I was terrified when Obama was planning too quickly and unilaterally to act against Syria. But now that he is engaging Congress, the American Public, and the world leaders in the discussion, I am deeply grateful and relieved. This is a vitally important and difficult decision. I admire the British for saying no to the speed of the decision when the intelligence was still incomplete. Bush's horrible rush to war in Iraq due to botched/prejudiced intelligence is still very clear in all our memories. It is healthy for a democracy to look at this rationally and comprehensively. Let us listen to Obama on Tuesday, September 10, do our own research, and listen to our own conscience. Regime change is never going to work, as we have hopefully learned. A strike to teach a lesson may be a good idea. I think the best solution would be to let Syria know that if another Chemical Weapons attack is ever used again, there will be immediate and damaging strikes at that time. All are fairly warned. All Syria's supporters will then be motivated to advise Syria to never do it again. They will be more accepting and I think more allies will cooperate/participate, if Syria makes that gross miscalculation a second time. It will be far less likely to cause World War III. Right now it is a hornets nest and anything is possible, with multiple retaliatory attacks probable.

When US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office, it reinforced the "Hope" that many of us felt. Now, with a push to war eerily similar to that of his Presidential predecessor, President Obama apparently wishes to prove his power through weapons, not diplomacy. This runs counter to the premise of the Prize and sullies the honor of other recipients such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Over the last two and a half years my friends and their families in Syria have been displaced, killed or forced to flee Syria as a result of a massive violent campaign by the Assad Regime which uses aircraft, missiles, tanks, "barrel bombs" and now chemical weapons to terrorize and bomb those who rose up in peaceful protest demanding a free and democratic Syria. I want my friends and their families to be able to return home and rebuild Syria, but this is impossible without an end to the reign of terror being conducted by the Assad Regime against innocent civilians across the country.

There is a real possibility that the United States will soon engage in military action that will result in the deaths of innocent Syrian civilians, on the pretext that Syrians are killing innocent Syrian civilians. There should be an adjudication of complicity by an international tribunal before one nation sanctions another through the use of deadly military action.

The Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100) demand that leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi NOT call the vote to authorize the use of military force in Syria. We demand this for several reasons: 1. US Military Intervention will not bring justice, self determination, safety, security or freedom to the people of Syria. We believe that military attack being proposed to the crisis in Syria will only make the suffering of the Syrian people worse. The best most humane way forward is a peaceful, political settlement with all sides of the conflict at the table and expanding humanitarian aid for Syrian Refugees. 2. BYP100 has no confidence in this Congress’s ability to make sound decisions about foreign policy when it has consistently failed to make sound domestic policy. It is our belief that such an intervention would perpetuate the injustice black people in the United States are facing today. Congress committing Americans to pay for a unnecessary military intervention while refusing to pay for vital social and community Services within the United States as a whole and the Black community in particular due to sequestration budget cuts to vital programs, including SNAP and Head Start, is wrong, unjust and immoral. 3. BYP100 rejects this ‘Stand Your Ground’ approach to foreign policy because one government that is empowered to police the world is no different than Florida gun owners who are empowered by unjust laws to shoot first and ask questions later. For more information, view the blog post here: http://byp100.blackyouthproject.com/?p=158

I can not rationalize bombing Syria. No good will come of it. If we really care about helping the "Good People of Syria" then we should devote our attention to those poor people who have had to leave their homeland.

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.