350
VIEWS
71
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Approved for CNN

  • Click to view k3vsDad's profile
    Posted September 10, 2013 by
    k3vsDad
    Location
    Farmersburg, Indiana
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Are chemical weapons a ‘red line’?

    k3vsDad and 14 other iReporters contributed to Open Story: Should the West intervene in Syria?
    More from k3vsDad

    Obama Does Not Close the Sale on Syria

     

    CNN PRODUCER NOTE     Following President Obama's Tuesday speech k3vsDad concluded, 'In light of the proposal laid on the table by Russia to place the Syrian chemical stockpile under international control, I believe the Congress will adopt a wait and see policy. Many of our elected officials are still expressing doubt about the ‘good faith’ of the Russians and Syrian President Bashar al Assad in this offer. I believe that barring another chemical attack, the US will sit on the sidelines in accordance to the wishes of the American people. If any action is taken, I believe the President will act alone in the event of another such atrocity in Syria. The purported position of Russia that the US must foreswear any use of force at any time now or in the future against the Syrian regime in order to make the proposal work, however, is sure to sink the deal. Congress will not allow a foreign power to dictate what the US can or cannot do.'
    - hhanks, CNN iReport producer

    President  Barack Obama spoke to the nation tonight to garner support for his  position of punishing Syria for use of chemical weapons. The President  came up short from where I sit.

    Since 189 nations signed on to  the ban on chemical weapons and less than a handful of countries want to  punish Assad, doesn't this say the law is not the global norm when the  vast majority do not support intervention in a civil war?

    The ban is to prevent one nation using the gas on another nation.

    While deplorable, I still do not see it is our moral obligation to  interfere in a domestic dispute within another sovereign nation. If the  gas were used against another country, the parameters would change. We  would then be morally, ethically and legally bound to punish the  perpetrator.

    At this point we still have not seen proof beyond  reasonable doubt that the Syrian regime and not the rebels committed  the gassing.

    But what, Mr. President, does a slap on the wrist really say to Assad?

    How much pain will actually be felt by the regime?

    Will Assad not hunker down and wait it out, then strike out in retaliation against his own people?

    From the Cornfield, the President was not convincing. The President did  not lay out justification to involve our nation in this venture to  "punish" Assad.

    No, Mr. President, you did not do what you intended. You did not close the sale.

    I am not persuaded.

    Add your Story Add your Story