Instead of dropping bombs, the U.S. can and should use other, better means to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the world that chemical weapons are intolerable. President Obama can bring Assad to the International Criminal Court, and he can call for international negotiations. The U.S. can provide humanitarian aid to the millions of affected Syrians, and the U.S. can boycott trade with Syria, and other non-military means. Bombing Syria is likely to increase the refugee crisis, further destabilize the region, and commit the U.S. to open-ended conflict. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, told Congress that attacking Syria would "escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict." Rep. Schiff voted for the Iraq war. This week, he called the Iraq war "a terrible mistake" and said that "Iraq hangs over this debate like a big dark cloud and I think it will influence all of us." Let's learn from the past and not go down that road again. We can help the Syrian people and weaken Assad without military action.

This UN Security Council resolution would be the most effective way to prevent the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It would also negate the justification the Obama administration is using for military strikes in Syria.

Killing more civilians in Syria will not protect them; we do not need to interfere in a civil war. We could instead gather all the countries together and have a diplomatic peace process. We feel that this is about the oil. We are exhausted from the Iraq War, and we are still fighting in Afghanistan. We cannot afford to lose any more soldiers, and we cannot afford to waste money on a military strike.

President Obama and the House leadership are pressing hard for a vote to let the President launch military attacks. We need to push back if we want our Congresswoman to resist the call for war.

President Obama is poised to send air strikes to Syria under allegations Assad has used chemical weapons. There has been zero evidence presented to the American people of Assad's involvement. On the contrary, there are reports the "attack" was actually due to rebel forces mishandling chemicals sent by Saudi Arabia. Military intervention will neither protect nor defend the people of Syria and will only create more enemies in the Middle East. The U.S. public does not support military intervention.

Syrian dictator Assad's use of Chemical Biological Weapons must be condemned; however military attack on Syrian troops is wrong. Assad and his CBW Suppliers must be held accountable; but not by adding injury to their victims. Our only moral response is to reject this false "Hobson's Choice" (military action or nothing) - demanding more civil options. Even shaming Assad and international CBW Providers by long open debate is preferable to adding more destruction.

To prevent the possibility of our unilaterally starting another war.

The recent actions of the Syrian government against its own people shock the conscience. But our own banks are making the problem even worse by doing business with Russian state financial institutions that do business with Bashar al-Assad. If the largest banks in the United States had to cut off their relationships with those financial institutions, that would be a powerful incentive for those organizations to in turn cut off Assad and stop enabling mass murder. Our banks aren't going to do this on their own. But there is one person who can, by executive order, stop US banks from dealing with those who take Assad's money: President Barack Obama. There's not much we can do to stop civil war in Syria, but by making our voices heard, we can stop our country's banks from making it even worse. Tell Obama to issue an executive order to US banks to stop dealing with the financial institutions that back the Assad regime. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/in-syria-try-banks-before-bombs/

In a letter to Congress several weeks ago Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey's words speak for themselves. "We can destroy the Syrian air force," he said. "The loss of Assad's air force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict…" Stand with the veterans and military family members who oppose Syrian intervention and we'll share your thoughts with leaders in Congress before they vote. VoteVets.org is the largest progressive organization of veterans in America.

In the race to fill Senator Ed Markey's old Congressional District, Carl Sciortino is the only candidate who said he would vote against authorizing the use of force in Syria. We need to intervene through forceful diplomacy, rather than unilateral military action. Join him in telling Congress to VOTE NO on this important resolution. For Carl Sciortino's position statement on unilateral military intervention in Syria, click here: http://carlforcongress.com/my-thoughts-on-syria/

My petition is to not fight in Syria , as a tax payer and a citizen I have come to say enough is enough. There are other ways to make justice but not killing anymore people.

Blowing things up in Syria will help no one and have negative effects on our relations with China and Russia. It would be illegal aggression under the UN Charter, and breaking UN rules because we are against others breaking other UN rules makes little sense. Giving the Syrian people gas masks will actually help them, it is legal, and it will not make any other nations mad at us.