

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The continued opposition to war by the public continues even as the Obama administration, a growing swath of Congress, and a pliant media shroud military action against the Middle East country in a veil of inevitability.
According to the latest figures from an ABC/Washington Post poll, "nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes" against Syria despite the claims by the Obama administration that Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad recently used chemical weapons against its own people.
As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday, however, any military action by the U.S. without approval of the Security Council or a sound argument for self-defense, would be consider "illegal" under international law.
"As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security," Ban said at a news conference. "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action."
In the U.S, the numbers show shared opposition across the political spectrum, with Democrats and Republicans opposed in almost equal measure and those who consider themselves independents voicing opposition at even higher levels.

According to the Post, "The public expresses even wider opposition to arming Syrian rebels, which President Obama authorized in June. Fully seven in 10 oppose arming rebels, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents."
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that more actively supporting the Free Syria Army, including arming the rebel factions, would be a key part of the administration strategy alongside a bombing campaign in the country.
On the disparity between Congressional willingness to back Obama's plans for war and the opposition among the electorate, The Nation's John Nichols writes:
The president has done a pretty good job of selling his plan to congressional leaders.
He has not, however, sold it to the American people.
Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they're on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway - as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq - or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents.
Reflecting on the proposed intervention, Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Florida, allowed as how: "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."
_______________________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

The continued opposition to war by the public continues even as the Obama administration, a growing swath of Congress, and a pliant media shroud military action against the Middle East country in a veil of inevitability.
According to the latest figures from an ABC/Washington Post poll, "nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes" against Syria despite the claims by the Obama administration that Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad recently used chemical weapons against its own people.
As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday, however, any military action by the U.S. without approval of the Security Council or a sound argument for self-defense, would be consider "illegal" under international law.
"As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security," Ban said at a news conference. "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action."
In the U.S, the numbers show shared opposition across the political spectrum, with Democrats and Republicans opposed in almost equal measure and those who consider themselves independents voicing opposition at even higher levels.

According to the Post, "The public expresses even wider opposition to arming Syrian rebels, which President Obama authorized in June. Fully seven in 10 oppose arming rebels, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents."
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that more actively supporting the Free Syria Army, including arming the rebel factions, would be a key part of the administration strategy alongside a bombing campaign in the country.
On the disparity between Congressional willingness to back Obama's plans for war and the opposition among the electorate, The Nation's John Nichols writes:
The president has done a pretty good job of selling his plan to congressional leaders.
He has not, however, sold it to the American people.
Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they're on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway - as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq - or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents.
Reflecting on the proposed intervention, Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Florida, allowed as how: "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."
_______________________________

The continued opposition to war by the public continues even as the Obama administration, a growing swath of Congress, and a pliant media shroud military action against the Middle East country in a veil of inevitability.
According to the latest figures from an ABC/Washington Post poll, "nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes" against Syria despite the claims by the Obama administration that Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad recently used chemical weapons against its own people.
As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday, however, any military action by the U.S. without approval of the Security Council or a sound argument for self-defense, would be consider "illegal" under international law.
"As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security," Ban said at a news conference. "The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action."
In the U.S, the numbers show shared opposition across the political spectrum, with Democrats and Republicans opposed in almost equal measure and those who consider themselves independents voicing opposition at even higher levels.

According to the Post, "The public expresses even wider opposition to arming Syrian rebels, which President Obama authorized in June. Fully seven in 10 oppose arming rebels, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents."
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that more actively supporting the Free Syria Army, including arming the rebel factions, would be a key part of the administration strategy alongside a bombing campaign in the country.
On the disparity between Congressional willingness to back Obama's plans for war and the opposition among the electorate, The Nation's John Nichols writes:
The president has done a pretty good job of selling his plan to congressional leaders.
He has not, however, sold it to the American people.
Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they're on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway - as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq - or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents.
Reflecting on the proposed intervention, Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Florida, allowed as how: "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."
_______________________________