I don't have one say in the matter.
I could call, write and FAX til I'm.blue in the face.

I don't have what my reps want. Lots and lots of green.

Read today, Barry was on his knees selling invasion to mcLame and some other Jackass. They both CAME out sold. mcLame was easy. He's Barry's lap dog.

Me. I could give a rats azz what the world thinks.

If they think we is soft, come on over and give us a push.

We as Americans find ourselves in a very serious and scary situation.
In a week or so, our Congress and President will decide whether to strike and how much, or not to strike at all.

Right now, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's a political figure, corporations,global world order types or all of the above that got us into this mess.

The one FACT that we all share is this, the consequences of doing either can have a huge difference in our world.

If we don't act, that will show our enemies and friends alike that we are weak and our word can not be trusted. This could also escalate the already growing Al-Qaeda type terrorist groups and enlistments and support for them.

If we act, Not only will Syrians be killed, it could seriously escalate the tensions between Israel,Iran, Jordan and could plunge the whole Middle East into war.

Both scenario's are bad.

I would wish that cooler heads on all sides prevail, Assad would step down, U.S. steps back, Russians and Iranians leave Syria, and the Syrian people determine their Destiny.

Unfortunately we live in the REAL world.

I think any international decisions we make come with that risk

Those thinking we should act think we are 'weak' if we don't
and those who don't think we should get involved think we need to be knocked down out of our authoritative type decision


as I said, I would not want to be a politician because of such decisions and their impact on the world,,,,

It just might help if,
They find that what is it, serin, actually in samples instead of the signature.

Another deciding factor would be who did the gassing.

CIA has lots of toys. Got a feeling they already may have their 'Who dunnit' movie.

-- Even if Obama gets Congress' approval to strike Syrian targets, he might still violate international law. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a president can initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. But that's a U.S. law. The United Nations' charter generally doesn't allow countries to attack other nations unless in self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council -- neither of which is the case in Syria.

-- Congressional approval wouldn't solve the problem with international law, a senior administration official said, but it would enhance the legitimacy of military action.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/world/syria-developments/

1. the U.N charter explicitly states no nation can use chemical weapons and that is a violation of international law and they don't seem to be enforcing that.
2. Who will enforce international law against us? the UN or the EU? I doubt it.

Anyway you look at it , no matter what we want, I think some form of military action will be taken.

A team of UN chemical weapons experts already in Damascus to investigate separate allegations of chemical weapons use managed to gain access to the sites near Damascus on 26 August, five days after the attack occurred.

For four days, they spoke to survivors, nurses and doctors and took blood and urine samples from the districts affected.

They have since returned to The Hague and are awaiting the results of their findings, which they will then present in a final report to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

But the UN team is only responsible for investigating whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

I'm assuming they'll know that in the next week or so...If we launch a strike without proof who did it, that would be really bad. That might be our saving grace...if no one can actually prove who used it...then we can back out of this whole mess.

Exactly, If the Obama admin can't prove who did it, it may be our only peaceful way out of this. But I'm sure the NSA and CIA are capable of fabricating such evidence to be used in this mess.

That type proof will be hard, if not impossible, to obtain...Also, what happened in Iraq should not be a deciding factor for what, if any, action we take in Syria…No matter how much people like to compare the two, they are not the same…The best congress can do is take what history teaches and use that knowledge where it applies…Britain has spoken formally, Russia, China, Israel, France, and America have let their feelings be known…UN investigators have gathered the data needed to make a "clinical" determination on what, if any, chemicals were used….They left Syria on Saturday and estimate it will take approximately a week to complete tests…Hopefully congress will have the results when they convene on Sept 9th…The biggest questions are what will using military force accomplish and what are the long range plans if we do attack…Obamas proposed resolution is not definitive enough for many lawmakers…The biggest obstacle is failure to "prove" Assad gave the order …These and many other questions will be debated pitting Obama and Pelosi against those Republicans and Democrats who remain skeptical of military intervention…Reason says congress will follow British Parliament's lead and reject Obama's proposal to use military force in response to the use of chemical warfare in Syria….Personally, I think refusing to attack combined with moving even more assets into position is the way to go because Obama's bright red line has already faded to a sickly pale pink as he beats the drum in an effort to convince House and Senate members to back him….In view of his history with congress, I don't think his chances are all that good….One can certainly hope....