White House Says US Interests Will Guide Obama's Syria Decision As Vote For Action Fails In UK

[Purveyor]

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2013 - 7:15 pm EDT

AAA

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama's decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America's best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won't help.

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Thursday that Obama believes there are core U.S. interests at stake in Syria. She said countries who violate international norms about chemical weapons must be held accountable.

The White House was responding to a failed vote in Britain's Parliament on Thursday to endorse military action against Syria over an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week. That means Britain won't play a direct role in any U.S. attack.

The defeat dealt a major blow to Obama's efforts to build an international coalition for a strike against the Syrian government.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ad38cc39558b40b1ac86266ebe220b3b/US-Obama-Syria-Britain

[jsr]

1. What U.S. interests are at stake in Syria?

[emsimon33]

3. I agree unless they mean oil interests

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Energy and minerals.

Pipeline routes
and the chance to block Russia from access to Mediterranean Sea shipping lanes.

[arcane1]

10. In other words, corporate interests.

It seems to be the only definition of "America" that politicians use these days.

[David__77]

2. Apparently, some people think support al Qaeda is the "US interest."

I sincerely hope that the president makes the right decision, and stays the hell out. The first US missile that flies establishes US ownership of the entire conflict, and broader sectarian struggle in the Muslim countries.

[KittyWampus]

4. I hope the press starts badgering the Admin. & asking how chemical weapons in Syria threaten us here

Cause it'd be one thing if it were to "protect our allies".

But unless the Admin wants to draw a larger picture it sounds like they have a tin ear.

Better to just keep on the "punish for heinous slaughter of civilians".

[Bluenorthwest]

7. He's the guy who said Bushco did no wrong, although they lied to the world to make war.

Obama's idea of right and wrong is not the same as the people's. No one would believe him because he endorsed the whole Yellowcake and Mushroom Cloud set and told us to turn a blind eye or look forward not back or some amoral nonsense.
He will not have the support of the people for his war.

[jsr]

9. Your decimal point is off

Maybe 7.5% or 8.0%, not 75% or 80%.

[Eugene]

11. I'm sorry but the "You have to trust your president" card was played going into Iraq.

Before he commits the U.S. to military action, President Obama
needs to clearly articulate what constructive purpose an attack
on Syria will serve.

[sufrommich]

8. Ugh, it's time for him to back off,cut his losses

like the Clintons did when they lost healthcare. This has now gone from a humanitarian cause to "our national interests". Paving the way for bloodthirsty rebels aligned with Al Qaeda is not in anyone's best interest. My heart goes out to the Syrians,but we are caught between a rock and a hard place,ask the U.N to impose serious sanctions and hope for the best.