Do you support US-led airstrikes on Syria?

[Blue3]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. How do we know this was Assad's doing and not Al Qaeda?  Obama is really stupider than I thought if he goes through with this.

Haven't you been paying attention? The attacks came out of regime-controlled areas, and only hit rebel-controlled or contested areas. Among many other things, listen to Kerry's speech.

[Eraserhead]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. How do we know this was Assad's doing and not Al Qaeda?  Obama is really stupider than I thought if he goes through with this.

Haven't you been paying attention? The attacks came out of regime-controlled areas, and only hit rebel-controlled or contested areas. Among many other things, listen to Kerry's speech.

Because John Kerry hasn't been fooled by less than stellar intelligence before?

[Eraserhead]

Obama will be making a statement at 1:15 PM ET.

[TNF]

Again... bomb the rebels that affiliate with terrorists or commit inhumane acts too.

So just blow up the whole country and move in U.S. troops to clean up the mess, eh?

[Gass3268]

Very happy that Obama is asking for Congressional authorization to use force in Syria. Now hopefully it gets voted down.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Congressional authorization. Not a bad compromise move. He knows that action in the House and the Senate will be long and bitter, and approval is likely DOA for at least the next few weeks.

[Eraserhead]

I am shocked. He's already decided to definitely use force but he is going to try to get congressional approval anyway? Bizarre.

Let's hope the Congress votes this down.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I am shocked. He's already decided to definitely use force but he is going to try to get congressional approval anyway? Bizarre.

Let's hope the Congress votes this down.

I'd imagine this more of a PR move than anything else. Look strong but go through the democratic channels. It's obvious that he really doesn't want to do this -- and he knows approval is going to take time and effort that probably won't even be invested. It's pretty much just throwing a bone to the hawks, while keeping the rest of the carcass.

[anvi]

I don't have tv anymore, and can't find the whole statement up on the internet yet.  Did he say anything about what he would do if Congress doesn't authorize.  What I understood him to mean is that he thinks there should be military action but that he will seek congressional approval.  But I also didn't hear him say he would not strike if authorization wasn't given.  Bizarre I think is exactly the right word if there was no intimation that he wouldn't do it if Congress said no.

[J. J.]

Not at this time, no.

Agreed.

There are problems with doing it at this time, and the line should have never been drawn.   

[GMantis]

Absolutely not. Perhaps the US just for once try to bring peace in a conflict, instead of blindly supporting one side.

I'm somewhat surprised at the number of red avatars that support this.

The president is Democratic. It was similar with Kosovo.

[AkSaber]

Absolutely not. Perhaps the US just for once try to bring peace in a conflict, instead of blindly supporting one side.

But that takes effort, knowledge, and compassion.

It's so much easier to kill everyone you don't like (and all the innocent who get in the way of your bombs), then congratulate yourself for being such a humanitarian.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Obama can't do anything without the U.N. behind him on this. Same reason why Blair is paralyzed.

What?

Cameron.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am shocked. He's already decided to definitely use force but he is going to try to get congressional approval anyway? Bizarre.

I wasn't sure about whether or not Obama wanted to go through with it before now, but asking for congressional approval is the closest indication he's given that he doesn't want to do it right now, and he's hoping that the approval process in congress will be enough of a clusterf**k to discredit the whole thing, at least for now.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yes. (Opposed to allowing maniacal dictators to massacre people with WMDs).

But that's not the reason that the US government is about to attack Syria, bro.

[barfbag]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. How do we know this was Assad's doing and not Al Qaeda?  Obama is really stupider than I thought if he goes through with this.

Haven't you been paying attention? The attacks came out of regime-controlled areas, and only hit rebel-controlled or contested areas. Among many other things, listen to Kerry's speech.

I've heard Kerry's speeches where he made insulting remarks about our men and women in uniform in Vietnam. Then in 2006 he said if you don't do well in school you end up in Iraq. Now we're supposed to take him seriously? He voted for the Iraq Resolution in 2002 and to this day critics still ask about weapons of mass destruction. So now I ask where are the chemical weapons of mass destruction in Syria? I don't think we have enough proof or intelligence we can trust.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes. (Opposed to allowing maniacal dictators to massacre people with WMDs).

Standard procedure is to send Rumsfeld over sell the dictator more WMDs, and then 20 years later talk about the imminent threat of those WMDs, have Rumsfeld in charge of an invasion of the country, and find out they got rid of the WMDs we sold them.

[politicallefty]

I give the President a lot of credit for kicking this one over to Congress. As I said above, I think Congressional authorization should be an absolute must for any action to proceed. This was, however, pretty obviously forced by Parliament's rejection of using British force against Syria and the fact that about 80% of Americans want to have a vote in Congress on this issue. If Congress rejects the President's proposal, I do not believe he has any authority to act.

[Lief 🗽]

Rafsanjani tells semi-official Iranian news agency that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attacks:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98007R20130901?irpc=932

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes (not horrible)

[The Free North]

Who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do?

Honestly. Would we have liked it if France or England provided troops in our civil war? That was our battle, we had to fight it ourselves, hundreds of thousands of people died, it was awful, but it was OUR civil war, we didnt need other powers intervening.

This is why people do not like us and we ultimately get attacked, we simply cannot mind our own damn business, its disgusting. Why should we waste money, soldiers, equipment, and potentially lives on some pathetic heap of sand in the middle east?

[Silent Hunter]

Honestly. Would we have liked it if France or England provided troops in our civil war? That was our battle, we had to fight it ourselves, hundreds of thousands of people died, it was awful, but it was OUR civil war, we didnt need other powers intervening.

This is why people do not like us and we ultimately get attacked, we simply cannot mind our own damn business, its disgusting. Why should we waste money, soldiers, equipment, and potentially lives on some pathetic heap of sand in the middle east?

Didn't British people run the Confederate blockade runners in that war? Also, if it wasn't for the French, you wouldn't even be independent to have a civil war.

Syria is not just some "pathetic heap of sand"; it's 28% arable land and has been lived for millennia, one of the starting homes of Christianity and an intensely cultured place.

[Linus Van Pelt]

No.

The chemical attacks are terrible, but unfortunately I do not see a clear plan from the administration to improve things.