Christopher Shays

He is our President, and we need to help him gain some status and support in his efforts to negotiate with countries around the world.

I believe any President has the right to use force and can't wait for Congress sometimes to spend 2 weeks or 3 weeks to decide whether they want to authorize it.

I think it is more likely than not.

Twenty thousand shells in Russia, chemical weapons, no bigger than this, they were put in, they almost looked like wine bottles stacked up, building after building.

I would think we would be doing him a hell of a gift to get them out of the country.

We have proven we can do it in the elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

I take issue with the fact that our credibility is in shambles.

I think we do ourselves well to wash our mouth with soap about our credibility.

People really question our word, and it goes beyond one administration to the other.

I believed there were weapons of mass destruction, wrong, shouldn't have done it.

We sent a message years ago when we turned our back on the Shah of Iran, for whatever reason.

A military strike will do nothing to address that issue, and would exacerbate it by accelerating the transfer of chemical weapons to people who would do us harm.

When it comes to foreign policy, and the Middle East in particular, it appears we live in a strategy-free world.

I believe President Obama can rise to the occasion, seize this opportunity, avoid the use of military force and help restore our Nation's leadership.

We need to engage the world community, particularly Russia, to persuade Assad to give up his chemical weapons.

Rather than focusing on destroying elements of the Syrian government forces and choosing sides in a truly brutal civil war, our focus should be on how do we get these chemical weapons out of Syria.

What should be our primary concern, that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian Army, or that Syria has chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of radical elements sympathetic to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?

The conclusion by the President and his administration and leaders on both sides of the aisle that the United States needs to take decisive military action with or without support from other countries would be a serious mistake with…

The Syrian Government crossed a red line in the use of chemical weapons for which the world community needs to respond, not just the United States.

It appears we live in a strategy-free world.

What are we hoping to achieve in Syria, and why do we think doing what we are planning on doing will give us the results we want?

First, let me say if the President really believed that a military strike would have been effective, he would have done it right away.

I personally think if there is any good outcome, this is an outcome that I would like to see pursued.

I am concerned it will inflame the region and retaliate not only Iran and Hezbollah against Israel but at the same time embolden and empower these rebel forces.