is no American military intervention in this Syrian clusterfuck civil war, but I support President Obama and believe he will act in the best interest of our country despite the relentless and treasonous obstructionism of the failed political party formerly known as the GOP.
ReplyDeleteDid I mention that I hope there is no American military intervention in this Syrian clusterfuck civil war?
Only A Few People In History Have Dared To Use Sarin Gas
ReplyDeleteLast week, pictures and amateur videos trickled into the Western media depicting residents of a Syrian suburb twitching and struggling to breathe. Their pupils were constricted. They were confused.
And then there were the dead, who showed no external injuries.
Noah Shachtman with Foreign Policy wrote that upon seeing the images, weapons experts and U.S. intelligence officials had little doubt what weapon wreaked that havoc.
They thought it was Sarin.
Developed in Nazi Germany in 1938 by a team of German scientists seeking a tougher pesticide, Sarin works as an "off-switch" for the body's glands and muscles. Most victims die because they are no longer able to breathe, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls Sarin "the most volatile of the nerve agents." It kills within seconds.
Even the Nazis, however, chose not to use deadly sarin gas or other chemical weapons during WWII.
In the decades that followed, sarin gas would be mass produced by the U.S. and the Soviets, but they too chose not to use it offensively — at least not in any confirmed instances.
In fact, Sarin has only been used a few times in history — which is why the reports of potential use in Syria are so alarming.
http://www.businessinsider.com/devastating-history-of-sarin-gas-2013-8
ONE Tomahawk cruise missile costs a little over half a million dollars. (George W. Bush used about 750 of them attacking Iraq).
ReplyDeleteThere are tens of thousands of refugees flooding into Iraq from Syria.
I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent to spend the money feeding an clothing refugees, rather than bombing and risking collateral damage?
I'm also pleased to hear that President Obama went to Congress. We are finally getting back to how the Constitution was set up for America to go to war or taking military actions. Also, if we go forward with military action, it will show America is united. If Congress says,"No.", it will be on their head that America did not go forward to try to stop a country from using chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't understand why we are not waiting for the report from the UN weapons inspectors. This needs to be a condemnation from ALL nations, not just America. We may see ourselves as world leaders, but we should not be world policemen.
While I am glad that the Preisdent will seek the authorization of Congress, I remain unsure of what we can actually do to stop Assad and to protect the people of Syria.
ReplyDeleteI am totally serious about us supplying auto inject antidote syringes to the people in syria. Drop them like propaganda bombs with instructions. Os have the UN get off their ass and do something. Atropine is a very inexpensive drug to manufacture - They could easily get them in a few days to every man woman and child.
These syringes will render chemical attacks impotent.
The Syrian Civil War is reputed to have killed 100,000 people. The use of CW in August is reputed to have killed over 1,000.
ReplyDeleteIn Vietnam (not even looking at Laos and Eastern Cambodia, near the "Parrot's Beak") over 200,000 currently living people have birth defects from the legacy of dioxin from our spraying of Agent Orange, during the Vietnam War. That doesn't even count the even greater number who have died or were stillborn from the CW remnants. In Iraq, birth defects in neighborhoods and areas where we extensively used depleted uranium 30mm ammunition, and other DU weapons, are extraordinarily high.
Anyone getting on a high horse about how insidious the use of CW in Syria is, needs to keep this in mind.
We might actually be saved this step... by AL QUAEDA!of all things!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/uk-syria-crisis-qaeda-idUKBRE97R08C20130828