Aa
US readies possible solo action against Syria
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
It was not certain the U.S. would have to act alone. France announced that its armed forces “have been put in position to respond” if President Francois Hollande commits forces to intervention against Syria. Hollande does not need French parliamentary approval to launch military action that lasts less than four months.
Obama discussed the situation in Syria with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who wrote to the president earlier this week seeking a legal justification for a military strike and the objectives of any potential action.
Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons, vowed his country “will defend itself against any aggression.”
Some of the U.N. chemical weapons experts will travel directly from Syria on Saturday to different laboratories around Europe to deliver “an extensive amount of material” gathered, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said. While the mandate of the U.N. team is to determine whether chemical agents were used in the attack, not who was responsible, Haq suggested the evidence — which includes biological samples and witness interviews — might give an indication of who deployed gases.
Obama and other top officials have not revealed definitive evidence to back claims that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. U.S. officials say the intelligence assessments are no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence publicly.
Despite shortcomings in the intelligence, the White House signaled urgency in acting, with Earnest, the White House spokesman saying the president believes there is a “compressed time frame” for responding.
“It is important for the Assad regime and other totalitarian dictators around the world to understand that the international community will not tolerate the indiscriminate, widespread use of chemical weapons, particularly against women and children as they’re sleeping in their beds,” he said.
But many Congress members were pressing Obama to explain the need for military action and address fears that such a move might draw the U.S. deeper into the Syrian civil war.
The White House has not responded directly to Boehner’s letter seeking more answers about Syria operations and the speaker’s office appeared unsatisfied after the president’s call Thursday.
“Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
Washington Rep. Adam Smith, senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, cautioned that an attack might be ineffective and might draw the United States into the Syrian civil war, now in its third year.
“Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of ‘doing something’ will not secure our interests in Syria,” Smith said in a statement.
Thursday’s briefing for lawmakers was expected to include only unclassified intelligence, meaning that key details that could more clearly link Assad to a chemical attack might not have been part of it. A similar intelligence report is also expected to be released publicly on Friday.
Obama continued making his case for a robust response to world leaders, speaking Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. With national elections scheduled in Germany for next month, Merkel is unlikely to pull her country into a military conflict.
Merkel also discussed Syria by phone Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that the attack “requires an international reaction,” Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert said.
Obama has ruled out putting American forces on the ground in Syria or setting up a no-fly zone over the country. He’s also said any U.S. response to the chemical weapons attack would be limited in scope and aimed solely at punishing Assad for deploying deadly gases, not at regime change.
“We do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said during a television interview.
The most likely military option would be Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. At a minimum, Western forces are expected to strike targets that symbolize Assad’s military and political might: military and national police headquarters, including the Defense Ministry; the Syrian military’s general staff; and the four-brigade Republican Guard that is in charge of protecting Damascus, Assad’s seat of power. Assad’s ruling Baath Party headquarters could be targeted, too.
U.S. officials also are considering attacking military command centers and vital forces, communications hubs and weapons caches, including ballistic missile batteries.
http://theadvocate.com/home/6915836-125/us-readies-possible-solo-action
Obama discussed the situation in Syria with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who wrote to the president earlier this week seeking a legal justification for a military strike and the objectives of any potential action.
Assad, who has denied using chemical weapons, vowed his country “will defend itself against any aggression.”
Some of the U.N. chemical weapons experts will travel directly from Syria on Saturday to different laboratories around Europe to deliver “an extensive amount of material” gathered, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said. While the mandate of the U.N. team is to determine whether chemical agents were used in the attack, not who was responsible, Haq suggested the evidence — which includes biological samples and witness interviews — might give an indication of who deployed gases.
Obama and other top officials have not revealed definitive evidence to back claims that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians. U.S. officials say the intelligence assessments are no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence publicly.
Despite shortcomings in the intelligence, the White House signaled urgency in acting, with Earnest, the White House spokesman saying the president believes there is a “compressed time frame” for responding.
“It is important for the Assad regime and other totalitarian dictators around the world to understand that the international community will not tolerate the indiscriminate, widespread use of chemical weapons, particularly against women and children as they’re sleeping in their beds,” he said.
But many Congress members were pressing Obama to explain the need for military action and address fears that such a move might draw the U.S. deeper into the Syrian civil war.
The White House has not responded directly to Boehner’s letter seeking more answers about Syria operations and the speaker’s office appeared unsatisfied after the president’s call Thursday.
“Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
Washington Rep. Adam Smith, senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, cautioned that an attack might be ineffective and might draw the United States into the Syrian civil war, now in its third year.
“Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of ‘doing something’ will not secure our interests in Syria,” Smith said in a statement.
Thursday’s briefing for lawmakers was expected to include only unclassified intelligence, meaning that key details that could more clearly link Assad to a chemical attack might not have been part of it. A similar intelligence report is also expected to be released publicly on Friday.
Obama continued making his case for a robust response to world leaders, speaking Thursday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. With national elections scheduled in Germany for next month, Merkel is unlikely to pull her country into a military conflict.
Merkel also discussed Syria by phone Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that the attack “requires an international reaction,” Merkel spokesman Steffen Seibert said.
Obama has ruled out putting American forces on the ground in Syria or setting up a no-fly zone over the country. He’s also said any U.S. response to the chemical weapons attack would be limited in scope and aimed solely at punishing Assad for deploying deadly gases, not at regime change.
“We do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said during a television interview.
The most likely military option would be Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. At a minimum, Western forces are expected to strike targets that symbolize Assad’s military and political might: military and national police headquarters, including the Defense Ministry; the Syrian military’s general staff; and the four-brigade Republican Guard that is in charge of protecting Damascus, Assad’s seat of power. Assad’s ruling Baath Party headquarters could be targeted, too.
U.S. officials also are considering attacking military command centers and vital forces, communications hubs and weapons caches, including ballistic missile batteries.
http://theadvocate.com/home/6915836-125/us-readies-possible-solo-action
I'm sorry he feels the need to do this. I understand why, but still think it's a very bad idea. I have a hard time believing it will be a matter of just a single strike, then that is the end of it. I feel like this will open a Pandora's Box. The Middle East could so easily break out into all out war as a region, and with the anti US sentiment over there, this could be the beginning of something much more serious. How on earth are the US interest's impacted here? The only way I see is if more anti US sentiment gets stirred up as a result of this action, allowing extremist groups like Al Quada to gain an even stronger hold on this region. I still feel strongly that as horrific as what is going on is, this part of the world has to sort this out on their own. I hope he chooses not to go through with it.
When VP Biden was a Senator he made a statement to the effect that if Bush did not get Congressional approval he would move to impeach him. Wonder if he will do the same if Obama does not get Congressional approval?
Yep - you betcha.
If I am not mistaken, under the war powers act, the president has 60 days before he has to go to congress? Correct me if I am wrong? But Bush, Cinton and other presidents have gone in without congressional approval before as well.
Now here is my thing. I keep hearing what this one and that one, all the talking heads are saying, but I watched obama on pbs just the other night, and at that point in time had not decided what type of action he would take. Nothing as far as he was concerned was definately decided and was still weighing the options.
And as far as impeaching obama? LOL, they been screaming that for some time now, so definately expect more of that.
Now here is my thing. I keep hearing what this one and that one, all the talking heads are saying, but I watched obama on pbs just the other night, and at that point in time had not decided what type of action he would take. Nothing as far as he was concerned was definately decided and was still weighing the options.
And as far as impeaching obama? LOL, they been screaming that for some time now, so definately expect more of that.
“The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris. you’ve known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/flashback-joe-biden-calls-for-impeaching-bush-if-he-attacks-without-congressional-approval/
So according to the VP, if Obama does anything against Syria then he should be held up for impeachment. This is the words from the current VP, not someone from the right.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/flashback-joe-biden-calls-for-impeaching-bush-if-he-attacks-without-congressional-approval/
So according to the VP, if Obama does anything against Syria then he should be held up for impeachment. This is the words from the current VP, not someone from the right.
Well than, I guess its fortunate for Obama that the war powers act is on his side then? What do the war powers acts say?
It's funny that anyone who says anything that might be construed as an indictment or a criticism of the President is held up by the right as eminently qualified. No one from the right has ever had anything but disdain for Biden but now with this one quote they're all queuing up quote his statement as proof of........oh who cares anyway. I don't need Joe Biden or anyone else to tell me that we should stay out of Syria. They're making a bad batch of sausage over there and I, for one, don't want to watch.
I show the double standard that comes from the left. I don't think Obama should be impeached, but if Biden made that statement against Bush he should also come out and say it for Obama.
Ouch...
As a senator, Obama was a staunch critic of President George W. Bush for not obtaining renewed authorization for the war in Iraq. He blasted his predecessor in 2007, saying, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Additionally, as a candidate for president, Obama reaffirmed that sentiment. He told the Boston Globe in a questionnaire, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
As a senator, Obama was a staunch critic of President George W. Bush for not obtaining renewed authorization for the war in Iraq. He blasted his predecessor in 2007, saying, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Additionally, as a candidate for president, Obama reaffirmed that sentiment. He told the Boston Globe in a questionnaire, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
1973 Act passed basically says
The law requires that the president seek consent from Congress before force is used or within 60 days of the start of hostilities and that the president provides Congress with reports throughout the conflict.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/politics/syria-obama-war-powers/
The law requires that the president seek consent from Congress before force is used or within 60 days of the start of hostilities and that the president provides Congress with reports throughout the conflict.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/politics/syria-obama-war-powers/
True and certain it is.
I just now heard another chemical attack happened as recently as monday of this week. They had another video. Doctors are saying the regime is who they think did it. omg
Rebels entrenched in the hills above one of eastern Congo's largest cities
..........
Fifty thousand soldiers will patrol the streets of Bogota, Colombia, after violent protests that left at least two people dead and dozens injured
...............
Syria's two warring sides have directly attacked their opponents in Lebanon with car bombs, roadside bomb ambushes, and rocket attacks, all of which further deepen the bitter Sunni-Shiite rift here and raise fears over the country's stability
.................
North Korea has rescinded its offer to allow a special U.S. envoy on human rights to travel to the country to negotiate the release of an American imprisoned there
.................
jihadi militants who took over a major highway in western Iraq stop three Syrian truck drivers, interrogate them, then gun them down, believing them to be members of the Alawite sect.
MOSCOW—The Kremlin said Friday it is still trying to prevent a Western military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but Moscow appears to be running out of cards to play to protect its longtime ally.
...........
Interesting we live in and let's not forget Egypt
..........
Fifty thousand soldiers will patrol the streets of Bogota, Colombia, after violent protests that left at least two people dead and dozens injured
...............
Syria's two warring sides have directly attacked their opponents in Lebanon with car bombs, roadside bomb ambushes, and rocket attacks, all of which further deepen the bitter Sunni-Shiite rift here and raise fears over the country's stability
.................
North Korea has rescinded its offer to allow a special U.S. envoy on human rights to travel to the country to negotiate the release of an American imprisoned there
.................
jihadi militants who took over a major highway in western Iraq stop three Syrian truck drivers, interrogate them, then gun them down, believing them to be members of the Alawite sect.
MOSCOW—The Kremlin said Friday it is still trying to prevent a Western military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but Moscow appears to be running out of cards to play to protect its longtime ally.
...........
Interesting we live in and let's not forget Egypt
You'd say I'm on the left and there is no double standard as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't want Bush to go to war and I don't want Obama to either.
Call me a peacenik or refusnik, I don't care.
I'm just an artist opposed to war in almost all situations.
Now, does the president really have the power or are they just the front men~ puppets on a string ?
I didn't want Bush to go to war and I don't want Obama to either.
Call me a peacenik or refusnik, I don't care.
I'm just an artist opposed to war in almost all situations.
Now, does the president really have the power or are they just the front men~ puppets on a string ?
Has any one stop to consider Israel ? We are playing in their back yard, what is their stance on all of this, and how long before they have to react in more forceful ways? Are they not prepared to step up to the plate? Are they are they not willing and able to strike with the most extreme measures. We have been told the fallout will come to this country, and yet home many of us want to watch the ramifications of our actions, the actions of our president cause a region to go in an unrecoverable melt down, that will ignite a fuse we may not be able to extinguish,
Remember the movie War Games? childish maybe but thermonuclear war has no winners.
All a few Tomahawks are going to do is push the point.
orphanenhawk, this president has been able to change the Constitution call the framers of it radical extremist,I recall another mighty empire that sat idly and watch its government destroy itself. Have we forgotten Rome? What happen to the concept," We the people for the people by the people"?
Remember the movie War Games? childish maybe but thermonuclear war has no winners.
All a few Tomahawks are going to do is push the point.
orphanenhawk, this president has been able to change the Constitution call the framers of it radical extremist,I recall another mighty empire that sat idly and watch its government destroy itself. Have we forgotten Rome? What happen to the concept," We the people for the people by the people"?
typo...will not come to this country
I think Obama has backed himself into a corner. As someone said, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He neither has political or public backing for a missile strike he would like..Where's Hillary's opinion on all this? Distancing herself?
I have been watching this fairly closely along with all of you. The media is like a run away train with this. All the talking heads have been out saying we are going to do this and we are going to do that. But in all actuality the president has not decided what he wants to do at this time. He stated that there would be no boots on the ground and also talked diplomatic and legal measures but said definitely something needs done. So the media has had us prepared for a strike for the last week or so and the president is still weighing all the options. A ratings war with the media? I think they do more damage sometimes than they are worth. Hillary has nothing to do with this and is just another talking head. She is out of politics currently and has no say.
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."
G. K. Chesterton
G. K. Chesterton
There is no question that you're right about that.
I seriously doubt Hillary wants to own any part of this. This thing is probably going to be toxic regardless of what decision is made.
By going to Congress Obama might be looking for a way out of military action. CNN keeps saying that he'll be embarrassed if Congress doesn't support him but I don't see it that way at all. Of course, I'm not selling "news" and we know too well how that colors the canvas.
I seriously doubt Hillary wants to own any part of this. This thing is probably going to be toxic regardless of what decision is made.
By going to Congress Obama might be looking for a way out of military action. CNN keeps saying that he'll be embarrassed if Congress doesn't support him but I don't see it that way at all. Of course, I'm not selling "news" and we know too well how that colors the canvas.
I don't believe he'll jeopardize his socialist manifesto or the democratic party's future chance to carry it out over a few legacy fireworks just to make a wrist slapping point..He must have had a political, save your *** epiphany last night.
No doubt in my mind that the house will go the opposite way, remember they have vowed obstruction and followed thru, so what makes you think this is any different. He stated what he thinks, up front. And said BUT, altho he does not think he needs their approval, he will debate with congress and put it to a vote. And then, when more chemicals are used, or someone else thinks it okay to use them? Its on congress!
Or if they just happen to go along because they can see into the crystal ball and see the future, and figure if things go awry obama gets the blame, then obama gets what he wants.....BRILLIANT
Its called a win win for obama i thinks.
With that said, I am glad he took it to congress......Embarrassment? He is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. Red face on either or.
brilliant. And I am glad he took it to congress.
Or if they just happen to go along because they can see into the crystal ball and see the future, and figure if things go awry obama gets the blame, then obama gets what he wants.....BRILLIANT
Its called a win win for obama i thinks.
With that said, I am glad he took it to congress......Embarrassment? He is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. Red face on either or.
brilliant. And I am glad he took it to congress.
I was pretty disappointed in his speech personally. As a non American, once again I hear the "your with me or against me" although he wasn't so blunt about it. What is the point in having a UN Security Council if you are going to completely disregard what they are saying. I felt like Obama was treating this a political issue inside the US instead of what it really is - potentially leading the free world right smack into a war. I'm glad Britain has voted to take no part in this and I suspect there will be little support here from the other free countries other, with the exception perhaps of France. And I don't believe for a single second that this attack would stay at just a quick blitz attack. There will be retaliation, and then there will be more. If the US does this, there will be a war, I have no doubt about it. I lost a lot of respect for Mr. Obama today. Sorry, but I did.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
