We as Americans find ourselves in a very serious and scary situation.
In a week or so, our Congress and President will decide whether to strike and how much, or not to strike at all.

Right now, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's a political figure, corporations,global world order types or all of the above that got us into this mess.

The one FACT that we all share is this, the consequences of doing either can have a huge difference in our world.

If we don't act, that will show our enemies and friends alike that we are weak and our word can not be trusted. This could also escalate the already growing Al-Qaeda type terrorist groups and enlistments and support for them.

If we act, Not only will Syrians be killed, it could seriously escalate the tensions between Israel,Iran, Jordan and could plunge the whole Middle East into war.

Both scenario's are bad.

I would wish that cooler heads on all sides prevail, Assad would step down, U.S. steps back, Russians and Iranians leave Syria, and the Syrian people determine their Destiny.

Unfortunately we live in the REAL world.

I don't have one say in the matter.
I could call, write and FAX til I'm.blue in the face.

I don't have what my reps want. Lots and lots of green.

Read today, Barry was on his knees selling invasion to mcLame and some other Jackass. They both CAME out sold. mcLame was easy. He's Barry's lap dog.

Me. I could give a rats azz what the world thinks.

If they think we is soft, come on over and give us a push.

Well in away, they are giving us a push...and seeing our reaction.

I know the machine is already racing down the track, just hope someone can pull on the brakes before we crash.

If Obama maybe can say something like..The Congress and I have delayed any action against Syria..but are sending more assets to the area to monitor Syria and if Assad uses CW against his people, The Congress, I and the American people will remove Assad from power.

Think something like that would stop a war and keep some face for Obama and the U.S.

I think any international decisions we make come with that risk

Those thinking we should act think we are 'weak' if we don't
and those who don't think we should get involved think we need to be knocked down out of our authoritative type decision


as I said, I would not want to be a politician because of such decisions and their impact on the world,,,,

Yes it's very complex and frustrating situation. I know that there are some who want to be isolationists, but the reality is our economy as others, depends on other countries. If we are not strong allies and protect our interest's and promote freedom then some other entity will, and that may be dangerous in the future.

On the other hand, starting a limited war can escalate easily and we all suffer a long time.

I agree that right now is not a good time to be a politician or a concerned citizen

It just might help if,
They find that what is it, serin, actually in samples instead of the signature.

Another deciding factor would be who did the gassing.

I'm assuming they'll know that in the next week or so...If we launch a strike without proof who did it, that would be really bad. That might be our saving grace...if no one can actually prove who used it...then we can back out of this whole mess.

CIA has lots of toys. Got a feeling they already may have their 'Who dunnit' movie.

yes your right, in this case I think the guys with the bigger toys are going to win

Don't forget.
There are many Muslims here.

We could be having us a hoe down with them if, the wrong move is made.

Militias made up of US citizens are bad.

Terrorist training camps in Dearborn are good.

Republicans and Democrats are all basically working for the Elite Corporate Power. Now they will support each other in this strike against Syria.

2 hours ago:

McCain, long an advocate of a more robust U.S. approach to Syria, said failure to get behind strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's forces would be "catastrophic."

There is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats. All puppets of the war machine.

-- Even if Obama gets Congress' approval to strike Syrian targets, he might still violate international law. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a president can initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. But that's a U.S. law. The United Nations' charter generally doesn't allow countries to attack other nations unless in self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council -- neither of which is the case in Syria.

-- Congressional approval wouldn't solve the problem with international law, a senior administration official said, but it would enhance the legitimacy of military action.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/world/syria-developments/

1. the U.N charter explicitly states no nation can use chemical weapons and that is a violation of international law and they don't seem to be enforcing that.
2. Who will enforce international law against us? the UN or the EU? I doubt it.

Anyway you look at it , no matter what we want, I think some form of military action will be taken.

A team of UN chemical weapons experts already in Damascus to investigate separate allegations of chemical weapons use managed to gain access to the sites near Damascus on 26 August, five days after the attack occurred.

For four days, they spoke to survivors, nurses and doctors and took blood and urine samples from the districts affected.

They have since returned to The Hague and are awaiting the results of their findings, which they will then present in a final report to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

But the UN team is only responsible for investigating whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

Cut and paste stuff:

Shortly after this intelligence release, Mr Kerry said he had firm evidence sarin was used in the attack, namely from samples of hair and blood from emergency workers who attended the scene.

Russia - which, alongside China, supports the Syrian government - has challenged the US to present its evidence, with President Vladimir Putin describing claims the government was behind the attack as "utter nonsense".

Russian officials instead suggest Syrian rebels were behind the attack to try to provoke the international community to respond with military action.

Exactly, If the Obama admin can't prove who did it, it may be our only peaceful way out of this. But I'm sure the NSA and CIA are capable of fabricating such evidence to be used in this mess.

That type proof will be hard, if not impossible, to obtain...Also, what happened in Iraq should not be a deciding factor for what, if any, action we take in Syria…No matter how much people like to compare the two, they are not the same…The best congress can do is take what history teaches and use that knowledge where it applies…Britain has spoken formally, Russia, China, Israel, France, and America have let their feelings be known…UN investigators have gathered the data needed to make a "clinical" determination on what, if any, chemicals were used….They left Syria on Saturday and estimate it will take approximately a week to complete tests…Hopefully congress will have the results when they convene on Sept 9th…The biggest questions are what will using military force accomplish and what are the long range plans if we do attack…Obamas proposed resolution is not definitive enough for many lawmakers…The biggest obstacle is failure to "prove" Assad gave the order …These and many other questions will be debated pitting Obama and Pelosi against those Republicans and Democrats who remain skeptical of military intervention…Reason says congress will follow British Parliament's lead and reject Obama's proposal to use military force in response to the use of chemical warfare in Syria….Personally, I think refusing to attack combined with moving even more assets into position is the way to go because Obama's bright red line has already faded to a sickly pale pink as he beats the drum in an effort to convince House and Senate members to back him….In view of his history with congress, I don't think his chances are all that good….One can certainly hope....

and.. geeeze who ya gonna believe at this point?

In either case... one might ask why is it any of our concern and why does Obama feel that he needs to "punish" Assad?

Because of his credibility? Hell he lost that A LONG TIME AGO as everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

Well put, but although a lot of politicians would love to hang Obama out in the wind and say no, unfortunately there are one's that have a financial stake in the game. If you are a Senator(Dem or Rep) from a state where a large portion of your economy is from defense contractors, that means more jobs, more influx of money into your state. It's sad to say but that is a reality.
The worry here(and that's if it's all proven)is because Obama went to congress, they will amend his resolution to include certain objectives like a sustained 6 week bombing campaign to achieve XYZ.Or they will not support it. So as time goes on, the less likely it will be a "very limited" one and more likely this will grow into something much bigger.
or they will n