Good evening --

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war in Syria. Over 100,000 people have been killed.
In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement. But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force.
The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians -- including hundreds of children -- were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.
What happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law -- it's also a danger to our security. Here's why:
If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.
So after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act. Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress -- and when Americans stand together as one people.
Over the last few days, as this debate unfolds, we've already begun to see signs that the credible threat of U.S. military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and the Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they'd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.
It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.
That's why I've asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. At the same time, we'll work with two of our closest allies -- France and the United Kingdom -- to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.
Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.
As we continue this debate -- in Washington, and across the country -- I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.
Please share this message with others to make sure they know where I stand, and how they can stay up to date on this situation. Anyone can find the latest information about the situation in Syria, including video of tonight's address, here:
Thank you,
President Barack Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria

THE END!

american nid u @ jack bauer

Mr. Obama, please I need a clear cut evidence showing ASSAD was the culprit and not the rebels. Away from all these emotional warfare and mass brainwashing. A video detailing how,when, where, or who ordered the use of these prohibits may be a starter. Thanks

When this started two years ago, it was cheered by America, it was called Arab Spring.

America's moral conscience should have risen to the situation then and they intervene to mediate an agreeable outcome, long before a peaceful protest escalated to what is now a full blown civil war. America has championed the Middle East Peace Process for decades. This confrontation could have been adopted into the process on an expanded policy.

Errors were committed from the outset and the American foreign policy in ME has become victim of a miscalculated forecast. America should find a face saving exit and scale down on its ME rhetorics.

Mayor_of_Lagos: When this started two years ago, it was cheered by America, it was called Arab Spring.

America's moral conscience should have risen to the situation then and they intervene to mediate an agreeable outcome, long before a peaceful protest escalated to what is now a full blown civil war. America has championed the Middle East Peace Process for decades. This confrontation could have been adopted into the process on an expanded policy.

Errors were committed from the outset and the American foreign policy in ME has become victim of a miscalculated forecast. America should find a face saving exit and scale down on its ME rhetorics.

You nailed it bro. Russia has become the laudable voice of reason. Obama telling us that he has told the congress to postpone votes on air strike is hiding under the guise of Russian moves. America will dare not strike Syria when England and France is not behind them. the aftermath will be catastrophic. and this they know. Its even worse for America when Germany, Russia, Japan, China and Iran are in one block. Syria is a no go area for America till further notice.

Seems Obama is now chickening out. After all the threats and brags, he has chosen to tow the path of peace.

Thank God for Russia and Iran, if not, we could have had another Iraq

Built2last:

You nailed it bro. Russia has become the laudable voice of reason. Obama telling us that he has told the congress to postpone votes on air strike is hiding under the guise of Russian moves. America will dare not strike Syria when England and France is not behind them. the aftermath will be catastrophic. and this they know. Its even worse for America when Germany, Russia, Japan, China and Iran are in one block. Syria is a no go area for America till further notice.

Putin's initiative is a comfortable exit internationally, however, at home its a different story. Stakeholders will get more belligerent and adamant on pushing the boundaries and the rebels to test Assad. Expect daring provocations from the rebels going forward.

Hey my broda,

I represent Isale Eko here, not America or Mid East. This section is for domestic politicking.
Can you please ask mods to move it (this topic) to foreign affairs section? Thank you Oga.

Putin's initiative is a comfortable exit internationally, however, at home its a different story. Stakeholders will get more belligerent and adamant on pushing the boundaries and the rebels to test Assad. Expect daring provocations from the rebels going forward. [/quote]


The new White House posture will put Vladimir Putin in the driver's seat, even as Obama struggles to maintain a position of global strength


earlier this morning Sen. Rand Paul alleged in a rebuttal speech that by threatening war with Syria, Obama had positioned the U.S. to support Bashar al-Assad's opposition, which includes al-Qaeda

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul delivered these remarks after Obama concluded in response to Obama's speech. The text was provided by his office.

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida.
Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.
Some argue that American credibility is on the line, that because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons, America must act or lose credibility. I would argue that America's credibility does not reside in one man.
If our enemies wish to know if America will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. When attacked, we responded with overwhelming force and with the military objective of complete victory over our attackers.
The Reagan Doctrine grew out of his experience in the Middle East. Reagan's defense secretary spelled out a systematic approach to our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts. First, the American people must be supportive - overwhelmingly supportive - but most importantly our mission must be to win.
There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that "no military solution" exists. They have said the war will be "unbelievably small and limited."
To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change.
It is said that America must act to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again. But it is unknown whether attacking Assad encourages him or discourages him. It is equally likely that Assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion.
It is equally likely that the bombing could de-stabilize Assad and he could lose control of the chemical weapons. The Obama Administration has indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they are prepared to do just that despite the resolution's admonition against ground troops.
The question must be asked, "Would a U.S. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad loses control of the chemical weapons?"
The same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. "Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad attacks Israel with chemical weapons?"
Would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan? Just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees.
Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable? Would it make it more or less likely that Iran or Russia becomes more involved?
Just about any bad outcome you can imagine is made more likely by U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.
In the past 24 hours, Russia has offered to broker a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control. Diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. The Syrian foreign minister has indicated an interest in the proposal.
Can we trust the participants in this plan?
Diplomacy is always a mixture of trust, distrust, and watchfulness. We should not be naïve, and we should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as part of any solution.
As Reagan put it we must "trust, but verify."
Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table. In fact, Russian has been negotiating with the US for over a year to find a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war.
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.
But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said "slow down" allowed this possible solution to take shape.
Will diplomacy win the day? No one can tell for certain. But on a broader issue, it is an important day, though, in the sense that a President recognized his Constitutional duty and came to seek Congressional authority for war.
If the vote occurs, I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The President has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one.
The President maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. James Madison wrote that the "Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature."
This is no small question. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone's daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war.
May God help us make the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war.

Built2last: Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul delivered these remarks after Obama concluded in response to Obama's speech. The text was provided by his office.

Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida.
Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.
Some argue that American credibility is on the line, that because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons, America must act or lose credibility. I would argue that America's credibility does not reside in one man.
If our enemies wish to know if America will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. When attacked, we responded with overwhelming force and with the military objective of complete victory over our attackers.
The Reagan Doctrine grew out of his experience in the Middle East. Reagan's defense secretary spelled out a systematic approach to our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts. First, the American people must be supportive - overwhelmingly supportive - but most importantly our mission must be to win.
There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that "no military solution" exists. They have said the war will be "unbelievably small and limited."
To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change.
It is said that America must act to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again. But it is unknown whether attacking Assad encourages him or discourages him. It is equally likely that Assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion.
It is equally likely that the bombing could de-stabilize Assad and he could lose control of the chemical weapons. The Obama Administration has indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they are prepared to do just that despite the resolution's admonition against ground troops.
The question must be asked, "Would a U.S. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad loses control of the chemical weapons?"
The same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. "Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad attacks Israel with chemical weapons?"
Would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan? Just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees.
Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable? Would it make it more or less likely that Iran or Russia becomes more involved?
Just about any bad outcome you can imagine is made more likely by U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.
In the past 24 hours, Russia has offered to broker a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control. Diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. The Syrian foreign minister has indicated an interest in the proposal.
Can we trust the participants in this plan?
Diplomacy is always a mixture of trust, distrust, and watchfulness. We should not be naïve, and we should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as part of any solution.
As Reagan put it we must "trust, but verify."
Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table. In fact, Russian has been negotiating with the US for over a year to find a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war.
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.
But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up and said "slow down" allowed this possible solution to take shape.
Will diplomacy win the day? No one can tell for certain. But on a broader issue, it is an important day, though, in the sense that a President recognized his Constitutional duty and came to seek Congressional authority for war.
If the vote occurs, I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The President has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one.
The President maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. James Madison wrote that the "Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore the Constitution, with studied care, vested the power to declare war in the legislature."
This is no small question. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone's daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war.
May God help us make the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war.

Thank you O jare! It is senators such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash and co that are the sensible ones. They are the ones that choose peace over war, conversation over confrontation and common sense over nonsense. Others such as McCain and Graham are obviously pawns of the Military Industrial Complex and Mega Corporations that have an insatiable appetite for wars even if America falls under no threat and even if such wars is to the detriment of their economy; but they do not care cos their pockets are getting lined.

Here, outgoing US president, in his farewell speech, foresaw the dangers that the Military Industrial Complex presented and found it needful to warn the American people.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Video: Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on January 17, 1961, warning us of the military industrial complex.
....

And for those of you that fail to see and haven't been studying this Syria crisis for a while, Obama really isn't in favour of a strike on Syria. The Israelis, the so-called opposition, the Saudis, have all voiced their frustrating with how he has dragged his feet with regards to dealing with Syria and Iran. But of course, he as president is really just a figure head and cannot possibly hold out for long. His true masters: the Israel Lobby, the Military Industrial Complex, Banksters and Corporations would see to it that their agenda is fulfilled.....

By the way, if you think war isn't profitable, look no further than how Raytheon's share price spiked on the day the US announced plans to attack Syria.


War Is a Racket - retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler.

Even from CNN, the government's mouthpiece:



He (Obama) faces a public that is deeply skeptical of attacking another Arab/Muslim country; a divided and skeptical Congress; and an international community that fears military action. And he confronts this environment with a military option that he himself doesn't really believe in either. There's no real sense of urgency or emergency, partly because the president has willfully downplayed that sense of crisis.

Underground:

Thank you O jare! It is senators such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash and co that are the sensible ones. They are the ones that choose peace over war, conversation over confrontation and common sense over nonsense. Others such as McCain and Graham are obviously pawns of the Military Industrial Complex and Mega Corporations that have an insatiable appetite of wars even if America falls under no threat and even if such wars is to the detriment of their economy; but they do not care cos their pockets are getting lined.

Here, outgoing US president, in his farewell speech, foresaw the dangers that the Military Industrial Complex presented and found it needful to warn the American people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY&feature=player_embedded
Video: Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on January 17, 1961, warning us of the military industrial complex.
....

And for those of you that fail to see and haven't been studying this Syria crisis for a while, Obama really isn't in favour of a strike on Syria. The Israelis, the so-called opposition, the Saudis, have all voiced their frustrating with how he has dragged his feet with regards to dealing with Syria and Iran. But of course, he as president is really just a figure head and cannot possibly hold out for long. His true masters: the Israel Lobby, the Military Industrial Complex, Banksters and Corporations would see to it that their agenda is fulfilled.....

By the way, if you think war isn't profitable, look no further than how Raytheon's share price spiked on the day the US announced plans to attack Syria.


War Is a Racket - retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler.

Obama is showing a willingness to open some diplomatic space for Assad, the Russians, and the US government to maneuver, and the Russian proposal has at least reset the options for answering the Syrian use of chemical weapons. There is a chance to turn a unilateral strike into an international solution if political leaders can move carefully and thoughtfully in the coming days.

however, Political "regime change" without social-economic development, working to end destitution poverty, means little for the people. Gandhi once said that poverty is the greatest violence and the source of violence. Until we have put in place a system to confront these issues globally, history will continue over and over again to prove Gandhi right