Syria War 2013: President Obama on U.S. Military Action | The New York Times

The president said that he had not made a final decision about Syria, but that he was not considering any military action that would require a long-term campaign or troops on the ground.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Want more from The New York Times?

Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On YouTube.

Syria War 2013: President Obama on U.S. Military Action

[addiewells]

He said My Military, watch him folks!

[evolvepeace]

We are not the world police! By the way, did the thousands of Syrians that were systematically slaughtered two years ago (up until now) by Assad's troops not matter because they used accepted weapons? Your priorities are disturbing, Mr. President.

[lauraarual]

Sorry but it doesn't make sense to go blazing in with both barrels. Increased American violence in Syria would make it harder to enforce human rights and not easier. We could end up endangering the security of our allies in the region instead of protecting them. We should first find a way to be part of a solution instead of the problem. Reserve the weapons until all other means have been exhausted.

[across]

Where the evidence? I don't care about assessments. The US public is against any military engagement no matter how limited. How is it that England can respect the will of the people but US congress & president can not?

[hpfaneva]

Can we just worry about our own country and stop trying to be the hero of the world. We stick our foot in the mud and no one follows. Can we just worry about our economy, our unemployment and quit being the "protector of the world"

[thejoestjoe]

Because acknowledging that would mean we would have to oppose the Syrian rebels and support one of Iran's most powerful Arab allies and we can't have that now can we. I mean doing that would mean doing what was best for humanity and not just what was best for our "key allies in the middle east" AKA Israel.

[AbbyOReilly]

Maybe we should use our resources to help the thousands of refugees displaced by this war! We're so interested in human rights, right?

[NIGHTWISHUK]

so syria should go unpunished - after all them ppl died
syria said they dont have chemical weapons now there trying to do a deal strange that i wouldnt trust them it would be a matter of time before they use them again ?

[NIGHTWISHUK]

THIS IS ABOUT THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS NO MORE
NOT RELIGION

[lorealvichi]

You say "Can WE" but my question is: what time does Obama as you or asked to US citizens if you are agree to do this war?

You president doesn't care the fu--- what US people thinks.

[geoffreynesmith]

I love how he says we consulted with our allies, too bad they all turned you down and don't support your actions. No boots on the ground approach huh, we will see about that! what we should be asking is why were there 18 chemical attacks simultaneously, and do we think they have the SAT capability/ or communications to actually perform such an attack? I know we could, with the help from the CIA.

[Sentinel-]

RT Channel has twice the subscribers....just saying.

[Johnywang]

LOVE that! unfortunately its a PR move. everyone on the planet is looking at the US to aid syria. and it looks better if they go in there with missiles and troops to create a "cease fire". you just made my day tho :)

[Lando]

Nunca mais defendo o Obrahma! Only Brahma beer. Cheers...

[kallejonsson]

u can only delay the dollar noting els

[Lando]

Nunca mais defendo o Obrahma! Only Brahma beer. Cheers...