Latest Headlines
- Homeowner Reportedly Opens Fire On Known Attackers In Bratt Assault
- FPL Seeks To Raise Bills For All Of 2025 To Cover Hurricane Costs; Here’s How Much
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- ECUA Employee Golf Tournament Raises $10K For Children’s Hospital
- Creative Painting: Squeegee Art Saturday At Century Library
- Eagles Vs. Eagles: Ernest Ward Middle Falls To W.S. Neal
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To 25 Years For Child Sex Abuse
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
Miller Opposes Military Strike Against Syria
September 2, 2013
President Barack Obama will seek congressional approval to order military strikes against Bashar al Assad’s Syrian regime in response to claims of chemical weapons use against the civilian population in that country.
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Chumuckla), who represents the North Escambia area, does not support the military action.
“I think it is appropriate for the President to seek approval from Congress before launching an attack on Syria. However, I do not feel a strike on Syria is in the best interest of our country. The civil war in Syria, while tragic, does not have critical national security implications for the United States. I know the intelligence and intend to vote no on the authorization for military action,” Miller said Sunday.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday he is confident that Congress “will do what is right,” as Obama seeks approval for a military strike against Syria. Kerry calls the case against Syria “overwhelming.” He said the president has the power to act, no matter what Congress decides.
U.S. intelligence says more than 1,000 civilians, including entire families, were killed when Syrian forces dropped poison gas on four Damascus suburbs August 21.
Obama says the United States should take military action against Syria but thinks it is important for the country to have a debate on the issue. He has formally asked Congress to let him use military force in Syria to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” the potential for more chemical attacks. He says no U.S. troops would go to Syria.
Comments
35 Responses to “Miller Opposes Military Strike Against Syria”
I’m glad to hear you are against this. I fail t to see what the proposed “shot across the bow” will do to deter Syria from continuing down the same path. I also see it as possibly putting our allies in the region in harms way which in turn would result in the unintended consequence of dragging us further into the Middle East mire. Anyway, I don’t think we know who, if anyone, is the good guy in this mess.
I am retired military with 33 years service and I have two children on active duty. Let’s stay out of Syria’s civil war until there is a solid coalition including Middle Eastern Countries that are willing to go shoulder to shoulder with us to punish Assad. This president is weak and incapable of getting anything meaningful done and this will be no exception. He makes a pretty speech but is no commander in chief. As one commentator said, this administration couldn’t organize a three car funeral. I darn sure don’t want the current administration involving us in another war in the Middle East when they don’t have international backing or a clue as to what they are doing. Vote “NO” Congressman Miller.
Thank you Congressman Miller for not voting for military action in Syria. We have already put this Country in danger by acting as a magnet for Russian and Chinese Naval Vessels in the Med. A small accident could lead to a reaction by one or more of these Countries leading to a World War.
It doesn’t really matter what the “international community” believes.
If an idea is a good idea, it is a good idea.
If an idea is a bad idea, it is a bad idea.
I do not think we should take any military action without broad international support.. This means a broad coalition of countries that include some Middle-eastern European and Asian.. The best of all worlds is a UN mandate (which will not happen) or NATO (also will not happen).. Even if we do get the appropriate coalition, our armed forces are spread too thin now and we continue to lose American lives.. Also, it makes no sense to lob a few cruise missles in and further complicate the situation.. We should be all in or out on this.. If we choose to be all in, I dont think we can afford it.. We need to stop this insanity and take care of our needs at home, which are many.. LETS JUST STAY OUT OF THIS ONE!!
I agree very adamantly that we do not need to do any kind of strike unless all the nations that signed the anti gassing document/treaty support it and participate in the action, including Russia.
ALSO WE DO NOT NEED TO SUPPORT ANY REBEL ARMY THAT CUTS OUT THE ENEMIY’S HEART AND BIGHTS OR EATS IT.
Thank you, keep us safe to solve our domestic issues.
Here’s the deal. Stay out of it? Sure, why not.
Until things get so bad over there, it disrupts the flow of oil into the United States, THEN you watch how quick our asses get over there.
Want to stay totally out of there? Then quit complaining about drilling in the gulf,and let’s loosen our dependency on foreign oil. We can then let them wipe each other out and be done with it.
Thank you Mr. Miller. Both sides in this conflict hate US, so let em kill each other. Better yet, lets ship arms to both sides so they can do it more effectively. If there were a republican in the white house, the dems would be trying to run him up the flagpole for being a war monger. Let them settle their civil war on their own.
It is good to see the Congressman get off his rear and stand for something,how many of us can remember last time he did.In fact can anyone remember the last important piece of legislation he wrote or co-sponsored.The entire congress is guilty of making this a photo opportunity.And to show their outrage or support.To bad they do not do the same when it comes to the economy,or entitlements,border security and health care.
If there were some secret agenda regarding 9/11/01 under President Bush, don’t you imagine President Obama would have mentioned it by now?
What it was was jihadists wanting to kill Americams. They succeeded.
There is always another agenda for going to war. American citizens are not privy to all the details that our government is not willing to share. We are slaves to the news media. Take a closer look at the details surrounding the tragedy of 9/11.
REGARDING:
“So its OK to let other governments kill their own people? Too bad there’s not oil fields over there we would be in there in a heartbeat”
There ARE oil fields in Syria, so that kills that theory. They are small but they exist.
Every nation in the Middle East which DOES have oil frequently kills its own citizens. We are not invading every nation in the Middle East, so that shows again we don’t invade every nation with oil fields.
Now back to the original question:
Is it okay to let other governments kill their own people?
Turn the question around:
Is it okay to stop other nations from killing their own people?
Or even:
Is it POSSIBLE to stop other nations from killing their own people?
If we could magically kill everybody involved in the poison gas attacks, would the killing stop? Of course it wouldn’t. All sides are involved in killing each other.
What’s more, lacking magical powers, anything we do will kill others not involved in the poison gas attacks or the other massacres. And that’s completely ignoring that we would be paying for the effort with the lives of our people as well as those noncombatants just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
President Obama is to be praised for not abusing his power to invade and kill arbitrary enemies and for requesting agreement of Congress that doing so is justified. I don’t think it IS justified, but am especially glad we finally have a President who follows the Constitution regarding decisions to go to war — or to NOT go to war.
David for counting the cost
Representative Chris Smith of New York said: “The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian civil war will not resolve the matter.” I stand on the side of no more foreign entanglements and bloodshed. Pursue peace and do not provoke another war in the name of defending innocent civilians while killing more lives. I agree with Mr. Miller on Syria.
REGARDING:
“who did we give arms and funding to back in the USSR days? The Taliban. We give them guns and they use them to shoot us. Are we so ignorant to history?”
It seems we are so ignorant of history.
The Taliban was not in Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR. They moved in after the Russians left.
We did not arm the Taliban although it is likely some of the arms we provided to others who actually WERE in Afghanistan came into their hands.
David for better history
We can not trust any information provided by our Gov’t on reasons to get involved. They have lied to the Citizens for years, since at least Vietnam. However, it is good that Miller opposes any action in Syria, IT IS HIGHLY IRONIC THAT CONGRESSMAN MILLER IS FULLY BEHIND DOMESTIC SPYING AND MONITORING OF LAWFUL US CITIZENS ! SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS, PLEASE.
@justme Nothing is stopping you from going to Syria and volunteering to help the rebels. You might turn out to be their Ahmed Bonaparte and lead them to victory. I never understand the liberal urge to spend other people’s blood and treasure. Furthermore, we have sank billions into purchasing military hardware and providing aid to the so called moderate Arab states. Well, get in there and use it, boys. Or was that stuff just for use on their own populations? What a mess. Lets get out and stay out.
Obama said there are to be NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS! A document was put in place to assure NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Syria USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS! 400+ children died. I agree with Obama (can’t believe I said that) that we do NOT need to put boots on the ground but use of Naval ships to cripple a few areas of concern is something that needs to be done. I am 100% for attacking Syria. If they gas there own people, how long will it be before we wake up one morning and turn on the news just to discover a chemical weapon attack has done the same here in the United States? People who are against war never see the big picture. Just like the ones that are against guns. If we do not attack countries that do inhumane things it will just be a matter of time before it works its way to our homes. When it does arrive, all the ones that were against guns and helped to disarm this nation will be left helpless to the terrorist that want to come here. People are so stupid!!!!!!!
Thank you. I agree with your reasons wholly.
Thank you very much. We need to solve our own problems here at home.
Thank you Mr. Miller, and Please keep us out of another messed up situation in the middle east.
Nobody will ever settle the centuries long zealots murders of each other in the name of religion and power over their peoples.
There are absolutely no winners in this Syrian conflict and who knows what is really the truth about which side gassed whom or their own people for the sake of media attention.
My feelings are the United States needs to stay out of this and bring our young Americans home. Both sides of our government are crippling America and busy weakening our military strength and ability from the inside.
While the world populace may be sympathetic about the massive deaths in this latest Syrian event we would likely be more upset if our internet, cell phone and cable t.v. service was disrupted for two days. Just sayin’
While it is good that Miller opposes any action in Syria, I have to comment that I find it highly ironic that he take this stance but is fully behind domestic spying and monitoring of lawful US citizens.
@bewildered – you’re exactly right, and who did we give arms and funding to back in the USSR days? The Taliban. We give them guns and they use them to shoot us. Are we so ignorant to history?
Today the Taliban launched an attack on a US military base in Eastern Afghanistan near the border with Pakistan. We cannot even finish one war and here we go trying to get involved in another one.
Thank you Mr. Miller.
It is a shame to say, but the rebels are like the gov in Syria they will kill their on people to get some one like the United States to do their dirty deeds. They are still killing their on people in Iraq,
This is from the Debate in the House of Commons regarding military action in Syria
You’ll hear what cruel barbarians the rebels are, and realize they are not worthy of our help. This is why Britain did not agree to join the coalition to intercede.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=AgxzpQrqSkg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAgxzpQrqSkg%26feature%3Dshare
Thank you Mr. Miller – Hitting the gov’t in Syria helps the rebels, which sounds good, except that the rebels are murderers. They have abducted and hideously murdered christian priests and bishops by sawing (slowly and horribly cruelly) their heads off, burning churches and trying to wipe out Christians in Damascus. The Assad gov’t is horrible, but so are the rebels. Don’t help them. There are no good guys to help over there. I’m sorry that children and apparently innocent civilians are caught up in this, but getting involved in yet another war where both sides hate us more than they hate each other is a fool’s errand, and vastly expensive.
I am glad to see someone is willing to go against getting us involved in this. My reasoning?? Just exactly what did getting involved in Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq accomplish other than getting young healthy Americans hurt physically and emotionally or killed???????????? These people have been fighting for thousands of years.
If obama is for it, i am skeptical.
Excellent, For eight years when Bush was in office how we should not be in Iraq . Now it is ok to bail off into another country without proof on who did the dirty work, weather it was the rebel group or the gov. Then we give them time to hide their weapons and move their school kids around all of their military sites. Where are all of you anti war people
Miller always votes for doing nothing. Like Jim Bryan (Dem Candidate for Congress District 1 – 2014) says the reason Miller always votes on the side of doing nothing is so he doesn’t have to explain his vote or be accountable.
Miller, even if he thinks something should pass, will still vote against if he knows it will pass anyway. i.e, in 2008 when Congress voted on TARP, I heard Miller on WCOA say, “I understand why TARP needed to pass, but I voted against it in principle.”
Miller always flips two coins. One coin has tails on both sides, the other has heads on both sides and depending on the coin and crowd, he has the double talk rhetoric that is sure to please. Some folks like that. I find it nauseating.
Congratulations Rep Miller, it is inspirational to see an American Statesman who has the courage to stand up against AIPAC and other special interest.
America and the blood of her soldiers is not the solution for the world’s problems.
So its OK to let other governments kill their own people? Too bad there’s not oil fields over there we word he in there in a heartbeat. That’s why its such a act to do something about it because there is nothing we can gain from it. Political bs at its best.
Excellent! I think most military families here don’t want to see our troops put in danger again with no specific plan or goal…