President Obama's intent was not to bomb Syria, but to scare the heck
out of others that he would. Success will be if the world can get rid of the
chemical wepons and open a dialog with Russia, Syria, and Iran.
We need to talk things thru with other countries rather than bombing the
heck out them. This turn of events could be the greatest move forward
for America since ever. It may be a streach, but might even be an end to
big wars becuase they destroy the economics of a country. After world war
2, our military suppliers went to producing other things. this may be another
time for them to consider mfg other things besides wepons. Keeping my fingers
crossed
Steve H. - 11 years ago
Ed; I believe we should bomb Syria to get Assad attention, He is still killing his own countrymen, men, women and children, he is nothing but a dictator. The chemical weapons should be handled by the UN under US control, all weapons should be rounded up , removed from the country, and destroyed. Assad should be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. The people should decide their own fate. US should stay out of it. The Arabs, Muslin should handle the Gov't change. UN should control the Law in the country still the Nation can pick its own Gov't by the people.
MARVA COOKE - 11 years ago
I do understand the President's view that bullies should be punished... but this man Asaad is not only a bully he is a MAD MAN ... Furthermore, I am very interested in the President ending his term without such negative images to follow him...
James Wald - 11 years ago
I like the president, but disagree about going into Syria. We have supported the middle east it seem like forever, and they use us for their own benefit. Let them settle their own problems the way they have done for years. We have got to get away from settling the world problems, We should withdraw from the United Nations, because the, countries that count doesn't support us, but like our money. We have got to start taking care of number one. If our government use gas on us WHO WOULD COME TO OUR AID. We are always the first to step in and aid any country in need, and when we don't we hear about it. I think it's about time we change the way we do business.
James
Herbert Porter - 11 years ago
Ed you are my man but you have gone over the top on this issue. If this works out without an air strike it will prove you can't take anything off the table. No we don't want another war but if the world thinks we are going to through ourselves under the bus we are no longer that nation all turn to. Love your passion and what you are doing for this Country but sometimes we need to step back and consider everything.
Mary Ann deGorgue - 11 years ago
I'm quickly getting tired of your show Ed. I wish Chris Matthews was back in the 5:00 time slot. If anyone disagrees with you they are wrong and you are always right. I used to love your show but not anymore. As soon as you come on I turn you off. Just thought you might want to know this.
Ryan Gavin - 11 years ago
I have little doubt that justice will ultimately prevail, and the parties responsible for the use of chemical weapons end up at the end of a rope someday. I'm not sure US involvement speeds that process up. Should some coalition require specific US military expertise to set the stage for an international action, such as interdicting air defences, I'm fine with that. Lobbing missiles to send a message to someone who obviously isn't listening strikes me as an expensive fool's errand.
bill - 11 years ago
yes, holding my nose. I am seeing this more as a developing problem for the civilized world. using Americas greatest treasure to "prove a point" is repulsive to me, this being said something has to be done. Just because we are "war weary" should be no excuse for doing nothing. As asinine as the "prove a point" theory is, there is a reason we are the greatest country on earth. Because we recognize a wrong and we stand for right. I have days that i think no war and then the next day i 180 my thoughts. I live in the midwest and think about what would happen to this country if there were a biological attack on the headwaters of the mississippi and missouri rivers, spliting this country in half and making the midwest a no-mans land. If chemical and biological weapons aren't stopped we are all in trouble.
Chef Stephn Hughes - 11 years ago
No! Why does the whole world need the USA to Police Them? We can't even police ourselves. Why don't other Arab countries police other Arab countries according to their religion? They practice the same religion!
Yolanda Schmidt - 11 years ago
WHO IS REALLY RUNNING AMATEUR HOUR IN WASHINGTON? Here is an example of one prominent (or at least someone who was at one time an advisor to one prominent Republican President) Republican has said in one interview:
Karl Rove two weeks ago: Obama "has to go to Congress" on Syria, and a measure to authorize force will pass.
Karl Rove now: Obama going to Congress was "amateur hour" because a measure has no chance of success.
stephen - 11 years ago
I believe there is another option to unilateral military action by the United States: Total Embargo allowing only humanitarian / non-military aid into Syria. Here's some background:
1. There are external variables we can't control: The UN security counsel, regional allies, regional non-allies, US congress.
2. There are internal variables we can't control: The Assad regime, the good actors among the rebels, the escalation if strikes are minimally effective, collateral damage.
A. Syria shares borders with Turkey to the north; Iraq to the east; Jordan and Israel to the south; and Lebanon and the Mediterranean to the west. All but Lebanon are allies. A total blockade will force US allies - proxies - to step up and engage in their "own backyard". We can use the navy offshore to interdict and search all humanitarian / non-military aid allowed in only from the ocean. As a rule, we must to act through our regional allies if we are to extend and leverage our power globally.
B. There are no reliable rebel groups at the moment. Escalation my result in empowering the very groups we oppose else where. No one is empowered by blockade.
C. Blockade can be supported without the UN Security Council as the regional players can elect to close their borders; we can ask for a UN peacekeeping mission to receive commerce once it is cleared through the blockade. All sides receive according to commercial contracts and aid distribution policy. Just no bullets.
D. We reduce the effectiveness of supply from the non-regional players, like Iran, as no shipments will be cleared with military goods.
E. congress is right in suspecting the military actions against assad's regime will have unintended consequences. When have they not?
F. Assad has demonstrated a willingness to escalate beyond all civilized norms. Embargo does not offer direct military engagement nor reprisal.
G. Blockade minimizes collateral damage.
H. Blockade leads to negotiation and perhaps lead Assad to conclude there may be still a means out of this.
There are many more rationalities but I'm sure you get the drift...is it being discussed as an option?
Winston Smith - 11 years ago
Good thing the qualifier in Syria is "chemical weapons"....surely this disqualifies 800,000 Rwandans (Tutsis and any aligned with them) getting hacked to death by machetes. And surely our own soldiers suffering from PTSD have killed more innocent Iraq & Afghanistan civilians with the use of old-fashoined rifles than Syrians by the chemical catalyst Obama keeps pushing....
Charles - 11 years ago
For all of you who have voted NO if Syria uses Chemical Weapons again remember the victim's blood is on YOUR hands.
Sandy - 11 years ago
Linda Spyhalski, you are spinning and completed lost. are you a republican war hawk.
no wars, we will be dragged into a larger conflict. Please no wars.
KILLING IS KILLING.
The blood would be back on our hands. NO MORE KILLING
Linda Spyhalski - 11 years ago
I stand in support of President Obama!! We must not allow the use of Chemical Weapons on the people of any country! I do not understand how anyone seeing the pictures of innocent children dying can not stand with our President!
Delores Griffith - 11 years ago
Punishing the use of chemical weapons is the right thing to do even if other countries shirk their responsibilities. Assayd should know he is fighting most of the World in this effort, not just the United States.
James Eilers - 11 years ago
No-one I contact who hosts or shows up on the media or in Washington has the personal experience that would help them understand that the citizens' rejection of Obama's military plans is a way of saying, "You have not the slightest connection with the problems or circumstances of the American people. (1) Poverty, lack of education, the sacrifice of people in war is merely a slower form of murder than chemical warfare; (2) the children of Vietnam and Fallujah, Iraq, and their descendants continue to suffer horribly U.S. use of chemical weapons (Should we bomb those in the U.S. responsible for those crimes?); there is no sign that U.S. officials or pundits understand their own murderous natures. We suffer under a subtly installed military junta with a president suffering from an extended adolescence who exercises only his role as commander-in-chief. One can only hope that, once started, the American people will continue to reject, rebel, and revolt.
Tim Snow - 11 years ago
Gasing people while they sleep convinced me. There is not going to be any War.
Asad scared and throwing bluffs..
Andrew Nathans - 11 years ago
Mr. President,
You are a smart man, but i think you are being played by oil interests, the military industrial complex, russia, israel and the war hawks in the military.
Please stop this madness. No war. No war. PEACE
Donte Morgan - 11 years ago
400 children dead from chemical warfare; there is no sales pitch from the President that can convince me more than that. Just when the Arab Spring has democracy spreading in the Middle East, Americans are second-guessing whether or not the leader of the free world should support freedom and democracy. This is why the United States has been called a paper tiger.
The Syrian people have been fighting and dying for two years to remove Assad. Remember that no one was fighting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but Republicans found enough reasons to go to war then. Syrians have earned some support from the rest of the world. The U.S. should lead in this support, and others will follow because it is the right thing to do.
Roger Gambert - 11 years ago
Ed,
I was surprised to see that Jonathon Alter supported Obama but then he was his biographer. I don't understand liberals who are falling for another inaccurate assessment by our intelligence departments. I was a strong supporter of the Democrats but anyone who votes for this attack will lose my support forever.
Tonya - 11 years ago
Rather than spending money on another useless war, because we all know that's what it is, give me some of that money! I'll use it to create affordable housing and jobs for people who really do need it! Myself included...
Jim Bennett - 11 years ago
One of the main reasons I supported President Obama was his opposition to the Iraqi war. Now I am dumbfounded that he wants to enter into another war. I'm beginning to believe that the Presidency transforms men into war loving demagogues. He is alone in his desire to attack Syria. Even anti-war protester Kerry has joined the hawks. I'm disappointed in both of them.
lilhalsted - 11 years ago
I voted for and have supported President Obama on most issues but I disagree with him now and can only wonder why he thinks we should get involved in Syria, now. I know that we are suppose to be outraged by the use of chemical weapons but the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. There is no proof that Assad's forces used the chemical weapons and the rebels are absolutely not allies of the United States. The US NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT IN SYRIA. The reasons given for involvement are not sufficient ... and there are too many places in the world where genocide has occurred where the US turned a blind eye. So I ask ... "why here and why now?"
elaine stenzel - 11 years ago
I voted yes,because I trust our President,and he is trying to protect us.I hate war and don't want it.But this chemical war in syria has got to stop before it spreads and kills more children and people
TOYBB - 11 years ago
I said NO , but if the Prez is able to convince us TUE , Im with him ! But also if Sirea says " Hey how about we give up the Dirty Bombs " Then YES , even though He has lied , We need to TRY to pick the chems up at all cost ! And IF WE ever attack , lets NOT talk about it ALL , and let everyone know !!!!! So WE threaten them with an ATTACK , and "IF" they back down , Don't PISS HIM off and take the chems away from Him . Then We could ATTACK or NOT , AFTER !! But Now is TOO SOON to Go Shooten Off !! Let them agree to give up the chems , that is BEST solution !! But I am " With " the PREZ !!!
If Johnathan Alter wants us to see the bodies of the children killed by chemical attacks, then the American public should also see the pictures of the children killed by our drone attacks!
Patricia McCann - 11 years ago
I voted NO. More killing by our weapons of mass destruction is insane. He needs to talk more about the atrocities in our own country. Lets give humanitarian aid to the refuges.
Sharon Ferren - 11 years ago
We need to ask ourselves why are the other countries doing nothing? Great Britain voted not to interfere, why? We need to ask wny?
john - 11 years ago
HOW THE HELL CAN THE U.S AFFORD THIS STUPIDITY? THE ONLY WAY IS TO PAY FOR IT IS TOO STEAL THE MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE-THEN BORROW MORE MONEY FROM THE CHINESE
! THEY ONLY KNOW HOW TO OFFSET THE WAR COSTS TO THE BACKS OF THE ELDERLY,DISABLED,CHILDREN,AND POOR-ALL SO THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CAN BOOST PROFITS!
matt - 11 years ago
No more wars. No more dead Americans. So many variables.
This is the Middle East it is not our battle. THE MIDDLE EAST SHOULD STAND UP AND TAKE ON THE BAD PLAYERS IN THEIR AREA.
THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. STAY OUT.
This is going to be worse the Vietnam.
james brady - 11 years ago
THE U. S. is hypocritical on this issue. Pres. Reagan authorized the sale of chemical weapons to Sadaam Hussein who used the weapons against Iran. Scores of Iranians were killed. The U. S. never said anything about this violation of international law. Why are we so concerned today?
Dean - 11 years ago
We need to stop all of these wars. Obama needs to take a good long look at his Nobel Peace Prize.
This attack would be stupid and i fear would lead to WW3.
First, I agree with Jane.
Question #1 for the President....If chemical attacks are a form of weapons of mass destruction, then what kind of weapon is a cruise missle?
Question #2 Is it true that the agreement on the use of chemical weapons signed by the 180 +/- countries does not offically ban their use on their own populations?
Jeanine Thibodeau - 11 years ago
President Obama is the most intelligent President that we ever have had and the most honest. I still believe that he's the chief and I support him. Face it, either they want us to do something or they will anyway. Better to be prepared for the worst and attempt to safeguard chemical welfare attacks again. You can't hide or think you won't get reprecussions under whatever choice is made. Personally, to see such inhumane killing of people and children is the most persuasive reason, to challenge. Who's next, face it, dictators don't use humane tactics. Stand by the Man -President Barack Obama.
Greg - 11 years ago
What is going to happen when our "surgical" strikes kill civilians or worse yet set off some of the gas and we kill more people than the original bombing did? This new war is going to be a lose-lose situation for us. After this initial bombing who really thinks that this will be the end of it for us?
Congress is going to say no, the American people are almost ALL saying no, and yet this is still going to take place...what's wrong with this picture?
matt - 11 years ago
this is fucking crazy. CRAZY. NO MORE WAR PLEASEEEE
we are going to open the gates of hell.
Mary FitzSimons - 11 years ago
I believe the USA MUST STOP its selective war-like approach to anything and everything. I believe our nation would be better off if we donated even one tenth of the monetary worth of all those missiles projected to be used to instead benefit the refugees fleeing Syria into border countries. Provide food, shelter, anything but bombs!!!!!!
JIm McDonald - 11 years ago
The President didn't have to convince me of anything, the evidence speaks for itself. Dead innocent citizens being attacked without warning with deadly Chemical Weapons demands action. What disappoints me is the lack of total outrage from the worlds'a population at Assad's use of chemical weapons. Why isn't every nation screaming for action??? This regime has the capacity to send these same chemical weapons at multiple countries in that region. They can't protect their populations from these weapons. Assad's regime needs to be punished by direct action.
Mr.Rene Woodard - 11 years ago
The use of chemical weapons alone is reason to strike Assads military.
Ed Marks - 11 years ago
I think that our getting involved in this war is a stupid idea. Do we know beyond any possible doubt that it was Assad that authorized the use of chemical weapons? Until we know that it was Assad that authorized their use, then we have no business intervening. Also, aside from France, it seem that no one else wants to form a coalition with us. You can partially blame "W" for this situation since he lied us into going to war with Iraq.
Mark - 11 years ago
I voted Yes but if the threat of military action pressures Syria to seeking a political solution and if the Russian/Syrian proposal is serious and sincere I believe that to be the best way to go.
Bill32405 - 11 years ago
I don't recall the world asking the US to play police force. It's a civil war, none of our business!
DonnaJoy - 11 years ago
The media has done a disservice to the American people. As with the Iraq invasion it is omitting facts and using scare tactics to convince the public from thinking one way or another. Fortunately some of us have learned from the past during the GW Bush Administration to not depend on much of the media to tell us the whole story. Ed so much more is going on in this country that needs to also be discussed NOW.
Susan Hritz - 11 years ago
I believe the dignified response to violence is nonviolence.
Eugene B. - 11 years ago
I know Obama means well. But a military strike is not always the answer. We need more cooperation from more countries to have a stronger influence in the situation.
Elia Matos - 11 years ago
No more WAR!!!! please Mr President...the middle east will never change, they have been fighting for hundred of years and will continue to do so until they killed themseleves...we need to stop meddling in their affairs, everytime we do we create more enemies and danger for US citizens. When it comes to the middle east both sides are wrong, these people do not value life, they live by their own beliefs and laws. We need to let them be and take care of our own, or fight for a something worth the fight...nothing in the middle east is worth sending our soliders into danger!!! I voted for you, stop playing politics in DC and do the right thing...do not sent our troops to risk their live for people who hate us!!!
jane franklin - 11 years ago
I just don't see how dropping bombs on innocent people who have suffered enough is going to be helpful to them.
Karl Anderson - 11 years ago
This is one of those decision that is not easily made. I do understand the situation the President is in, because this is not necessarily a winnable situation for our country. At the end of the day though, if were are taking the lead role as leader of the free world, then we have no choice but to do this. Like most American, I am totally against any overseas confrontation, but our dignity is at stake. Personally, I would have much rather, he just went ahead and do it, whatever it takes. But this has to be done!
President Obama's intent was not to bomb Syria, but to scare the heck
out of others that he would. Success will be if the world can get rid of the
chemical wepons and open a dialog with Russia, Syria, and Iran.
We need to talk things thru with other countries rather than bombing the
heck out them. This turn of events could be the greatest move forward
for America since ever. It may be a streach, but might even be an end to
big wars becuase they destroy the economics of a country. After world war
2, our military suppliers went to producing other things. this may be another
time for them to consider mfg other things besides wepons. Keeping my fingers
crossed
Ed; I believe we should bomb Syria to get Assad attention, He is still killing his own countrymen, men, women and children, he is nothing but a dictator. The chemical weapons should be handled by the UN under US control, all weapons should be rounded up , removed from the country, and destroyed. Assad should be arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. The people should decide their own fate. US should stay out of it. The Arabs, Muslin should handle the Gov't change. UN should control the Law in the country still the Nation can pick its own Gov't by the people.
I do understand the President's view that bullies should be punished... but this man Asaad is not only a bully he is a MAD MAN ... Furthermore, I am very interested in the President ending his term without such negative images to follow him...
I like the president, but disagree about going into Syria. We have supported the middle east it seem like forever, and they use us for their own benefit. Let them settle their own problems the way they have done for years. We have got to get away from settling the world problems, We should withdraw from the United Nations, because the, countries that count doesn't support us, but like our money. We have got to start taking care of number one. If our government use gas on us WHO WOULD COME TO OUR AID. We are always the first to step in and aid any country in need, and when we don't we hear about it. I think it's about time we change the way we do business.
James
Ed you are my man but you have gone over the top on this issue. If this works out without an air strike it will prove you can't take anything off the table. No we don't want another war but if the world thinks we are going to through ourselves under the bus we are no longer that nation all turn to. Love your passion and what you are doing for this Country but sometimes we need to step back and consider everything.
I'm quickly getting tired of your show Ed. I wish Chris Matthews was back in the 5:00 time slot. If anyone disagrees with you they are wrong and you are always right. I used to love your show but not anymore. As soon as you come on I turn you off. Just thought you might want to know this.
I have little doubt that justice will ultimately prevail, and the parties responsible for the use of chemical weapons end up at the end of a rope someday. I'm not sure US involvement speeds that process up. Should some coalition require specific US military expertise to set the stage for an international action, such as interdicting air defences, I'm fine with that. Lobbing missiles to send a message to someone who obviously isn't listening strikes me as an expensive fool's errand.
yes, holding my nose. I am seeing this more as a developing problem for the civilized world. using Americas greatest treasure to "prove a point" is repulsive to me, this being said something has to be done. Just because we are "war weary" should be no excuse for doing nothing. As asinine as the "prove a point" theory is, there is a reason we are the greatest country on earth. Because we recognize a wrong and we stand for right. I have days that i think no war and then the next day i 180 my thoughts. I live in the midwest and think about what would happen to this country if there were a biological attack on the headwaters of the mississippi and missouri rivers, spliting this country in half and making the midwest a no-mans land. If chemical and biological weapons aren't stopped we are all in trouble.
No! Why does the whole world need the USA to Police Them? We can't even police ourselves. Why don't other Arab countries police other Arab countries according to their religion? They practice the same religion!
WHO IS REALLY RUNNING AMATEUR HOUR IN WASHINGTON? Here is an example of one prominent (or at least someone who was at one time an advisor to one prominent Republican President) Republican has said in one interview:
Karl Rove two weeks ago: Obama "has to go to Congress" on Syria, and a measure to authorize force will pass.
Karl Rove now: Obama going to Congress was "amateur hour" because a measure has no chance of success.
I believe there is another option to unilateral military action by the United States: Total Embargo allowing only humanitarian / non-military aid into Syria. Here's some background:
1. There are external variables we can't control: The UN security counsel, regional allies, regional non-allies, US congress.
2. There are internal variables we can't control: The Assad regime, the good actors among the rebels, the escalation if strikes are minimally effective, collateral damage.
A. Syria shares borders with Turkey to the north; Iraq to the east; Jordan and Israel to the south; and Lebanon and the Mediterranean to the west. All but Lebanon are allies. A total blockade will force US allies - proxies - to step up and engage in their "own backyard". We can use the navy offshore to interdict and search all humanitarian / non-military aid allowed in only from the ocean. As a rule, we must to act through our regional allies if we are to extend and leverage our power globally.
B. There are no reliable rebel groups at the moment. Escalation my result in empowering the very groups we oppose else where. No one is empowered by blockade.
C. Blockade can be supported without the UN Security Council as the regional players can elect to close their borders; we can ask for a UN peacekeeping mission to receive commerce once it is cleared through the blockade. All sides receive according to commercial contracts and aid distribution policy. Just no bullets.
D. We reduce the effectiveness of supply from the non-regional players, like Iran, as no shipments will be cleared with military goods.
E. congress is right in suspecting the military actions against assad's regime will have unintended consequences. When have they not?
F. Assad has demonstrated a willingness to escalate beyond all civilized norms. Embargo does not offer direct military engagement nor reprisal.
G. Blockade minimizes collateral damage.
H. Blockade leads to negotiation and perhaps lead Assad to conclude there may be still a means out of this.
There are many more rationalities but I'm sure you get the drift...is it being discussed as an option?
Good thing the qualifier in Syria is "chemical weapons"....surely this disqualifies 800,000 Rwandans (Tutsis and any aligned with them) getting hacked to death by machetes. And surely our own soldiers suffering from PTSD have killed more innocent Iraq & Afghanistan civilians with the use of old-fashoined rifles than Syrians by the chemical catalyst Obama keeps pushing....
For all of you who have voted NO if Syria uses Chemical Weapons again remember the victim's blood is on YOUR hands.
Linda Spyhalski, you are spinning and completed lost. are you a republican war hawk.
no wars, we will be dragged into a larger conflict. Please no wars.
KILLING IS KILLING.
The blood would be back on our hands. NO MORE KILLING
I stand in support of President Obama!! We must not allow the use of Chemical Weapons on the people of any country! I do not understand how anyone seeing the pictures of innocent children dying can not stand with our President!
Punishing the use of chemical weapons is the right thing to do even if other countries shirk their responsibilities. Assayd should know he is fighting most of the World in this effort, not just the United States.
No-one I contact who hosts or shows up on the media or in Washington has the personal experience that would help them understand that the citizens' rejection of Obama's military plans is a way of saying, "You have not the slightest connection with the problems or circumstances of the American people. (1) Poverty, lack of education, the sacrifice of people in war is merely a slower form of murder than chemical warfare; (2) the children of Vietnam and Fallujah, Iraq, and their descendants continue to suffer horribly U.S. use of chemical weapons (Should we bomb those in the U.S. responsible for those crimes?); there is no sign that U.S. officials or pundits understand their own murderous natures. We suffer under a subtly installed military junta with a president suffering from an extended adolescence who exercises only his role as commander-in-chief. One can only hope that, once started, the American people will continue to reject, rebel, and revolt.
Gasing people while they sleep convinced me. There is not going to be any War.
Asad scared and throwing bluffs..
Mr. President,
You are a smart man, but i think you are being played by oil interests, the military industrial complex, russia, israel and the war hawks in the military.
Please stop this madness. No war. No war. PEACE
400 children dead from chemical warfare; there is no sales pitch from the President that can convince me more than that. Just when the Arab Spring has democracy spreading in the Middle East, Americans are second-guessing whether or not the leader of the free world should support freedom and democracy. This is why the United States has been called a paper tiger.
The Syrian people have been fighting and dying for two years to remove Assad. Remember that no one was fighting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but Republicans found enough reasons to go to war then. Syrians have earned some support from the rest of the world. The U.S. should lead in this support, and others will follow because it is the right thing to do.
Ed,
I was surprised to see that Jonathon Alter supported Obama but then he was his biographer. I don't understand liberals who are falling for another inaccurate assessment by our intelligence departments. I was a strong supporter of the Democrats but anyone who votes for this attack will lose my support forever.
Rather than spending money on another useless war, because we all know that's what it is, give me some of that money! I'll use it to create affordable housing and jobs for people who really do need it! Myself included...
One of the main reasons I supported President Obama was his opposition to the Iraqi war. Now I am dumbfounded that he wants to enter into another war. I'm beginning to believe that the Presidency transforms men into war loving demagogues. He is alone in his desire to attack Syria. Even anti-war protester Kerry has joined the hawks. I'm disappointed in both of them.
I voted for and have supported President Obama on most issues but I disagree with him now and can only wonder why he thinks we should get involved in Syria, now. I know that we are suppose to be outraged by the use of chemical weapons but the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. There is no proof that Assad's forces used the chemical weapons and the rebels are absolutely not allies of the United States. The US NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT IN SYRIA. The reasons given for involvement are not sufficient ... and there are too many places in the world where genocide has occurred where the US turned a blind eye. So I ask ... "why here and why now?"
I voted yes,because I trust our President,and he is trying to protect us.I hate war and don't want it.But this chemical war in syria has got to stop before it spreads and kills more children and people
I said NO , but if the Prez is able to convince us TUE , Im with him ! But also if Sirea says " Hey how about we give up the Dirty Bombs " Then YES , even though He has lied , We need to TRY to pick the chems up at all cost ! And IF WE ever attack , lets NOT talk about it ALL , and let everyone know !!!!! So WE threaten them with an ATTACK , and "IF" they back down , Don't PISS HIM off and take the chems away from Him . Then We could ATTACK or NOT , AFTER !! But Now is TOO SOON to Go Shooten Off !! Let them agree to give up the chems , that is BEST solution !! But I am " With " the PREZ !!!
If Johnathan Alter wants us to see the bodies of the children killed by chemical attacks, then the American public should also see the pictures of the children killed by our drone attacks!
I voted NO. More killing by our weapons of mass destruction is insane. He needs to talk more about the atrocities in our own country. Lets give humanitarian aid to the refuges.
We need to ask ourselves why are the other countries doing nothing? Great Britain voted not to interfere, why? We need to ask wny?
HOW THE HELL CAN THE U.S AFFORD THIS STUPIDITY? THE ONLY WAY IS TO PAY FOR IT IS TOO STEAL THE MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE-THEN BORROW MORE MONEY FROM THE CHINESE
! THEY ONLY KNOW HOW TO OFFSET THE WAR COSTS TO THE BACKS OF THE ELDERLY,DISABLED,CHILDREN,AND POOR-ALL SO THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CAN BOOST PROFITS!
No more wars. No more dead Americans. So many variables.
This is the Middle East it is not our battle. THE MIDDLE EAST SHOULD STAND UP AND TAKE ON THE BAD PLAYERS IN THEIR AREA.
THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. STAY OUT.
This is going to be worse the Vietnam.
THE U. S. is hypocritical on this issue. Pres. Reagan authorized the sale of chemical weapons to Sadaam Hussein who used the weapons against Iran. Scores of Iranians were killed. The U. S. never said anything about this violation of international law. Why are we so concerned today?
We need to stop all of these wars. Obama needs to take a good long look at his Nobel Peace Prize.
This attack would be stupid and i fear would lead to WW3.
First, I agree with Jane.
Question #1 for the President....If chemical attacks are a form of weapons of mass destruction, then what kind of weapon is a cruise missle?
Question #2 Is it true that the agreement on the use of chemical weapons signed by the 180 +/- countries does not offically ban their use on their own populations?
President Obama is the most intelligent President that we ever have had and the most honest. I still believe that he's the chief and I support him. Face it, either they want us to do something or they will anyway. Better to be prepared for the worst and attempt to safeguard chemical welfare attacks again. You can't hide or think you won't get reprecussions under whatever choice is made. Personally, to see such inhumane killing of people and children is the most persuasive reason, to challenge. Who's next, face it, dictators don't use humane tactics. Stand by the Man -President Barack Obama.
What is going to happen when our "surgical" strikes kill civilians or worse yet set off some of the gas and we kill more people than the original bombing did? This new war is going to be a lose-lose situation for us. After this initial bombing who really thinks that this will be the end of it for us?
Congress is going to say no, the American people are almost ALL saying no, and yet this is still going to take place...what's wrong with this picture?
this is fucking crazy. CRAZY. NO MORE WAR PLEASEEEE
we are going to open the gates of hell.
I believe the USA MUST STOP its selective war-like approach to anything and everything. I believe our nation would be better off if we donated even one tenth of the monetary worth of all those missiles projected to be used to instead benefit the refugees fleeing Syria into border countries. Provide food, shelter, anything but bombs!!!!!!
The President didn't have to convince me of anything, the evidence speaks for itself. Dead innocent citizens being attacked without warning with deadly Chemical Weapons demands action. What disappoints me is the lack of total outrage from the worlds'a population at Assad's use of chemical weapons. Why isn't every nation screaming for action??? This regime has the capacity to send these same chemical weapons at multiple countries in that region. They can't protect their populations from these weapons. Assad's regime needs to be punished by direct action.
The use of chemical weapons alone is reason to strike Assads military.
I think that our getting involved in this war is a stupid idea. Do we know beyond any possible doubt that it was Assad that authorized the use of chemical weapons? Until we know that it was Assad that authorized their use, then we have no business intervening. Also, aside from France, it seem that no one else wants to form a coalition with us. You can partially blame "W" for this situation since he lied us into going to war with Iraq.
I voted Yes but if the threat of military action pressures Syria to seeking a political solution and if the Russian/Syrian proposal is serious and sincere I believe that to be the best way to go.
I don't recall the world asking the US to play police force. It's a civil war, none of our business!
The media has done a disservice to the American people. As with the Iraq invasion it is omitting facts and using scare tactics to convince the public from thinking one way or another. Fortunately some of us have learned from the past during the GW Bush Administration to not depend on much of the media to tell us the whole story. Ed so much more is going on in this country that needs to also be discussed NOW.
I believe the dignified response to violence is nonviolence.
I know Obama means well. But a military strike is not always the answer. We need more cooperation from more countries to have a stronger influence in the situation.
No more WAR!!!! please Mr President...the middle east will never change, they have been fighting for hundred of years and will continue to do so until they killed themseleves...we need to stop meddling in their affairs, everytime we do we create more enemies and danger for US citizens. When it comes to the middle east both sides are wrong, these people do not value life, they live by their own beliefs and laws. We need to let them be and take care of our own, or fight for a something worth the fight...nothing in the middle east is worth sending our soliders into danger!!! I voted for you, stop playing politics in DC and do the right thing...do not sent our troops to risk their live for people who hate us!!!
I just don't see how dropping bombs on innocent people who have suffered enough is going to be helpful to them.
This is one of those decision that is not easily made. I do understand the situation the President is in, because this is not necessarily a winnable situation for our country. At the end of the day though, if were are taking the lead role as leader of the free world, then we have no choice but to do this. Like most American, I am totally against any overseas confrontation, but our dignity is at stake. Personally, I would have much rather, he just went ahead and do it, whatever it takes. But this has to be done!