Obama averts WWIII - for now!
August 31, 2013
Today at around 3:00pm eastern time, Mr. Obama made a short speech about the decision to respond to what he said was the Syrian regime's culpability in the use of a "chemical weapons attack on women and children, and opposition forces, in the "suburbs" of Damascus, Syria. The chemical attack, or "gas attack," as Obama put it, was one of several, according to reports, which took place last week and killed more than 1,400 Syrians.
In the speech it was pointed out that there was "high confidence" that enough evidence had been gathered to lay the blame for the attack at the feet of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.
Media sources and others from around the world seemed to be goading Obama to "do something" about the chemical weapons attack. He called for leaders in other countries, who have "privately supported a U.S. military response, to make their support public." Several days ago, it was announced that the U.S. military was "ready to strike Syria," as soon as the order was given by the president.
Obama included in his remarks that Congressional leaders demanded that before any unilateral decision was made to attack Syria, they needed to be consulted, and that Congress must authorize any military strike against Syria. He agreed to this in his speech, though he made it clear that he was authorized to make the decision on his own, "...for national security interests," but would "look forward to a debate." It was also reported that legislators now had access to the evidence against the Syrian regime.
UN inspectors that have also gathered evidence of the chemical attacks and presumably who was responsible for the orders to conduct such horrifying atrocities, have returned to the Netherlands where a report will be generated and presented to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council - two members of which are allies to Syria; Russia and China.
Mr. Obama made clear he was not waiting for the UN's report, to determine what to do. In fact he made clear that the Syrian regime must be held accountable for the attack and that it was the responsibility of the United States to respond. He was willing to wait for a Congressional hearing on the matter and that the order to strike was not "time sensitive." He said that the military was ready to strike at any time.
In my opinion, President Obama has averted WWIII - for the time being, and I think it may have been one of the smartest moves he has made to date.
Here is the full text of the speech made Aug. 31, 2013:
Mr. Hancock,
I agree with you for the most part. In fact I included a previous communication from you concerning your thoughts about the Syrian conflict and the use of chemical weapons near Damascus on my site. My thoughts were nearly identical.
After President Obama's short speech on Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013, I was a bit relieved - I felt that "cooler heads had prevailed." I too am concerned about what would be unleashed should the U.S. "go it alone" and conduct a strike in Syria.
However, as you stated; "....Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer..." then added, "I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation." - which in principle is easily agreed to. But in the real world, criminals allowed to get away with murder will continue to commit murder. The world should be responding to this madness, in force. If it was possible, the solution may be staring people in the face; arrest those responsible for the crime.
If that is not possible, what else is left but a strike at the heart of the matter?
Deuke Productions - Political Issues
In the speech it was pointed out that there was "high confidence" that enough evidence had been gathered to lay the blame for the attack at the feet of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.
Media sources and others from around the world seemed to be goading Obama to "do something" about the chemical weapons attack. He called for leaders in other countries, who have "privately supported a U.S. military response, to make their support public." Several days ago, it was announced that the U.S. military was "ready to strike Syria," as soon as the order was given by the president.
Obama included in his remarks that Congressional leaders demanded that before any unilateral decision was made to attack Syria, they needed to be consulted, and that Congress must authorize any military strike against Syria. He agreed to this in his speech, though he made it clear that he was authorized to make the decision on his own, "...for national security interests," but would "look forward to a debate." It was also reported that legislators now had access to the evidence against the Syrian regime.
UN inspectors that have also gathered evidence of the chemical attacks and presumably who was responsible for the orders to conduct such horrifying atrocities, have returned to the Netherlands where a report will be generated and presented to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council - two members of which are allies to Syria; Russia and China.
Mr. Obama made clear he was not waiting for the UN's report, to determine what to do. In fact he made clear that the Syrian regime must be held accountable for the attack and that it was the responsibility of the United States to respond. He was willing to wait for a Congressional hearing on the matter and that the order to strike was not "time sensitive." He said that the military was ready to strike at any time.
In my opinion, President Obama has averted WWIII - for the time being, and I think it may have been one of the smartest moves he has made to date.
Here is the full text of the speech made Aug. 31, 2013:
THE PRESIDENT:
Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men,
women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack
of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that
the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.
Our intelligence
shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons,
launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and
acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this
corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with
victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were
murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed
to death by their own government.
This attack is an
assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national
security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of
chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s
borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to
escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups
who would do our people harm.
In a world with
many dangers, this menace must be confronted.
Now, after careful
deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action
against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We
would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be
limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime
accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and
degrade their capacity to carry it out.
Our military has
positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed
me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman
has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not
time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from
now. And I’m prepared to give that order.
But having made my
decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national
security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest
constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just
in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will
seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s
representatives in Congress.
Over the last
several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be
heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional
leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as
Congress comes back into session.
In
the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with
the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has
such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us
should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished
with a vote.
I’m
confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.
I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security
Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad
accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this
decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen
in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed
to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported
taking action.
Yet,
while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without
specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger
if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should
have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And
this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed
that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.
A
country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that
force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution,
particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in
part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate
action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the
costs of doing nothing.
Here’s
my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global
community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children
to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the
international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical
weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s
people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not
enforced?
Make
no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t
enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about
our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To
governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would
spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?
We
cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the
things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.
So
just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to
the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its
findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is
not simply investigated, it must be confronted. I don’t expect every nation to
agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of
support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the
international community to stand publicly behind our action.
And
finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary
of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And
the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the
underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world,
there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have
unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And
that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone
else’s war.
Instead,
we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad
regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our
pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the
dignity of its people.
But
we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind
eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an
international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so
because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity
depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation
more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.
So
to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our
national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask
you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than
partisan differences or the politics of the moment.
Ultimately,
this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we
are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested
in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America
keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that
right makes might -- not the other way around.
We
all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard
decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told
you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn
away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our
democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand
together.
I’m
ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a
message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.
Thanks very much.
__________________________________________
In a communication from Graham Hancock, here is his thoughts on the subject and my response:
Nine days for the American people to make their will known
President Obama, with an eye to his image, has stated he will seek approval from Congress before implementing his decision -- already made apparently -- to "punish" Syria with military force. "I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he said, adding a second decision: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from American representatives in Congress." That process will begin on 9 September, it seems. Full story from the Jerusalem Post here:http://www.jpost.com/International/Obama-will-seek-approval-from-Congress-to-strike-Syria-324866. See also the London Daily Telegraph here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278259/Syria-latest-Obama-will-put-Syria-decision-to-Congress.html
This is a rather unique situation and represents an opportunity for the American people to make their will known and perhaps change the course of history. The British government, despite the macho gung-ho posturing of Cameron and Hague has already been prevented from launching bombing raids and firing missiles at Syria by the will of the public. Though it seems unlikely, since the President's party holds the majority and Republican support is probable, the same CAN happen in the US -- if members of Congress can be persuaded that public opinion is against such an attack.Then Obama will face a real dilemma. Will he go ahead with the attack anyway, against the will of Congress and the people, or will he call it off? More likely Congress will support the attack but IT IS NOT INEVITABLE.
There is a huge amount of propaganda surrounding this filthy war in Syria and the Western public is being bombarded by news reports focussing on Syrian government atrocities, etc, while these same reports consistently ignore or whitewash rebel atrocities. This can be nothing other than a deliberate media campaign designed to sway public opinion in favour of intervention and, interestingly, one of the world's leading media barons, Rupert Murdoch (Fox News, Sky, The Times of London, etc) has shareholdings in a company that earlier this year was granted oil-drilling rights on the Golan Heights -- sovereign Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Genie Energy, the company granted these rights to exploit the Golan, is advised by former US Vice-President Dick Cheney. Story from Business Insider here: http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2.
I accept absolutely that the Syrian government has blood on its hands, as do the various rebel groups sponsored by the West and the Arabian Gulf states to topple the Syrian government. I do not accept for a moment that bombing raids and missile strikes by the US and its new bed-partner France will do a single useful thing to end the atrocities carried out by both sides in Syria. Contrary to the well-funded propaganda, such strikes will not be "surgical"; they will be horrendous. They will only make things worse, and kill more innocent people and drive the whole region further towards catastrophic chaos. I hope and pray that the American public does not permit the US government to plunge the world into such madness and that somehow, through the will of the people, sanity will prevail.
If by some miracle sanity DOES prevail, what next? Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer. I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation. And I am equally certain that the position on the ground would rapidly improve if all the special interests, whether Western, Russian, Arabian Gulf or other, that are presently fuelling this insane conflict were to withdraw their support from war immediately.
War and more war is not the answer. It can never be the answer.
__________________________________________
In a communication from Graham Hancock, here is his thoughts on the subject and my response:
Nine days for the American people to make their will known
President Obama, with an eye to his image, has stated he will seek approval from Congress before implementing his decision -- already made apparently -- to "punish" Syria with military force. "I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he said, adding a second decision: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from American representatives in Congress." That process will begin on 9 September, it seems. Full story from the Jerusalem Post here:http://www.jpost.com/International/Obama-will-seek-approval-from-Congress-to-strike-Syria-324866. See also the London Daily Telegraph here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278259/Syria-latest-Obama-will-put-Syria-decision-to-Congress.html
This is a rather unique situation and represents an opportunity for the American people to make their will known and perhaps change the course of history. The British government, despite the macho gung-ho posturing of Cameron and Hague has already been prevented from launching bombing raids and firing missiles at Syria by the will of the public. Though it seems unlikely, since the President's party holds the majority and Republican support is probable, the same CAN happen in the US -- if members of Congress can be persuaded that public opinion is against such an attack.Then Obama will face a real dilemma. Will he go ahead with the attack anyway, against the will of Congress and the people, or will he call it off? More likely Congress will support the attack but IT IS NOT INEVITABLE.
There is a huge amount of propaganda surrounding this filthy war in Syria and the Western public is being bombarded by news reports focussing on Syrian government atrocities, etc, while these same reports consistently ignore or whitewash rebel atrocities. This can be nothing other than a deliberate media campaign designed to sway public opinion in favour of intervention and, interestingly, one of the world's leading media barons, Rupert Murdoch (Fox News, Sky, The Times of London, etc) has shareholdings in a company that earlier this year was granted oil-drilling rights on the Golan Heights -- sovereign Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Genie Energy, the company granted these rights to exploit the Golan, is advised by former US Vice-President Dick Cheney. Story from Business Insider here: http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2.
I accept absolutely that the Syrian government has blood on its hands, as do the various rebel groups sponsored by the West and the Arabian Gulf states to topple the Syrian government. I do not accept for a moment that bombing raids and missile strikes by the US and its new bed-partner France will do a single useful thing to end the atrocities carried out by both sides in Syria. Contrary to the well-funded propaganda, such strikes will not be "surgical"; they will be horrendous. They will only make things worse, and kill more innocent people and drive the whole region further towards catastrophic chaos. I hope and pray that the American public does not permit the US government to plunge the world into such madness and that somehow, through the will of the people, sanity will prevail.
If by some miracle sanity DOES prevail, what next? Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer. I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation. And I am equally certain that the position on the ground would rapidly improve if all the special interests, whether Western, Russian, Arabian Gulf or other, that are presently fuelling this insane conflict were to withdraw their support from war immediately.
War and more war is not the answer. It can never be the answer.
_____________________________
Mr. Hancock,
I agree with you for the most part. In fact I included a previous communication from you concerning your thoughts about the Syrian conflict and the use of chemical weapons near Damascus on my site. My thoughts were nearly identical.
After President Obama's short speech on Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013, I was a bit relieved - I felt that "cooler heads had prevailed." I too am concerned about what would be unleashed should the U.S. "go it alone" and conduct a strike in Syria.
However, as you stated; "....Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer..." then added, "I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation." - which in principle is easily agreed to. But in the real world, criminals allowed to get away with murder will continue to commit murder. The world should be responding to this madness, in force. If it was possible, the solution may be staring people in the face; arrest those responsible for the crime.
If that is not possible, what else is left but a strike at the heart of the matter?
Deuke Productions - Political Issues
posted by Deuke at 1:47 PM
