General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks." Makes me sick to my stomach.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesnt do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.
I dont think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can makes Assad -- or any other dictator -- think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We dont dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other -- any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.
* * *
I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. Im sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.
* * *
Indeed, Id ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?
* * *
Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the worlds policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.
American exceptionalism, war drums, plea to emotions and a lot of double speak. At the same time, Syria cannot threaten our military, but is a threat to our national security and our children. We are told the US military doesn't do pinpricks, meaning we bomb the shit out of places and then told to watch those horrific videos again? The congressional vote was halted because the President was about to lose in both houses. This is a sad day.
This was a war speech. Make no doubt about it.
The Link
(757 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 10, 2013
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON SYRIA
East Room
9:01 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
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. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone elses civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assads government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assads chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assads military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. Weve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, its also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
If fighting spills beyond Syrias borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assads ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is whats at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regimes 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 regimes ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But Im also the President of the worlds oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the peoples representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington
-- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.
Its no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.
First, many of you have asked, wont this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assads capabilities.
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we dont take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, theres no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesnt do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We dont dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?
Its true that some of Assads opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, We should not be the worlds policeman.
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, weve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said theyd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.
Its 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, particularly because Russia is one of Assads strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. Im sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. Ive spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China 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. Well also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, Ive 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.
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to Americas military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
Indeed, Id ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?
Franklin Roosevelt once said, Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged. Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the worlds policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. Thats what makes America different. Thats what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
END 9:17 P.M. EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-president-address-nation-syria
Note: The text above is from a .gov website therefore exempt from the four paragraph copyright rule.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)He might need some funding via social media. Fortunately, a kickstart request is in the works. Feel free to donate::
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The vote was halted because...Assad conceded. Simple as THAT.
You can try all you want to change history...but YOU will fail at that too!
LukeFL
(594 posts)These people are negative as can Be
It's pathetic
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)polls said 79% of the American people were against bombing and Congress Critters jobs are up for grabs in about a year, noy quite long enough for the memory hole effect to set in
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You can try that spin all you want...but it wont work...not here...not with me.
Did you happen to see the CNN poll after the President spoke....the people supported him 61%! Shows what you know....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that's your claim right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You apparently are not one of them...hahahaha.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but don't let that stop you now
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and don't worry....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I thought you meant you had no interest in it. So I withdraw my vitriol at least until I know you finished it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/syria-airstrike-polls_n_3861639.html
I will concede I was wrong about 79% opposition 79% felt Obama should have Congressional approval first
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)61% of the people that watched his speech supported it. That's not a random sample. It's like going to a football game and yelling "Who here likes football!?" and concluding that 100% of the American people like football.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This was a war speech. Make no doubt about it.
The manipulations have only just begun. The MIC, the banks, and the corporations have grown used to getting what they want, and they will get it this time, too. They would prefer to do it with a veneer of popular support.
Windy
(5,944 posts)It was to keep Asad guessing and had really little to do with trying to win over US sentiment.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Or Congress.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You don't understand how this country is repeatedly propagandized into supporting corporate interests?
This isn't about telling Syria anything. Syria already knows that the US can and will blow them to Kingdom Come. This is about delaying a vote so that the administration has time to get more Americans on board. The MIC will go to war with or without the country's support, but they would much rather have it.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Are completely gone
delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Seems like the USSR is what kept the US in check back then. Now look at all the spying going on ...and all the wars since the wall came down. We were supposed to get a peace dividend. Where the fuck did that go?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)on the military. He baited Syria! I was screaming at my laptop
and my poor cat didn't know what to think....
Have you seen this? Reported on other outlets too. Tonight
Pers Morgan and Sen. Menendez both referred to the shift
in Putin's position...doesn't bode well for what the President
wants. The video came out this afternoon although I heard
it in a report on MSNBC or CNN.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642225
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It seems like the administration is more than willing to contradict itself if it means selling the war to more people, they want those of us who don't like war to think it is no big deal so they want us to believe it is "unbelievably small" but they also need to pump up the war supporters so they also say they don't do "pinpricks". So is it a pinprick or is it not? The administration seems to want to have it both ways.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hoping something will stick.
I'm also curious where drones strikes fall on their "pull it our of your ass" scale.
peace13
(11,076 posts)and he says that we should take one more look! I don't need to look, I didn't need to see the first time that it was foisted upon me. I have to say that I have lost respect for this man.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)and worked our butts off for him the first time around. FYI.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)Where are the links on the White House website?
peace13
(11,076 posts)when our school children were gunned down there was none of this video gawking. It was to the point that the fake media said that there actually were no dead children!
Our own children gunned down and nothing changed here to make them safer.
Unfortunately Obama has killed as many children with his drones and ongoing wars as this illegal gas did. Does he want us to see them, h*ll no. Our country does not photograph or count those that we kill.
Last night really made me ill. I am not advocating photographing dead children. I do not want to see them. I do not need to. I can hear the cries of their mother's in my dreams.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)it wouldn't be seen as an official war speech.
rug
(82,333 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)for the stupid.
It could be a new HallMark card though, for stupid day.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)I was hoping for some type of clarity tonight but just got more b.s. instead.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Everyone was going on and on about how it was going to be super tiny.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)welcome to the world of world politics.
He will beat the war drum for sure, but I'd bet my social security check he will NOT attack.
He's just letting the playa's know he's serious.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You may have some points, but you ruin your credibility with that idiocy.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and totally hilarious to read...wow...
I may have to read it all over again...its THAT GOOD!