Appeal to sensible people

[SherriMunnerlyn]

This is a very interesting and powerful statement. Do you have substantive material to back up your assertion?

I have read over a dozen articles that state the dubious Intelligence that gave rise to the plan for military strikes came from Israel and that Israel is behind these strikes, as is AIPAC, and they have been discussed in many discussion threads here and on the US Politics board. The American people do not support strikes. Our own board poll shows 94% of us oppose military strikes. If we have strikes, it shall not be American interests servesd and babies who die will not be being killed to support American interests.

Thank you for answering, nevertheless, that does not support your quoted statement. The US has legitimate interests in the area beyond Israel. Further, I am on a military base, talking with those who may be deployed and those who are familial support for these soldiers almost everyday. I have not ever heard one person claim they willing to risk their lives for Israel or any foreign power let alone kill children for Israel or any a foreign power.

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board shows 94% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

 

[Connery]

I have read over a dozen articles that state the dubious Intelligence that gave rise to the plan for military strikes came from Israel and that Israel is behind these strikes, as is AIPAC, and they have been discussed in many discussion threads here and on the US Politics board. The American people do not support strikes. Our own board poll shows 94% of us oppose military strikes. If we have strikes, it shall not be American interests servesd and babies who die will not be being killed to support American interests.

Thank you for answering, nevertheless, that does not support your quoted statement. The US has legitimate interests in the area beyond Israel. Further, I am on a military base, talking with those who may be deployed and those who are familial support for these soldiers almost everyday. I have not ever heard one person claim they willing to risk their lives for Israel or any foreign power let alone kill children for Israel or any a foreign power.

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board showds 4% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

Involvement in another country's civil war is not why the US is considering action here. It appears Obama read your post therefore I will let him tell you in his words:

"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 Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

[Bloodrock44]

I have read over a dozen articles that state the dubious Intelligence that gave rise to the plan for military strikes came from Israel and that Israel is behind these strikes, as is AIPAC, and they have been discussed in many discussion threads here and on the US Politics board. The American people do not support strikes. Our own board poll shows 94% of us oppose military strikes. If we have strikes, it shall not be American interests servesd and babies who die will not be being killed to support American interests.

Thank you for answering, nevertheless, that does not support your quoted statement. The US has legitimate interests in the area beyond Israel. Further, I am on a military base, talking with those who may be deployed and those who are familial support for these soldiers almost everyday. I have not ever heard one person claim they willing to risk their lives for Israel or any foreign power let alone kill children for Israel or any a foreign power.

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board showds 4% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

A whole 4%. Face it Shia Sherri. You have a deep seated hatred for Israel. Israel is a Jewish state. So when you say Israel, you really mean Jews. You think you're being coy, but you really do a very poor job of masking your seething hatred.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Thank you for answering, nevertheless, that does not support your quoted statement. The US has legitimate interests in the area beyond Israel. Further, I am on a military base, talking with those who may be deployed and those who are familial support for these soldiers almost everyday. I have not ever heard one person claim they willing to risk their lives for Israel or any foreign power let alone kill children for Israel or any a foreign power.

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board showds 4% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

Involvement in another country's civil war is not why the US is considering action here. It appears Obama read your post therefore I will let him tell you in his words:

"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 Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

When shall we be seeing Israel ratify the Chemical Weapons Treaty ?

Shall we destroy our chemical weapons too?

What about our past unlawful use of chemical weapons, like the unlawful use of white phosphorous in Falluja?

The fact is Syria presently has not even signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty, which means they can legally possess chemical weapons. And we have no evidence Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. The photos and videos the Administration have been presenting to the public are fake. Evidence was presented today to the UN Human Rights Council addressing this.

So, what we have is a statement about Syria violating intl law by our President, which is not established as true. That serves the basis for no attack on Syria and no national interest is served by such an attack,

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Thank you for answering, nevertheless, that does not support your quoted statement. The US has legitimate interests in the area beyond Israel. Further, I am on a military base, talking with those who may be deployed and those who are familial support for these soldiers almost everyday. I have not ever heard one person claim they willing to risk their lives for Israel or any foreign power let alone kill children for Israel or any a foreign power.

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board showds 4% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

A whole 4%. Face it Shia Sherri. You have a deep seated hatred for Israel. Israel is a Jewish state. So when you say Israel, you really mean Jews. You think you're being coy, but you really do a very poor job of masking your seething hatred.

Now, you know the percentage is 94%, not 4%, opposed to military strikes in Syria. The poll is in a thread on this ME discussion board. And, as I said, it is not in the national interest of the US to carry out military strikes in Syria. So funny, how my desire for the US not to take the lives of innocent civilians in Syria is labeled hate by the likes of you.

 

[Connery]

My opinion is that the US has no national interest served by involvement with the Syrian Civil War. And I do not believe Americans interests will be served by killing innocent civilians in Syria, which will no doubt but occur if the US carries out military strikes in Syria. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. Our poll in the discussion board showds 4% of us oppose military strikes, presumably many having this opinion because they do not believe it is in Americas interest to carry out strikes.

Involvement in another country's civil war is not why the US is considering action here. It appears Obama read your post therefore I will let him tell you in his words:

"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 Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

When shall we be seeing Israel ratify the Chemical Weapons Treaty ?

Shall we destroy our chemical weapons too?

What about our past unlawful use of chemical weapons, like the unlawful use of white phosphorous in Falluja?

The fact is Syria presently has not even signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty, which means they can legally possess chemical weapons. And we have no evidence Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. The photos and videos the Administration have been presenting to the public are fake. Evidence was presented today to the UN Human Rights Council addressing this.

So, what we have is a statement about Syria violating intl law by our President, which is not established as true. That serves the basis for no attack on Syria and no national interest is served by such an attack,

Here is more...."... over the last few days we’ve 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 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, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Involvement in another country's civil war is not why the US is considering action here. It appears Obama read your post therefore I will let him tell you in his words:

"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 Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

When shall we be seeing Israel ratify the Chemical Weapons Treaty ?

Shall we destroy our chemical weapons too?

What about our past unlawful use of chemical weapons, like the unlawful use of white phosphorous in Falluja?

The fact is Syria presently has not even signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty, which means they can legally possess chemical weapons. And we have no evidence Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. The photos and videos the Administration have been presenting to the public are fake. Evidence was presented today to the UN Human Rights Council addressing this.

So, what we have is a statement about Syria violating intl law by our President, which is not established as true. That serves the basis for no attack on Syria and no national interest is served by such an attack,

Here is more...."... over the last few days we’ve 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 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, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Well, I see these developments as positive, the potential of Assad giving up his chemical weapons and signing the chemical weapons treaty. Hopefully, this plan will work out and Obama will drop the idea of military strikes.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Sixty percent said it was not in the national interests to get involved, down just five points from before the speech. CNN Instant Poll: Did Obama move the needle on Syria? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs THis is after Obamas speech, 60 percent of Americans believe it is not in our national interest to become involved in Syria. What the people approve of is backing off submitting the issue of strikes to Congress, to give the Russian proposal a chance to work.