SYRIA ; To Bomb or Not to Bomb .. MESSAGE FROM WHITE HOUSE

obama1
Spread the love

OBAMADAN GELEN MESAJ

Subject: Syria
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:56:52 -0500
To: hnurgel@hotmail.com
From: president@messages.whitehouse.gov

The White House, Washington

Good evening —
I just addressed the nation about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
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 in Syria. Over 100,000 people have been killed.
In that time, we have worked with friends and allies to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian people, to help the moderate opposition within Syria, and to shape a political settlement. But we have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force.
The situation profoundly changed in the early hours of August 21, when more than 1,000 Syrians — including hundreds of children — were killed by chemical weapons launched by the Assad government.
What happened to those people — to those children — is not only a violation of international law — it’s also a danger to our security. Here’s why:
If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these deadly weapons erodes, other tyrants and authoritarian regimes will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gases and using them. Over time, our troops could face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. It could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten our allies in the region.
So 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 make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
Though I possess the authority to order these strikes, in the absence of a direct threat to our security I believe that Congress should consider my decision to act. Our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress — and when Americans stand together as one people.
Over the last few days, as this debate unfolds, we’ve already begun to see signs that the credible threat of U.S. military action may produce a diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons and 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.
That’s why I’ve 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. At the same time, we’ll work with two of our closest allies — France and the United Kingdom — 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.
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.
As we continue this debate — in Washington, and across the country — I need your help to make sure that everyone understands the factors at play.
Please share this message with others to make sure they know where I stand, and how they can stay up to date on this situation. Anyone can find the latest information about the situation in Syria, including video of tonight’s address, here:
issues/foreign-policy/syria
Thank you,
President Barack Obama

This email was sent to hnurgel@hotmail.com.
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 •  numbers button skype logo202-456-1111 

=============

From: Nursel Oran [mailto:nurander@primus.ca]

 

 

“In April 2009, an Abu Dhabi newspaper carried the news that Qatar had proposed a gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Turkey. The Gulf sheikhdom had just finished an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas at the world’s biggest gas field and needed access to European markets, bypassing the troubled Persian Gulf where the threat of Iran hangs over the heads of the region’s medieval monarchs… But what Qatar and Turkey had not foreseen was the fact President Assad of Syria would have the gall to say ‘No’ to their moneymaking venture, instead inking deals with both Russia and Iran.”

 

September 11, 2013

 

suriye

 

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

 

Tarek Fatah

The Toronto Sun

 

While Russia and America try to outfox each other in the equivalent of a 21st century “Great Game,” Syria’s next-door neighbour Israel may end up being drawn into the conflict.

 

After all, the Syrian civil war has taken place very close to Israel’s northern borders and the prospect of Hezbollah getting its hands on Syrian chemical weapons cannot be ruled out, despite a number of Israeli air attacks on Syrian convoys that were suspected of transferring military equipment to southern Lebanon.

 

For the first time, Israel has deployed its Iron Dome anti-missile defence battery in the Jerusalem area. Last week, the IDF had moved Iron Dome batteries to various locations, including the Tel Aviv area, in response to the possibility of reprisals for an American attack against Syria.

 

The possibility of cruise missiles landing in Damascus triggered serious debate on Monday at the opening of the World Summit on Counter-Terrorism hosted by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya, Israel.

 

Uzi Arad, the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, told the conference he doubted if an attack on Syrian government forces by the U.S. would be successful.

 

Speaking to a packed audience, Arad surprised delegates from more than 50 countries when he criticized President Barack Obama, saying the American leader, by threatening Damascus, had bitten off more than he could chew. Arad, once an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Netenyahu, suggested the best thing President Obama could do now was to extricate himself from the corner he had backed himself into with as much dignity as possible.

 

Twenty-four hours later, the American president seems to have received just such a chance to back out from his disastrous diplomatic debacle. This happened when the Russians called John Kerry’s bluff and obtained agreement from Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.

 

At the summit, Uzi Arad not only dismissed the Obama-Kerry proposed response as a bad idea, he openly questioned its legality. He told the counter-terrorism summit, “Syria is not a signatory to international conventions against the use of chemical weapons,” making the legal basis for intervention somewhat shoddy. “You cannot say that Assad violated an international convention Syria is not signed on to.”

 

The annual summit attracted nearly 1,000 delegates from more than 50 countries ranging from India and Brazil to Canada and Australia. They included academics, intelligence officials, retired generals and police officials, and the one question on everyone’s mind, was this: “Why can’t America get its act together?”

 

Few were aware of the oil factor behind the Syrian civil war.

 

In April 2009, an Abu Dhabi newspaper carried the news that Qatar had proposed a gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Turkey. The Gulf sheikhdom had just finished an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas at the world’s biggest gas field and needed access to European markets, bypassing the troubled Persian Gulf where the threat of Iran hangs over the heads of the region’s medieval monarchs.

 

Following talks with the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, the then ruler of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani told the media, “We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey.” But what Qatar and Turkey had not foreseen was the fact President Assad of Syria would have the gall to say ‘No’ to their moneymaking venture, instead inking deals with both Russia and Iran.

 

As one counter-terrorism expert at the Herzliya summit said, “follow the money.”


Spread the love

More posts