My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it
matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a
series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad
has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been
killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked
with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition
and to shape a political settlement.
But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve
someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on Aug. 21st, when Assad's
government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of
children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children
lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping
for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up
and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the
terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of
humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a
violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the
many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War
II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these
weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and
infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in
1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international
agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189
governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On Aug. 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of
common humanity.
No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw
thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the
attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with
people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up
to Aug. 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for
an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas
masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area
into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of
opposition forces.
Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled
with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad's military
machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime increased their
shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also
studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested
positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the
other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things
happened. The facts cannot be denied.
The question now is what the United States of America and the international
community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people,
to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it's also a
danger to our security.
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.
And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken
prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's
ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by
building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is
why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national
security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use
of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this
strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his
regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not
tolerate their use. That's my judgment as commander in chief.
But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.
So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I
believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our
security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is
stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe
that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making
power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the
shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from
the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea
of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular.
After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to
start them. Our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from
Afghanistan, and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially
me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting
people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It's no
wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of
the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress and
that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.
First, many of you have asked: Won't this put us on a slippery slope to
another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our
involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and
tired of war.
My answer is simple. I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I
will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not
pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a
targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical
weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities.
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. As
some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a
pinprick strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do
pinpricks.
Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can
deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force. We
learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes
next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice
before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don't dismiss any
threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously
threaten our military. Any other any other retaliation they might seek is
in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies
have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally
Israel can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable
support of the United States of America.
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all
in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those
who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? It's true that some of
Assad's opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a
more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent
innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian
people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace,
with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would
redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those
who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or
seek solutions short of force?
And several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. I
agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the
last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings
and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, 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.
I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to
authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending
Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday,
and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I've spoken to
the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom. And
we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a
resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his
chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.
We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings
about what happened on Aug. 21st. And we will continue to rally support from
allies, from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East who agree
on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to
keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy
fails. And tonight I give thanks again to our military and their families
for their incredible strength and sacrifices.
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades the United States has been the
anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging
international agreements. It has meant enforcing them. The burdens of
leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have
borne them.
And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to
America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly
just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and
dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and
going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and
statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home
tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of
world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator
brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the
other way? Franklin Roosevelt once said our national determination to keep
free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from
feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are
challenged.
Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in
Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the
worst weapons will never be used. America is not the world's policeman.
Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right
every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children
from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the
long run, I believe we should act. That's what makes America different.
That's what makes us exceptional.
With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential
truth.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni and Dr. Kiiza Besigye Uganda is in anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni na Dk. Kiiza Besigye Uganda ni katika machafuko"
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
