As Syria vote nears, Welch asks for input from constituents

Vermont Congressman Peter WelchStill undecided on the issue of whether or not to approve military strikes in Syria, Rep. Peter Welch is asking constituents to aid later this evening in his deliberations.

Welch tonight will hold a “telephone town hall” in which Vermonters can register their opinions on the President’s plan to launch air strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“Should we, as the President proposes, strike the Assad regime to deter a reoccurrence of the abomination of raining poison gas on innocent people — and in doing so risk the real potential of being pulled into another Middle East war?” Welch said in a Facebook post announcing the event. “Or should we not attack to avoid that risk when inaction may well be seen by Assad and others as a green light for the use of chemical weapons?”

Welch said “both paths will likely have negative and unintended consequences.”

Welch has said his decision will be influenced significantly by information he’ll receive in a classified briefing, a briefing his staff said the Democratic congressman will be receiving later this afternoon.

To participate in the telephone town hall, call toll-free (877) 229-8493 at 7:30 p.m., and enter the PIN: 13785

One Response to As Syria vote nears, Welch asks for input from constituents

  1. Should America Address the Syrian Issue with Military Might?
    On the surface it sounds like a virtuous ideal. America, which has long stood against tyranny and injustice throughout the world, coming to the aid of the people? Right? After all, most of the “Civilized world,” as stated in the Geneva Protocol, signed in 1925, and ratified five years later, banned the use of “asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices that have been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world”.
    However, what is often overlooked is that the U.S. did not come on board until 1975. Afterwhich it had already dropped sarin gas on a targeted village in Indochina, presumably eradicating some of the enemy, as well as many Indochinese civilians.
    Lt. Robert Van Buskirk told CNN/Time that he was orderd to massacre everyone in the village. “My orders were, if it’s alive, if it breaths oxygen, if it urinates, if it defecates, kill it.”
    Retired Admiral, and former Secretary of Defense, Thomas Moorer told CNN/Time that the United States did, in fact, have CBU cluster bombs designed to deliver lethal gas, and they were repeatedly used in Vietnam.
    Napalm, an American favorite, used from about 1965 to 1972, generates temperatures of 1,500 to 2,200 degrees fahrenheit (water boils at 212 degrees). It sticks to most anything it comes in contact with, and burns up to 10 minutes. The effects of Napalm on the human body are said to be unbearably painful and almost always cause death among its victims. A single bomb was capable of destroying areas of up to 2,500 square yards. Between 1965 and 1973, eight million tons of bombs were dropped over Vietnam.
    Agent Orange, a defoliant, and another American favorite during the the Vietnam War, was used to deprive Vietnamese farmers and guerilla fighters of clean food and water, forcing relocation to areas more heavily controlled by the U.S.. The Vietnam Red Cross recorded over 4.8 million deaths and over 400,000 children born with birth defects due to exposure to Agent Orange. These harmuful–often lethal–gases did not only affect the lives of those within the targeted areas, but those who lived upwind in neighboring villages.
    So, we have to ask ourselves and our government, why did all of those nations in the so-called “civilized world” stand back when the United States was lobbing chemical-laden UCBs into Cambodia and Vietnam? And where are they now? And why is it America’s obligation to bomb Syria in defense of numerous unstructured groups of Syrian rebels without the approval and/or help of the other nations in the so-called “civilized world?” And who is going to clean up the mess? A group of warring factions fighting for control of the Syrian government?
    It is clear that many, if not most, of the Syrian people want Assad out. But what happens after he is gone? Peace and harmony? Doubtful. Will Islamic terrorists groups then move in? Maybe. Will various rebel factions fight for control? Possibly. But any way you cut it, there will still be unrest in Syria and many innocent people will likely die.
    And so it appears that any effort in this case, no matter which path is chosen, would only prove futile in the end. It’s a no-win situation. So why put the lives of our young people at risk? And why risk having to put troops on the ground where little, if anything, would be accomplished.
    Haven’t we been down this road before?