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.

The members within Congress and the President of the United States cry to the heavens that the United States is in debt and spending must be marginalized. However, our "leaders" always seem to have the money for war and not better schools, social programs, healthcare, et cetera. Signing this petition will send the message that this hypocrisy will no longer be tolerated.

Government is becoming too separated from the people, we overwhelmingly do not want another war and this posturing with Syria smells just like the clarion call of WMD in 2002. We the people do not grant the "consent of the governed" in this matter.

The TPP and TAFTA agreements - called "NAFTA on steroids," currently being negotiated in complete secrecy, will allow trade deals to prevail over any national legislation the trading partners claim decreases their profits. If they pass we will have yielded national sovereignty to corporations, which would be able to successfully sue the US government for recompense for ANTICIPATED profits, prevailing over laws our legislators have passed. With the TPP and TAFTA in place we can forget about environmental protections of any kind, as well as employee rights, minimum wage, and other hard-won gains.

I was a student leader against the war on Iraq and then was the coalition coordinator of Win Without War. I learned that military engagement rarely results in Hollywood endings—and that the people who lobby for military intervention rarely see the battlefield. Everyone wants Syrians to be safe and secure, with the ability to resume their lives. Assad is a horrible leader, and the people there are suffering too much. But Syrian civilians will not benefit from a rushed U.S. military engagement. Nor do the American people benefit when we engage in military action without proper authorization. Let's put the people of Syria ahead of hawkish desire for wars, and other geopolitical considerations. We need to double down on diplomacy and intelligence. If the President is convinced of military actions, he needs to send a bill to Congress. By doing both diplomacy and Congressional approval for military action, we can do right by Syrians and Americans.

On Sunday, August 25, Republican Sen. Bob Corker and Rep. Eliot Engel - a Democrat who voted for the Iraq war - told Fox News that President Obama should strike Syria first and get Congressional approval afterwards. That's not how the U.S. Constitution says it should go. That's not how the War Powers Resolution says it should go. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution say that absent an attack on the United States, Congress must approve military action before it takes place. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the U.S. should not intervene in Syria's sectarian civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Obama should act. Even if Assad's forces used chemical weapons to attack civilians - an allegation which has not been proved, and didn't hold up in the past - only 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention, while 46 percent would oppose it. On July 24, the House approved an amendment by voice vote that would prohibit funding of any military action that violates the War Powers Resolution. If President Obama can get us into war in Syria without Congressional approval, it will set a terrible precedent: a future president can get us into war in Iran without Congressional approval. Tell President Obama not to take any military action in Syria without Congressional approval, and tell Congress to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. Links for the above information can be found here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1233940/-President-Obama-Don-t-Strike-Syria-Without-Congressional-Approval