Streams

Representative Jeffries on the Syria Debate

Friday, September 06, 2013

Hakeem Jeffries, U.S. Representative (D-NY8) from Brooklyn, discusses the debate in the House over whether to intervene militarily in Syria and his concerns on its impact on his constituents. See where your representative stands on Syria using the widget below.


Guests:

Hakeem Jeffries

Comments [17]

rob

real analysis which is lacking on WNYC:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/

Sep. 07 2013 03:48 PM
betty

Edith, You're so right. I was thinking the same thing. Why would he use chemical weapons when they can use other military arms that they have AND the US said 'we draw the lines at chem weapons".

We're going there to secure resources. Israel used chem weaps only a few years ago. DId we do anything? no. Does anyone even remember? NO. Because stations like WNYC play that down. there's a backstory to this that will come out 50 years later. Obama doesn't care about the people.

Sep. 06 2013 11:20 AM
Christine from Westchester

Nick: We're not a deeply stupid country. We have deeply stupid politicians starting right at the top. The great majority of the citizens of this country are smart enough to want to steer clear of the Syrian issues. On the other hand, if you asked them for money, I bet a great deal of people would contribute to help with refugee relief.

So- the stupid ones aren't the citizens, they're the politicians. And anyone who votes them back in if they agree to this.

NO- the President isn't being pushed into this. He's jumping in with both big feet.

Sep. 06 2013 11:19 AM
Nick from UWS

What a deeply deeply stupid thing to do, to idiotically start yet another war. What a deeply deeply stupid country we are. How deeply deeply stupid, to think that we can do a "limited" strike and expect there to be no ongoing conflict. How deeply deeply stupid. We deserve what we get for being this stupid after so long.

Sep. 06 2013 11:14 AM
bernie from bklyn

syria did not sign the chemical weapons convention. they are breaking no international laws. they have and possess and manufacture mostly to counteract the fact that israel has nukes as it's the best next thing to defend themselves this is a civil war within their own borders. this is not our business or israel's.

Sep. 06 2013 11:11 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

If anyone can break a treaty as important as the NPT with impunity, there is no reason for Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, or anyone for that matter, not to quickly develop nuclear weapons. Cuba has been invaded a number of times by the US, and Mexico had half of its territory taken by the US, and so it is logical for them to break the NPT and develop nuclear weapons posthaste!

Sep. 06 2013 11:03 AM

Of course it's that simple:

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OBAMAYOURERACIST2.jpg

Sep. 06 2013 11:03 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I've been wondering if it would be possible to destroy the routes from the weapons depots (chemical & other) & the sites the weapons would be launched from. Do we have enough info on their locations? Could this be done accurately enough from offshore? Could it be done in a way & at a time that would minimize the risk of killing people?

Sep. 06 2013 11:02 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Blacksocialist

I didn't use logic; I used FACTS. Fact. There is a chemical ban since 1925. Fact, there is an NPTreaty. Fact, Iran signed that treaty, but Israel and Pakistan and India did not and hence have the right to indigenously develop nuclear weapons if they choose to do so. This is an issue of international treaties, not logic.

Sep. 06 2013 11:01 AM
bernie from bklyn

ok, syria did NOT sign the chemical weapons ban treaty. so they have the right to have and use them as well under your logic.

Sep. 06 2013 11:00 AM
blacksocialist from BKbaby

jgarbuz - the logic of an idiot.... I love it

Sep. 06 2013 10:57 AM
bb from brooklyn

i am in brooklyn city council district 35 and i say please vote no, not now, let another ally country make the first move. don't see why the US has to rush in, seems like there is plenty of support abroad already, let someone else start the ball rolling.

Sep. 06 2013 10:57 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

to bernie from brooklyn

It's okay for Israel, a Jewish state, and Pakistan, a large Muslim state, to have atomic bombs because they did NOT sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran did sign, therefore has no right to have them.
As for the ban on the use of chemical weapons, that convention has been on since 1925, and only Hitler and Saddam used poison gas on civilians, until Assad did most recently. He should be spanked for doing so.

Sep. 06 2013 10:56 AM
bernie from bklyn

ok mr.rasmussen..then put together a coalition led by YOUR country and punish mr.assad.
are there syrian ships in ny harbor right now ready to attack? no, they're not, therefore we have no justification in attacking syria.
this will not deter iran from building a nuclear bomb? who cares? why is ok for israel and pakistan to have it but not iran? if they threaten us w/ their nukes then we obliterate their entire country, beyond that it is not our business.

Sep. 06 2013 10:48 AM

What's the point of having the biggest military in the history of the world if we can't take it for a test drive?
Our junior officers need on the job training.
Let's chip in and do our part. After all we crafted this mess with 100 years of missteps.

Sep. 06 2013 10:28 AM
Edith from Manhattan

This whole situation just seems to make no sense. Syria is not a completely backward country. They have a military stocked with jet fighters, bombers, tanks, Russian military tech, etc. Why would the leader decide to use chemical weapons of all things in an area with barely armed rebels which would in all probability cause outside forces to come in an quite possible make him lose control of the country?! It doesn't make sense, given all the other capabilities at his control. Something is not right here. The story is simply not believable.

Sep. 06 2013 10:22 AM
Ed from Larchmont

It looks like the House doesn't have the votes, thank God.

Sep. 06 2013 08:48 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.