There are still unanswered questions about chemical weapons in Syria. It is assumed the upper echelon of the Assad government supported these gas attacks. If we don't know, we risk more than we gain in the region and the world's stage. Our abhorrence of the gas attack emotionally clouds a further search for truth before more death and misery is warranted.

I am disappointed that President Obama seems to be repeating the mistakes of former President Bush. I voted for President Obama because I believed it was time for a change in our foreign policy from bluster to bolster, from aggression to assertion, from waging indiscriminate wars to fighting for peace and I thought this was a change President Obama believed in. I want to remind him that people still do believe in the necessity of that kind of change. And he needs reminding quickly--BEFORE American weapons are used against the people of Syria.

If you’ve read the headlines, you’ve heard we’re heading towards military action in Syria — with some U.S. military officials saying a missile strike could happen any time. Congress has not authorized any such military strike and the President has not given any indication he is going to seek such authorization. Please ask Congress to stand with Rep. Barbara Lee who recently said that “Congress needs to have a full debate before the United States commits to any military force in Syria – or elsewhere.” Tell Congress: No military action in Syria without prior Congressional authorization. In the United States Constitution, the power to declare war is expressly in the hands of Congress.The President is able to take military action in emergency cases of self-defense, but that does not appear to be the case with Syria. Tell Congress: No military action in Syria without prior Congressional authorization. It’s crucial for Americans who care about Congressional war powers to speak up. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said, “Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without Congressional approval.” We agree 100%. If you do too, please write your member of Congress now.

The US Economy demands attention from the Obama administration. Escalating our military presence in the Middle East will not make Americans safer, nor will benefit our economy. Americans deserve sincere attention to make them safer, and support a realistic opportunity to earn a living wage. Consistent commitment to military action in the Middle East in the guise of National Security is going to make the US less safe and bankrupt our country.

According to news reports, President Obama is poised to send air strikes to Syria. This type of action will neither protect nor defend the population. The U.S. public does not support military intervention.

I was raised by a father who suffered both from emphysema caused by gasing and from PTSD caused by his very active service in WW I. I knew many who suffered greatly in WW II, and at 92 I don't know personally those who fought and are fighting In Iraq and Afghanistan, but I read about their suffering when they have come home. I fear greatly that using the military option in response to the use of gas in Syria will lead to a still more explosive situation in the middle east. And I am also a friend of Israel, though I often deplore the actions of it's government, and it is likely to suffer from any escalation of the violence in the Middle East.

President Obama is considering using violence to respond to and prevent further chemical weapons attacks in Syria. This is on the same day that he is extolling the messages of Dr. Martin Luther King, who ironically was a man of peace and nonviolence. The USA is a mighty, wealthy and benevolent country. Most Americans are good-hearted individuals wanting to help others in need. Let's use our power to do good that will be sustained in Syria. Let's provide gas masks to the people, let's increase humanitarian aid to the refugees, let's deliver more goods and supplies, especially medications to the Syrian hospitals. In that way, we 'take action,' but take it in a way that hurts no one, and helps everyone. We must not choose sides in this Civil War, and under no circumstances should we insult the legacy and the dreams of Dr. King by responding to violence with more violence. Thank you for your consideration.

We are not a rogue nation. We should not take military action against another country without the support of either the U.N. or N.A.T.O. This type of action did not work in Iraq or Afganistan (or Viet Nam). We need to find other solutions: i.e., stop the flow of $ to both sides; give humanitarian aid only; increase and maintain diplomatic pressure; use technology to educate. War is not the answer.

We the undersigned here by agree that Syria is a sovereign nation, it's internal affairs it's own. While We completely agree that the use of chemical Weapons is heinous and disgusting, the use of surgical military strikes or any other kind of military intervention in Syria would have far more widespread consequences in the short and long term and while it does not directly affect us at this time, it will in the near future. Possibly resulting in a larger regional conflict or worse. A conflict which could make the use of chemical weapons seem trivial in comparison. We cannot afford another war with the current economic climate when The United States of America and The United Kingdom are facing hard enough times now.

I believe we have no national interest in toppling the Assad regime. We do not need another attack on an Arab/Muslim country. Our moral revulsion should be expressed by moral means.

NBC News reports, "the U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday." But the UN Weapons Inspectors -- commissioned by the United States -- have not finished assessing whether Syria used chemical weapons. The last time the US ignored weapons inspectors was in Iraq. The man they ignored, Hans Blix, is urging Congress and President Obama to wait. Join Hans Blix and add your name.

Ten years ago, MoveOn was part of leading the largest anti-war movement in the history of the world. None-the-less, in March 2003 the U.S. went to war. The war was promoted as low cost, short and necessary to protect our security. Few people would now argue that the U.S. made a good choice back in 2003. I can't believe that "precision bombing" is being considered as an appropriate response to the turmoil in Syria. That the U.S. could decide unilaterally to engage in the Syrian civil war. Let's stop this saber rattling amnesia in its tracks! Don't allow this delusional thinking to last one more day.