September 4th, 2013
12:47 AM ET

King: Syria will define Pres. Obama

On a special edition of AC360, Fouad Ajami, Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Anne-Marie Slaughter of the New America Foundation, Charles Blow of The New York Times and Chief National Correspondent John King discussed President Obama's case for use of U.S. military force in Syria.

Post by:
Filed under: AC360 Later • Anderson Cooper • Fouad Ajami • John King • President Barack Obama • Syria
soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. Bob

    The situation on ghe ground is a mess, because the syrian opposition is extremelly disorganized. IF the syrian opposition followed the guidelines set by the lybian rebels in defeating gadhafi. The syrian opposition would have defeated assad a year ago. So, right now I am strongly opposed to U.S. intervening in syria

    September 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
  2. Bob

    There are many reasons why other countries such as the U.K. don't want to go into syria. The other countries know that this is an extremelly complicated and long war like IRAQ

    September 4, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
  3. Bob

    In the congo thousands of people die every month. Yet the U.S. doesn't interfere in the congo, because of the sectarian civil war in the congo. In syrian there is also a sectariam civil war and right now the U.S. must not interfere in syria

    September 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
  4. Bob

    The syrian opposition should not have started a revolution, without a solid plan, and because they made too many mistakes. Starting a revolution is a huge responsibility. When you do everything wrong in a revolution, innocent people will die, usually for nothing. In addition, the syrian opposition is also guilty on the deaths of thousands of alowites, christians, shiite, etc. So, there are civilian deaths on both sides

    September 4, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
  5. Bob

    Another problem is the fsa is so disorganized and weak militarily that the fsa may take yeaars to win any military battles. So, the U.S. eventually will have to send in troops on the ground for sure

    September 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
  6. Bob

    Another problem is the syrian opposition is lying to us. The syrian opposition is telling us that al nusra/al qaeda is not a group affiliated with the syrian rebels. That is what general IDRIS said. So, there is a trust issue with the syrian opposition too

    September 4, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
  7. Bob

    Another problem iin syria is that it is extremelly difficult to distinguish between moderate syrian rebels and extreme syrian rebels. How do we arm the moderate syrian rebels? If we can not distinguish between moderate syrian rebels and extreme syrian rebels? And weapons going to the moderates may end up with the extremists. So, right now I am opposed in arming the syrian rebels

    September 4, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
  8. Bob

    Obama is seeking congressional authorization for military strikes. If Obama doesn't get authorization from congress and the american people and goes ahead with the strikes. Obama will look like a dictator. Obama is not dictator. Obama is a good president. So, I don't believe Obama will strike if Obama doesn't have congressional approval and the support of the american people

    September 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
  9. belinda

    Many in Congress have repeatedly asked for more input about President Obama's decisions and views. So why are people surprised that he is asking Congress for its input on bombing Syria? Why are legislators saying they don't want to be involved in that decision? They have been asking for Obama to work with them and listen to them. Now is their time to step up and act responsibly. Citizens are tired of legislators who whine, blame Pres. Obama for almost everything, and accomplish nothing. If they don't get it in gear, they are going to endanger our country. God Bless America.

    September 4, 2013 at 2:53 am |
  10. Bob

    To intervene in syria right now , it will take for us, a minimum of 10 years of hard work, to get both assad and al qaeda
    to step aside from power. In addition, it will cost the lives of many americans. Furthermore, it will cost us trillions of dollares that we don"t have. So, I am strongly opposed for the U.S. to intervene in syria right now

    September 4, 2013 at 1:54 am |
  11. Bob

    If the U.S. intervenes right now, it is a 100% certainty that we, americans, will pay for it in blood, because assad may strike back, al qaeda for sure will strike us, hezbollah may strike us. Other groups may strike us. What makes sense is not to intervene. If we don't intervene in syria, assad, hezbollah, al qaeda will be busy fighting each other, and will be less likely to strike us

    September 4, 2013 at 1:47 am |
  12. Bob

    The 90 days of bombings stated in the senate resolution is not a limited strike, it is regime change. In 90 days of straight bombings it is more than enough time to destroy all of assad's military assets. In a few hours, it went from limited strike to regime change. If approved by congress we will go to war against assad for 90 days. Assad's military will be destroyed. Assad will fall. And we will have to fight al qaeda in syria for years to come. The american people have to learn that there is no such thing as a limited strike in war.

    September 4, 2013 at 1:43 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.