When I looked at this story here on Topix, line after line was blocked out in the old style of censorship.
A few excerpts from the article from another site with comments:
"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
"...the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on "the best interests of the United States."
Who are you kidding? Most Americans are against intervention in Syria. It's a civil war with support from Hizzbolah on one side and al Qaeda on the other side.
"The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad's forces used chemical weapons,"
But not on Americans or on allies of Americans nor on Syria's neighbors. It's a civil war.
It's impossible to view military action by the U.S. and its allies as being motivated by humanitarian concerns while the U.S. has a history of indifference to atrocities and even a history of support for dictators who carry out atrocities. Remembering a few examples such as indifference and no action by the U.S. or any allies while the Khmer Rouge committed genocide in its own country or when the U.S. and its allies supported the Indonesian dictator, Suharto with weapons as he massacred the People of Timor as they were developing movement towards democracy on their island, makes me very skeptical of U.S. and English claims humanitarian reasons to take military action against Syria. When I that Syrians don't like the U.S. much and give praises to bin Laden and al Qaeda, Obama's call for U.S. military action against Syria has something very bitter about it that I cannot tolerate. I would not blame any service men who chose to go AWOL rather than to become involved in Syria. The U.S. has no interest in that country.