I agree with the writer who said "NO".......it's just a very stupid idea by 
 ignorant politicos. There are no "good guys" in these disputes between 
Moslem  factions. The one thing they can agree upon is their hatred for Western 
Culture  as they fight to get into line  to come to our countries and bring 
 their hatreds with them. No thanx....stay out of i,t we can only loose and 
do  not take in their so called refugees as you will be brining in trained  
terrororists hiding among them. 
 
In a message dated 8/25/2013 1:33:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:












No.  It  is a very stupid idea by ignorant politicians. 
B 
 
 
 
 
Aug 25, 9:54 AM EDT 
Top lawmakers call for  military response in Syria  
By KIMBERLY DOZIER 
AP Intelligence  Writer 
Virginian Pilot 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two top lawmakers are calling for an immediate U.S.  
military response to the Syria's suspected chemical weapons attack that killed  
at least a hundred civilians last week. 
Republican Sen. Bob Corker is calling for the U.S. to respond in a  
"surgical and proportional way, something that gets their attention." The  
Tennessee lawmaker says such a response should not involve U.S. troops on the  
ground, however. 
Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel of New York says the U.S. must respond "quickly," 
 together with NATO allies, possibly using cruise missile strikes, as the 
U.S.  and NATO did in Libya. 
A senior administration official said Sunday there is "very little doubt" a 
 chemical weapon was used, but added the president had not yet decided how 
to  respond. 
Corker and Engel appeared on "Fox News Sunday." 
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. 
A senior administration official said Sunday there is "very little doubt"  
that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in an 
 incident that killed at least 100 people last week, but added that the  
president had not yet decided how to respond. 
The official said the U.S. intelligence community based its assessment  
given to the White House on "the reported number of victims, reported symptoms  
of those who were killed or injured," and witness accounts. The official 
spoke  on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to 
speak  publicly. 
The official said the White House believes the Syrian government is  
continuing to bar a U.N. investigative team immediate access to the site of a  
reported Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs, in order to  
give the evidence of the attack time to degrade. 
The official said the regime's continuing shelling of the site also further 
 corrupts any available evidence of the attack. 
Last Wednesday's purported chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of  
eastern Ghouta has prompted U.S. naval forces to move closer to Syria.  
President 
Barack Obama met with his national security team Saturday to assess  the 
intelligence and consider a U.S. military response, almost a year after  
warning the regime of Bashar Asad that chemical weapons use was a "red line"  
for 
the U.S. 
The White House had concluded previously that the Syrian regime has used  
chemical weapons in limited incidents, but last week's attack is suspected of 
 being the deadliest single incident of a civil war that has killed more 
than  100,000 people since March 2011. 
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Thursday that a chemical attack  
"appears to be what happened." 
The White House has approved limited lethal aid to Syrian rebels, but has  
limited weapons to mostly small arms and training. Obama described the 
factors  limiting greater U.S. involvement in a CNN interview. 
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and 
 without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in  
terms of whether international law supports it - do we have the coalition 
to  make it work?" Obama said in the interview broadcast Friday. "Those are  
considerations that we have to take into account." 
Hagel offered no hints Sunday about likely U.S. response to Syria's  
purported use of chemical weapons, telling reporters traveling with him in  
Malaysia that the Obama administration was still assessing intelligence  
information about the deadly attack. 
"When we have more information, that answer will become clear," he said  
when a reporter asked whether it was a matter of when, not if, the U.S. will  
take military action against Syria. 
Asked about U.S. military options on Syria, Hagel spoke in broad terms  
about the factors Obama is weighing. 
"There are risks and consequences for any option that would be used or not  
used - for action or inaction," he told reporters. "You have to come to the 
 central point of what would be the objective if you are to pursue an 
action or  not pursue an action. So all those assessments are being  made." 
If the U.S. wants to send a message to Assad, defense officials have  
previously indicated the most likely military action would be a Tomahawk  
missile 
strike, launched from a ship in the Mediterranean. 
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a  
letter to a congressman last week that the administration opposes even limited  
action in Syria because it believes rebels fighting the Assad government  
wouldn't support American interests if they seized power. He said while the  
U.S. military could take out Assad's air force and shift the balance of the  
war toward the armed opposition, but that it's unclear where the strategy  
would go from there. 
Dempsey is now in Amman, Jordan, set to meet with Arab and Western peers  
later Sunday to discuss ways to bolster the security of Syria's neighbors  
against possible attacks, chemical or other, by Assad's regime, a Jordanian  
security official said. 
The meeting, closed to the press and held at an unspecified location,  
gathers chiefs of staff from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Turkey,  
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, the official said on condition of anonymity  
because he is not allowed to brief reporters.






__._,_.__






__,_._,___







-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google  Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

*  Visit our other community at _http://www.PoliticalForum.com/_ 
(http://www.politicalforum.com/)  
*  It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the  latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message  because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To  unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email  to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to