You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
As a soldier, I know that the most basic requirement before taking military action is that you must have a clear, achievable objective, & a strategy to achieve it. You must analyze the situation, know what the risks are, & what the cost, consequences of your actions will be
Our actions in Syria must be based on strategy, which is based on what our mission actually is. What are we trying to achieve? The neocons/neolibs calling on Trump to attack Syria either don't know what the mission is or are pursuing a mission that is contrary to U.S. interests.
Actions that weaken/cripple the Syrian military result in greater instability, more suffering of Syrian ppl, & strengthen terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, Army of Islam, etc. who are trying to topple the gvmnt. Is that our mission? Does this help Syrian or American ppl?
The weaker the Syrian government and military are, the more dependent they will be on assistance from Russia and Iran, strengthening their positions and power in Syria. Is that our mission? Does that serve the interests of the American people?
U.S. military action in Syria could escalate into a war with Russia and Iran. Russia has already stated they will respond to any U.S. military attack against Syria. Is this our mission? How does going to war with Russia over Syria serve the interests of the American people?
Our troops put their lives on the line for our country. Their sacrifice must be honored by sending them on missions worthy of their sacrifice; not interventionist regime change wars that cost our country lives & resources, & increase the suffering of those in countries we attack
I am so confused why this is not obvious. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS IN SYRIA WE HAVE NO MONEY FOR WAR WAR IS BAD WAR CREATES TERRORISTS WE HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OVERWHELMINGLY ANTI-WAR. WAR DOESN'T MAKE AMERICA SAFER COUNTRIES WORSE AFTER WAR NO MORE WAR
If Sec Mattis admits we have and never had any evidence that Assad did the bombing why are Dems not challenging the narrative? Media seems to be doing what it did with Iraq .pic.twitter.com/wqfzVXLECB
Completely Gulf War 2 all over again.
The biggest reason I can see for the @DNC not working to back Congresswoman Gabbard as a serious potential presidential candidate... is that they are simply another arm of the War Party and see her as a possible impediment to their goal of perpetual armed conflict.
This is a truly eye-opening journalistic jewel by Seymour Hersh. Thought people might want to peruse it while herehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military …
Nowhere in this thread do you mention the reality of Assad's terror. No mention of him gassing his own citizens. If you're going to speak out about this issue you have an ethical obligation to at least mention that stuff. What are you hiding?
There is no proof that he used chemical weapons however there is plenty of proof Israel and the US use depleted uranium and white phosphorous.
Is national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks/costs been fully analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? - Powell Doctrine
#NoWarInSyria
Nice thread .... Well done and to the point.
Thanks for being the voice of millions of us, Tulsi! #heroic
You’re a wonderful human being … Thank You! 
Much aloha, Tulsi, but this long string is grandstanding. You think Mattis, Dunford and Kelly know less than you about soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines going in harms way?! REALLY?!
If there are orders to attack Syria, I would hope that they would be disobeyed.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
