Military & Armed Forces
Page 7
- From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off — that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons, while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force.
- I don’t really understand exactly why people regard this as being different, if you blow up someone with a bomb versus killing them with gas. Historically, the reason why countries banded together to prevent the use of gas attacks is because, among other things, it ended up being used inadvertently against your own troops….at this point the evidence seems to be that there’s only four countries in the world that have chemical weapons. We happen to be one of them. In fact, arguably, the United States has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. So, on the basis of that, I’m not sure that were in the best moral position to be indicating to others what to do about chemical weapons.
- One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire, on the part of people to be the world's policeman.
- How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidences? We're not like the American administration. We're not social media administration or government. We are the government that deal with reality - when we have evidence.
- But for us, in Syria, we have principles. We'll do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. It's not only Syria. Because it will start in Syria...
- The first question that they should ask themself, what do wars give America? ...No political gain, no economic gain, no good reputation. United States is at all low...the credibility is at...all-time low. So this war is against the interests of the United States.
- Opposition is different from terrorism. Opposition is a political movement. Opposition doesn't mean to take-- armament and kill people and destroy everything. Do you call the people in Los Angeles in the '90s, do you call them rebels or opposition? What would the British call the rebels less than two years ago in London? Do-- did they call them opposition or rebels? Why should we call them opposition? They are rebels. They are not rebels even, they are terror-- they are behaving-- this opposition, opposing country or government by behaving by barbecuing head, by eating the hearts of your victim? Is that opposition?
- But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
- I would say if the president cannot make his case to Congress then it's not going to pass. He's got to come out and really be in-depth with respect to the intelligence that we know is out there; he's got to be in-depth with respect to what type of military action is going to be taken, and what is our current strategy? And how does this military strike impact that particular strategy?
- It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security.
- The consequences of the Congress of the United States overriding a decision of the president of the United States of this magnitude are really very, very dangerous.
- The well of public opinion has been well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode.