President Obama and U.S. administration officials stepped up their efforts to win congressional approval for a possible military strike in Syria. Christopher Dickey, Middle East Editor for Newsweek/The Daily Beast, Fouad Ajami, Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute, Retired U.S. Marine General Anthony Zinni and CNN’s Christiane Amanpour discussed the latest developments and why now is the moment for U.S. action in Syria.
Watch part two:
The panel talks about President Obama's case for U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Watch part three:
Concerns about possible U.S. military action in Syria.
Watch part four:
Why should America intervene in another Middle East conflict?
Let the "peaceful" Islamic nations deal with Syria, these are their people in conflict. Why are we always having to involve ourselves when nobody else seems to care, we are not the World Police.
Seems to me it would be better for them and US to assist the refugees in a massive way-humanitarian–positive–no dependence on Security Council. even our enemies might appreciate that. Just do it.
Obama says Bashar Asad used chemical weapons. Putin says Rebels used it. Who do we believe? Let United nation decide what the truth is. Bombing syria will only increase humanitarian catastrophe. Worse will be that Al Qaeda and extremists will gain power. Then we will really need American boot on the ground. Why don't our leaders learn from Iraq experience. As one of the commentators said, and I quote: "We will not be helping Al-Qaeda, we will be Al-Qaeda."
How about a Drone?
would our government like Russia or china to step in and help American people to over throw our government?
Only 68 years ago, the US used two weapon of mass destruction in WW2 with the atomic bombing of Japan killing 150,000 to 250,000 innocent people including children. I don't think the US is in a position to police the world on the morals of weapons of mass destruction.
Let us also not forget the US turned a blind eye to chemical attacks in the Iran-Iraq war and also assisted Saddam acquiring chemical weapons technology during the same period. Looks like this Syria action is to try and get Iran involved so the US can have an excuse to address their nuclear program.
Anderson cooper, please let the audience determine for himself who is lying or who is not instead of you telling us who is right or wroing. Please, please, don't treat us like we are five year olds. You did this on multiple occassions in the past and again today when you showed Amanpour's interview with the Syrian foreign minister. I observed you routinely show your biases in paricular when the person is a foreigner, non-American. Watch NPR or Aljazeera, learn from them how journalism is conducted.It is also sad to see Amanpour, once an objective journalist, turned mouthpiece for war.
No more wars. No more destruction. No more collateral damage; thousands could die if chemical stockpiles are hit near populated areas. This could get very ugly!!
Syria’s Foreign Minister warned his country will use “all means available” in war.
Well it seems they have already shown this inclination in using current chemical weapons.
Their statement means they will use chemicals, suicide bombers, crop dusters, child-soldiers, rape – there are no-holds barred. The rest of the world has no option but to attempt to eradicate such thinkers from our midst – Risking all.
Or – We could wait until science has developed adequately, in hope of transporting some of the elite within Humankind, away from Earth and toward new celestial horizons.
As there has been so much self-doubt and much delay in responding to Syria’s evil chemical attack, the waiting-option could be the best choice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°