Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

[ForgoTheConsequence]

Source: The Telegraph

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10265765/Navy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

[Arctic Dave]

1. I wonder what the situation will be if Russia launches some cruise missiles

into Turkey or Jordan.

Take out a few training bases and ammo dumps.

[yoloisalie]

3. That is what I do not understand

It was OK for Saudi to send in their military to quell the uprising in Bahrain, it was Ok for the US to help Uganda quell their little rebel problem but somehow its not OK for Russia to do the same for an ally. Russia better grow some ball before all their ally are destroyed by western backed forces cos after Syria is Iran and maybe Russia and China

[iamthebandfanman]

83. i find it funny

that Russia and iran are saying hands off...
while plunging theirs as far as they can go.

I didn't know Bahrain used biological/chemical weapons on its people?
nor Uganda?
maybe im missing something tho..
if you want to count tear gas, which is used to disperse large crowds (but doesn't kill people) as chemical warfare.. then we have a hellava war going on here in the states :p


if Russia wants to grow some balls, I say go for it..
but they'll only get them cut off in the end :p

no one should ever be in favor of war, but im not silly or ignorant enough to accept biological warfare because I am sick of war. that's a convenient stance for you or I to take, as we (and our families) aren't the ones being gassed to death.

[branford]

18. He will have basically declared war against the USA and most of Europe.

Turkey, for good or ill, is a member of NATO (and also has a very large and well trained military of its own). An attack against Turkey by Russia was exactly the type of situation envisioned when NATO was founded. Russia would not only be engaged in a hot conflict with a large number of first-world (some nuclear armed) military powers, they would also manage to re-energize the moribund NATO alliance and provide a basis for unilateral economic sanctions.

If they only attacked Jordan, it would clearly not be as bad as Turkey, but it, too, would most likely ensure a full NATO response as well as further harden the opinion of the entire Arab world against Russia. I don't think Russia or its citizens would appreciate the very increased risks of Sunni-affiliated (i.e., Al Qaeda) terrorism on their own soil.

If Russia wants to openly and directly aid Syria, they could provide additional weapons, equipment and "advisors," or even air cover to protect Assad's forces. However, attacking a NATO member and/or close US ally like Jordan or Israel, many of whom are capable of devastating retaliation without US involvement, would be VERY unlikely, both due to the risk direct harm to Russia proper and its economic consequences.

[Arctic Dave]

23. Turkey wouldn't risk going to war with Russia.

Neither would the West over a couple of bases that they know are being used a terrorist training facilities.

They know they are playing with fire.

[branford]

33. Have you been listening to what's been coming out of Turkey lately?

Also, Turkey could not possibly let a direct and open attack on its soil go unanswered, particularly with the backing of the USA, Britain and France, as well as most of the rest of Europe.

This is precisely why Russia would never attack Turkey. The risk of even an "minor" strike could easily spiral out of control. Putin may support Assad for political and economic reasons, but he is no fool, and would never risk the loss of many dead Russians and a wrecked economy.

There is a reason why large, often nuclear, powers act through client states and parties. Jordan MAY be a better target, but given US interests in the region, the results would be little different than Turkey. Attacking nuclear armed Israel, who does not even support the rebels, would be even more absurd.

Russia has a number of options to assist the Syrian regime, even in the event of more open, military support for the rebels, but will not incur any direct risks to Russia for Assad.

[stevenleser]

90. Not to mention that Russia's government is even more a tool of the 1% than ours is. It's entire

reason for existence is to support the oligarchs.

The Russian Oligarchs have no use for a war that could wipe them and their assets out. They want to play with their expensive toys, their women, and any government that starts to mess with that will be gone in half a heartbeat.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

70. some awkward moments on the ISS.

[OKDem08]

2. unconstitutional

This is unconstitutional. What threat is Syria to the US?

[branford]

22. It would not be unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not require that we be attacked or directly threatened as a condition of US military action.

If the President unilaterally engages in military action without Congressional approval, he may be in violation of the War Powers Act and other statutes.

HOWEVER, I completely agree that military involvement in Syria would be foolish. I have no desire to see American or allied blood and treasure sacrificed to aid an Al Qaeda-linked rebel force that generally hates the USA and our values, and ultimately be responsible when they come to power in Syria. Both Assad and his supporters, and the rebels and their allies, are anti-American, anti-democratic and egregiously violent thugs. I pity the innocent victims in the bloody conflict, but without a clear "good guy" in the conflict, we should stay away.

[jakeXT]

50. Democratic processes are so slow, you know.... maybe a bit of consulting ?

But Representative Eliot Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the situation might be too urgent to wait for Congress, which does not return from its summer recess until Sept. 9. Mr. Engel suggested that there were many options for air attacks launched from outside Syrian airspace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/world/middleeast/syria-says-un-will-get-access-to-site-of-possible-chemical-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“We will be consulting appropriately with the Congress,” the official said in response to a question from CQ Roll Call about the president’s meeting this morning with his advisers to discuss options in response to reports of a possible massacre via chemical weapons in Syria.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/obama-will-consult-congress-on-syria/

[JDPriestly]

77. I think the president has a certain amount of time, a sort of leeway before he has to

get the permission of Congress.

That's really not in the Constitution as far as I recall, but that seems to be the way they do it.

I still don't understand why we would take sides in a war in which it is hard to tell which side is worse than the other. Both sides, as far as I have been able to figure out (which isn't much) seem to be reprehensible. So why are we taking one side rather than the other. Or are we going to find some third point of view to support?

[branford]

80. I wish there were a viable plan to simply and quickly capture or eliminate the chemical weapons

in Syria. If that were possible, I might support military action to achieve that limited goal.

However, as of right now, I think it's best if we just observe.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Next stop--Iran.

There are already Iranian "advisers" in Syria. Ya really gotta wonder how Russia & China will react.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. I just read something about the problem in Syria is Iranians. You can bet this is a ramp up.

[branford]

25. I think China will only offer perfunctory objections.

They are primarily concerned with trade. Also note that Assad is very unpopular with the Arab regimes where China procures most of its ever increasing amounts of fossil fuel.

[Daniel537]

39. The same way they reacted to the Iraq war and the intervention in Libya.

Nothing. Despite all the ridiculous assertions that Russia "will not stand for this", the idea that either they or China will risk WWIII over a tinpot goon like Assad is just flat out absurd. Same goes for Iran.

[Arctic Dave]

52. One thing is majorly different this time.

A Russian military base in the country we want to bomb.

Russia is not about to just give their bases to western back insurgents.

[branford]

58. If Russia intervened as you previously have suggested,

Assad would still fall and the base lost if the West chooses to use even a fraction of its military resources. Only in your scenario, Russia also risks outright war and severe domestic economic damage.

Russia may very well help Assad in country with weapons and support, but that is all. They have no love for Assad, only some economic and political interests in Syria. I imagine that if it could be proven that Assad used chemical weapons, the Russians would privately be enraged at the risk of escalation.

You've repeatedly offered "what if" and "only if" scenarios where Russia attacks Turkey, Jordan, Israel or other similar actions not even seen during the height of Cold War. The only problem is Russia itself has not even publicly intimated that it is willing to incur real risk for Assad, no less directly attack NATO members and well-armed, even nuclear capable, allies as you suggest.

Hope is not policy. Do you have any even remotely reliable evidence from Russian government sources that they are willing to go the mat for Assad?

[Arctic Dave]

66. Would we go to the mat to save one of our overseas bases?

I think you severely underestimate Russian military capabilities.

As for the Russian economy, lets not look too closely at the shape of ours.

[branford]

68. You're really evading . . .

I also never discussed Russian capabilities, only Russian interests and risks.

In numerous threads, you keep on trying to establish a scenario where Russia attacks Turkey, Jordan or Israel, even preemptively, in order to protect the current Syrian regime, and then claim Russian will carry-out your scenario.

I'm not interested in what Russia purportedly can do, or what you believe it should do. Simply, do you have even the barest scintilla of evidence that Russia actually intends to act as you suggest?

I'm not talking about vague warnings of what would happen if Assad fails, or complaints that we're helping Al Qaeda.

Can you cite to anything remotely credible where the Russian government implies that it would even consider attacking NATO members or allies in order to assist the current government in Syria?

[Arctic Dave]

69. I am telling you what my opinions are, I'm not evading anything.

Only stating that Russia will only cede so much and I don't think giving up their base in Syria is something they are going to tolerate.

If the US thinks they are just going lob a few cruise missiles in for the sake of helping a bunch of jihadis take out an ally of theirs, I think that is wishful thinking.

[branford]

72. We are discussing and evaluating American military policy in Syria.

First, and most ironically, if you've happened to read my other posts, I currently do not think an American attack against Assad would be prudent or effective. I certainly have no love for the rebels (or Assad), and do not believe we have a viable plan to eliminate all the chemical weapons in Syria, if that is in fact our only goal.

However, we've been discussing the reasons why we, in this instance, oppose military intervention. You have alleged that we need to seriously consider a Russian attack (even a preemptive strike) against Turkey, Jordan or Israel. A Russian attack against a NATO member or ally would be unprecedented since the forming of the Alliance, and would have immense geo-political repercussions.

I simply would like to know what, if any, evidence you have that the Russian government is actually considering such an attack before I, nor less most Western governments, include it as part of the calculus on the advisability of military action in Syria.

Please note that although I may not agree with them, I do not doubt the sincerity of your opinions or your possible preference for Russian military action to deter western military intervention.

[Arctic Dave]

74. Russia would not proceed on a first strike military response

but would get involved if the US or allies strike. That wouldn't make any sense for them otherwise.

I think they would give green light for Syria, with their help, to do a little "sabotage" to Turkish interest or whoever else for their support in their countries civil war before any intervention by them would happen.

Just my two cents.

[iamthebandfanman]

84. only if Iran wants

it that way.

they are meddling too, just remember that.

Syria is not their country.

Russia and China can both suck it, as far as im concerned... nobody cares what their neo-fascist governments think.

[jessie04]

5. I totally support my president.

Once you use chemical weapons, it cannot go unanswered.

Flame away

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. Really?

So if he came on TV tomorrow and said he wasn't going to do anything about it you would still support him then?


Also if you want a new war so bad, when will you be enlisting?

[jessie04]

11. Good Point.

I think not responding is way worse than using patriots and drones.

And no one is talking about boots on the ground.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. Would you support boots on the ground?

If Obama decided it was necessary?

[jessie04]

14. No , I would not.

But I got no problem bombing the s*#t out of those chemical weapons.

[branford]

27. One very BIG problem.

Can we safely and effectively capture or destroy Assad's chemical weapons without having significant boots on the ground? Every expert I've heard who has opined on the issue, both liberal and conservative, does not believe it is possible. If so, what would be the point of bombing other than aggravating an already very volatile situation?

[jessie04]

32. And the alternative is accepting the use chemical weapons in war.

It should be rare but this is one of those times the US should act.

I would hope by this time the military has some intel on the chemical weapons.

And figure the Syrian Air Force is on that list.

And Syrian Command and Control also.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. We accepted it when Saddam did it to the Kurds.

Hell the Egyptian military gassed 36 people to death last week.

Who else should we invade?

[jessie04]

41. Better question than that...

What else should we accept?

Since chemical weapons don't cut it....Is it now acceptable for countries to use Biological and Nuclear weapons in war and the free world do nothing ?

"yeah, its ok...use your chemical , biologic and nuclear weapons against innocent people...we wont act."

[ForgoTheConsequence]

51. How many innocent people have we killed with drones?

A death is a death.

[jessie04]

54. So it doesn't matter if a country uses biological or nuclear weapons ?

A gun or a nuke...a death is a death?

Ok... I think I understand what you are saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Most countries have formally agreed not to use chemical weapons.

And signed treaties to that effect.


Syria has signed no such treaty. Why do you want to hold them accountable, as if they violated a treaty they are in fact, not party to?

Do you imagine we will be able to bomb 'military things' in their country without ALSO killing innocent bystanders? Did we learn nothing from Iraq, or hell, even Libya?

[jessie04]

57. Good point.

Since they are not a party to any treaty, then we should have no problem if they want to use chemical weapons...or even biological ...or even nukes.

It's none of our business , right ?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

59. Using your standards.

Other countries should be bombing the shit out of us.

[jessie04]

61. I assume because we used a nuke 70 years ago?

The world has said we can't stop war but using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are unacceptable.

And that is why I believe a response is mandatory. The free world has to take a stand against these kind of weapons. I do believe that it is progressive to take a stand against these kind of weapons.
I didn't advocate going after Syria until it was reasonably clear that Assad used them.

Progressiveism does not mean pacifism.

Sorry...I know we obviously disagree.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

62. Forgetting about napalm in Vietnam?

But they were just godless commies right? Oh and we dropped MK77 (napalm) bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan.


But Bush was just protecting our freedoms so it's ok when the stars and stripes uses chemical weapons.


The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

The MK-77 and Napalm in Iraq

http://science.howstuffworks.com/napalm4.htm

[jessie04]

63. I was having a normal discussion with you and pull that?

Well, I will of course respect your opinion.

Thanks.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

64. Pull what?

Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah


http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/17/pentagon_reverses_position_and_admits_u



The US has used chemical weapons in the last decade. Who should bomb us? I'm just interested in your reasoning.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Syria is a signed and ratified member of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

If they so much as acquired nukes under that treaty, that is an actionable offense.

I'm still waiting for a practical difference between what was just ALLEGED, and normal warfare wherein those same kids might well have been torn to bits with good old reliable high explosives.

[branford]

40. I'm not certain that military involvement, without the ability or committment

to achieve the goals set for such an operation, is particularly wise.

I did not like it when the USA was the world's policeman under Republican administrations, and I will not necessarily support it just because a Democrat is in the White House.

However, note that I'm not stating that I would never support a military undertaking. I have just not seen anything that gives me confidence that either American interests are directly threatened or that any sacrifice of American lives has a good chance to effectively eliminate Assad's chemical arsenal, or any chemical weapons now in possession of the rebels.

All the very recent saber-rattling aside, I'm quite pleased that Obama appears to be taking a slow and methodical approach before ordering any military action.

[jessie04]

43. I respect your opinion.

.

[warrant46]

17. The Cheneys and other ilk like him send someone else to bleed and die

Then they hide behind their Public/Private " Armed Contractors"

[malokvale77]

31. Enlisting?

You can bet your life, not a one of them cheering for military action, nor their loved ones, will be going into harms way.

[former9thward]

8. Who used them?

[paleotn]

19. Good point....

...with territory changing hands almost daily, it's probably safe to assume some chem stockpiles have been captured by at least some of the rebel groups. Would they use them on a limited basis and blame the Assad regime? Religious / civil wars have produced far more insidious acts.

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Syrian-government-claims-to-find-chemical-agents-in-rebel-tunnel-324110

[Amonester]

53. An expert here is saying those chemicals don't appear to be of military origin.

News channel here.

He says the symptoms aren't those of military chemical weapons, but rather home made.

[HooptieWagon]

34. Yes, and Germans supported Hitler 100% when Poland attacked them.

[Daniel537]

36. +1

The Assad regime's barbarism is just too much for the democratic world to ignore. If his apologists don't like it, maybe they should head over to Damascus right about now and volunteer to prop up this despicable thug.

[branford]

42. Isn't that analysis just a little too black and white?

You have no argument from me that Assad, and his Hezbollah and Iranian allies, are viscous thugs. However, the rebels, many of whom are Al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorists, are no better than Assad, and quite possibly much worse.

I'm not yet ready to trade innocent American and allied lives simply to trade one very bad regime for another.

If a critical mass of the opposition even remotely shared our values, we probably would have already had boots on the ground to oppose Assad. However, until the rebels start to look like Quakers and secular humanists, rather than Al Qaeda, we should be far more circumspect about military action.

[Daniel537]

44. The fact that some of those rebel elements are Al-Qaida-linked is probably even more of a reason

to intervene. If Assad were to be killed or his regime collapse, would you really feel better not knowing who's taking charge of these weapons?

[branford]

55. I don't really know who's in charge of the weapons now.

Assad likely controls most of the arsenal, unstable elements nominally loyal to his regime could control a lot, and even terrorist sympathizing rebels might be in possession of some. It's very ugly.

I might consider supporting military action if it was limited solely to securing or eliminating all the chemical weapons in the country. However, not only has this limited goal not in any way been made clear, no expert of any political persuasion knows how we could even begin to accomplish such a goal given our current limited level of intelligence in the region, or without a significant boots-on-the-ground presence in the country. If we are not willing or able to make such a broad commitment, as polls clearly suggest, I do not yet see the value in sacrificing American and allied lives to only accomplish part of the job. The term "quagmire" comes to mind . . .

[ForgoTheConsequence]

60. So we remove Assad and then what?

Please give an example of when this has ever worked out.

[JDPriestly]

78. Are we sure we know who used the chemical weapons?

Is either side really the good guys? Or are we just considering our tactical, wide-range strategical advantage in choosing one side or the other?

I'm really asking these questions. I do not have a clear idea about what is going on in Syria. Is either side worth supporting? Do we have no choice but to pick one or the other? Is the point just to end the conflict or what? What kind of government would we support to succeed Assad?

[iamthebandfanman]

85. not about the president..

its a simple morality question here...

is it okay to use chemical and biological weapons on other human beings?

if its not, should there be consequences for those that do ?


figures the bush legacy would follow us to this too..
god forbid there actually be an instance where action/force is justified.

just because our moron of an ex president decided his buddies needed more oil contracts and took us into an illegal war, doesn't mean anytime we get involved in anything its automatically a cluster fuck or unnecessary.
that bastard has truly ruined this country for a lifetime.

its easy for all of us to sit here and talk about how bad war is (and it is) and point to The Chimps record as proof that the government is a bunch of morons when it comes to military actions ..
but if you just watched your little brother or sister take his/her last gasp of air after being gassed to death.. I think youd have a different opinion.

its not Russia that needs to grow balls (as others are suggesting).. its US.

there are ways we can deal with this , with our allies, without putting any boots on the ground. American lives will not/should not be put in danger by having some sort of intervention in Syria.
it is not the same as Iraq. it is not the same as Afghanistan.

I find it super funny that all these nations, who have their hands into this conflict so deep its reaching their heads, have the nerve to tell others to butt out.
Newsflash...
Syria is not Russia. Syria is not Iran.
Who exactly decided they have more of a right than anyone else to be involved in a conflict that has nothing to do with either of them ?

[jessie04]

88. Thaaaaank you.

Brace yourself ..... someone is going to call you Cheney.

[GeorgeGist]

89. Why?

[HooptieWagon]

6. I guess 3 wars, and drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan

just aren't enough to keep Obama's trigger finger from getting itchy. Gotta keep feeding the MIC monster....

[Ed Suspicious]

10. We have elected a neo-con.

[RobertEarl]

15. 2002 War Powers Given to Bush

Still in effect as far as I know.

And now they finally have found WMD in the Middle East.

[jessie04]

16. And THAT is why it cannot go unanswered.

.

[MyNameGoesHere]

20. Yeah so who you going to attack?

- June 4: UN investigators say they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that both sides in Syria have employed chemical weapons, on four occasions. France says it "is clear" that Assad's regime is using sarin gas.
My bet is this was a plant to draw NeoCon President Obama into more war. I mean the stocks have been sliding time for a little military industrial complex boost, right?

[jessie04]

21. " NeoCon Obama" ??

not much to say after that.

[paleotn]

30. Walks like a duck...

....looks like a duck....quacks like a duck....it must be a duck, right? Like I've stated before, I don't give a rats ass about his flowery, rah-rah speeches. It's what his administration does that matters and right now he's looking very neo-con to me.

[MyNameGoesHere]

91. If the previous players were called neocons

please tell me how President Obama differs? Seems to me same old policy different player. Still at war, still have Gitmo, still spying on Americans, still sending drones into sovereign countries illegally, still itching to go to yet another war. Back in the day we called those folks neocons.

[RobertEarl]

24. Good Gawd, man!

That was actually a joke. A joke you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

People like you are, I suppose you are, I would bet, are the same who bought the Bush line in 2002. That you were not of the 10%ers from that time who knew it was a joke. And it was. Upchucking it now, may be your best move?

[jessie04]

26. You'd lose that bet.

.

[RobertEarl]

35. So

You realize they have NOT found WMD in Syria?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be beating war drums?

[jessie04]

47. No, not war.

Response against a type of war the free world has decided is unacceptable.

[RobertEarl]

67. Iraq invasion

Were ya fer it or agin' it?

[jessie04]

87. Against it...your turn

using chemical , biological and nuclear weapons in war....fer it or agin it ?

[paleotn]

28. And we're still not completely sure...

..WHO used them. Rebels? Assad? Who the hell knows? So who do we answer? And what of civilian casualties if we do strike? That would certainly be true to recent form....blundering around....making more enemies and the global situation all that much worse. And if we do hit government forces and weaken Assad to the point he ends up being "Gadhafi-ed", then what? The Religo-nuts, who aren't particularly US friendly, take over, armed with Assad's chem stockpiles. Oh, that's just wonderful. Can you say ....blow back? Not to mention another hostile state on Iran's border. As though Tehran isn't paranoid enough. In 50 years, I've seen this country get into one mess after another by blundering in. I've never seen us get in a mess by staying out and letting cooler heads prevail.

[HooptieWagon]

37. Could be Russia, Iran, or Israel too.

Remember the Maine. When the war drums are beating loud, the propaganda is strongest.

[defacto7]

81. Just like everyone else, I have no idea which of the sides have used

chemical weapons, but to add a point, I don't see any reason why the extremists on the rebel side would hesitate to use a homemade chemical weapon on supposedly its own side simply to pull us in and break the stalemate after which they win either way. There are more than two sides in this war and that makes the step of entering it exponentially complicated.

[pampango]

86. I suspect a neo-con (Bush, McCain, Romney) would have attacked months (or years) ago.

What I read leads me to believe that Obama thinks Assad is a dictator who cares less about how many Syrians die than he does about his own continued rule, but that military action by the US would make a terrible situation even worse.

It seems logical to me that one can accept certain "facts" about the nature and actions of the Assad regime and still understand that military action is not a solution. I suppose you could make the case that if you are not prepared to bomb or invade, you should ignore problems and hope they go away.

[Laelth]

13. k&r for exposure. This is rather important. n/t

-Laelth

[another_liberal]

29. That's too bad. I don't doubt they will soon regret having done so.

As for the United States: I think it's time we went back to following the Constitution and require a Declaration of War from Congress before we begin killing people and destroying things in other countries. There were far less American military adventures when that was how we commenced hostilities.

[Amonester]

45. Drones kill children = collateral damages

Chemicals kill children = bomb bomb bomb Syrians?

Watta crazy world

[progressoid]

46. Woohoo!

I see a Nobel Peace Prize in the future!!1!

[jakeXT]

49. At least someone made their homework

Officials say that a list of possible targets for a military strike has been circulating in the White House since late last week. The list, which the Pentagon originally prepared months ago for Mr. Obama, includes both chemical-weapons sites and broader military and government targets, depending on the type of action the president orders. If strikes are carried out, the targets would probably be hit by cruise missiles fired from Navy ships.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/world/middleeast/syria-says-un-will-get-access-to-site-of-possible-chemical-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Zorro]

65. An attack will really upset the Venezuelans

[ConcernedCanuk]

71. The most important question is this.

.
.
.



CC

[Sand Wind]

75. I fully support your President !

[ForgoTheConsequence]

79. He hasn't even said his intentions yet.

So you just back him either way?

[David__77]

82. Al Qaeda really wants Obama to do this.

Obama should listen to the US citizens that strongly oppose any action to support terrorism in Syria.

[mountain grammy]

76. This household votes no military intervention..

find another way. No more war.