My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.

各位美國同胞們，今晚我想來和你們談談敘利亞，為什麼這個議題如此重要以及我們會如何因應。在過去兩年，原本是反阿塞德高壓政權的一連串和平抗議行動，如今已轉變為一場殘忍的國家內戰。

Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America's worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement, but I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

超過10萬人民在這場戰爭中喪命，上百萬人逃離家鄉。在此同時，美國和其同盟夥伴致力於提供人道支援、協助溫和反對黨以及調停這場政治紛爭，而我堅決反對採取軍事行動，因為我們無法透過軍事力量解決別人家中的戰事，尤其在美國出兵伊拉克和阿富汗十年後的今日。

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad's government gassed to death over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.

然而，就在8月21日，情勢急轉直下，當阿塞德政府釋放毒氣奪走了1000條以上的生命，當中包括了數百名兒童。這場大屠殺的影像令人作噁─遭受毒氣攻擊的男人、女人、孩童，被排成一排，已無生命跡象，其他人則是口吐白沫、呼吸急促。一名父親緊捉住他已然過世的孩子，懇求他們醒來與他併行。

On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.

在這驚魂之夜，世界鉅細靡遺地目睹了化學武器所能帶來的令人不勝惶恐的威力，以及了解為什麼絕大多數的人類社會將其列為禁品、並宣稱使用化武為違法戰爭法的犯罪行為。

This was not always the case. In World War I, American G.I.s were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

此項結論得來不易，在第一次世界大戰時，上千名美國大兵因致命毒氣而命喪歐洲戰渠。而在第二次世界大戰，納粹就是利用毒氣屠殺猶太人。因為這類武器可以造成大規模的傷亡，且不會區別攻擊目標是軍人或是嬰兒，現代文明世界用了一世紀的努力，讓此類武器不再被使用。到了1997年，美國參議院壓倒性地通過了禁止化學武器國際公約，目前已有189個國家簽署，其所代表的人數佔世界人口的98%。

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

8月21日，此一基本規則以及我們最基本的人道價值遭到破壞。沒人會否認敘利亞境內的確有人使用化武，世界各地皆可看到上千條影片、手機照片和社群媒體上對攻擊的描述，人道團體也指稱病患塞爆了當地的醫院，且其症狀顯示他們吸入了有毒瓦斯。

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.

我們知道阿塞德政權對此負有責任。在8月21日攻擊的前幾天，我們了解到阿塞德政府的化武人員在製造沙林毒氣後，準備對製造廠所在地的鄰近地區發動攻擊。他們發放防毒面具給政府軍，然後從這阿塞德政府控制住的地區，向附近的11個地點發射火箭，這些地點正是政府極力想圍剿的反叛軍據點。就在火箭著地後沒多久，瓦斯開始外洩，醫院霎時擠滿傷亡民眾。

We know senior figures in Assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

我們知道阿塞德軍隊體系中的高階官員檢視了攻擊的成效，並在接下來的日子裡加強了對同一地點的砲火。我們採集了當地民眾的血和頭髮，檢測後發現其中確實帶有沙林毒素。

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory, but these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.

當獨裁者犯下如此殘忍的暴行，他們冀望世界對其行為視若無睹，直到這些聳動的影像從世人的腦海中消逝，但這些行為確實發生了，不容質疑。

The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people - to those children - is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security. Let me explain why.

現在的問題是，美國和國際社會準備如何處例，因為發生在無辜百姓以及那些孩童身上的，不僅僅只是觸犯了國際法，對我國國安也構成威脅。讓我來解釋原因。

If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.

如果我們不採取行動，阿塞德政權將不再需任何理由停止使用化學武器。當化武禁令喪失其威信，其他獨裁者將會毫無顧慮地使用有毒瓦斯。假以時日，我們軍隊將會再一次在戰場中遭遇到化武的襲擊，而恐怖組織將可輕易得到這些武器並用它們來攻擊平民。

If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.

如果這場內戰蔓延，演變為區域戰爭，這些武器將會威脅到我們的盟友，例如土耳其、約旦和以色列。若是我們無法有效制止此次化武的使用，則其他大規模武器的使用限制也將不再有約束力，則阿塞德的盟友伊朗將更有膽量忽視國際法並打造核子武器，而不是採取更和平的解決之道。

This is not a world we should accept. This is what's at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

這不是我們願意接受的結果，這將使世界暴露在危機中。這也就是為什麼，將過仔細反覆的思考，我曾決定此次敘利亞內戰涉及到美國國家安全利益，美國應採取針對性軍事攻擊回應阿塞德政權使用化武攻擊自家人民。此次攻擊的目的是阻止阿塞德繼續使用化武、降低其政權使用化武的能力以及向世界彰顯美國對此毫不寬容的態度。

That's my judgment as commander-in-chief, but I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

這是我做為總司令的判斷，但我也是世界上最悠久憲政民主國家的總統。所以，即使我擁有下令發動軍事攻擊的權利，我依舊認為在沒有直接或立即威脅下，把此決議交付給國會是正確的決定。我相信若國會支持總統的行動，我們的民主價值將會更加彰顯。我相信若上下一心，美軍海外的行動將會更有效率。這些並非偽言，尤其是在這一世紀以來，總統握有愈來愈多的交戰權、國軍須挑起愈來愈多的重擔，然而人民代表卻無法參與是否對外使用武力的重要決定。

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action - no matter how limited - is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four-and-a-half years working to end wars, not to start them.

我了解由於美軍在伊拉克和阿富汗死傷無數，任何軍事行動，無論規模多麼地有限，都無法獲得大多數國人的支持與贊同。畢竟，我花了四年半的時間致力於結束戰爭，而非開啟戰爭。

Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington –especially me - to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It's no wonder then that you're asking hard questions.

我們的軍隊已退出伊拉克。我們的軍隊已從阿富汗返鄉。而我知道美國人希望我們這群在華盛頓工作的人，尤其是我，將焦點擺在國內、擺在如何打造我們的國家，讓人人都有工作，孩童都可接受教育，中產階級更為茁壯。你們尖銳的提問無可厚非。

So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me. First, many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.

讓我來回答部分聽自於國會議員和民眾來函中提及的首要問題。第一，你們許多人在問，介入敘利亞內戰難道不會導致另一場戰爭吧？一名男士在信中提到美國出兵伊拉克後的損失至今尚未完全復原。一名老兵更直接說「這個國家對於戰爭是厭倦和厭煩的。」

My answer is simple. I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities.

我的回答相當簡單，我不會派遣軍隊駐守敘利亞。我不追求如出兵伊拉克或阿富汗般毫無節制的行動。我不崇尚如對付利比亞或科索夫般的空中延長戰。我所謂的攻擊侷限在具體的目標上，以達成明確的目的，包括放棄使用化武以及削弱阿塞德的武力。

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. Now, some members of Congress have said there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.

另外有人問到如果我們不是想推翻阿塞德那攻擊有何意義。而部分國會議員也指出如此不痛不癢的攻擊毫無意義。

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.

讓我來澄清一件事: 美軍決不做不痛不癢的事情。就算是規模有限的攻擊，也可清楚地向阿塞德傳遞出美國的態度，而這是別的國家無法辦到的。

I don't think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can makes Assad - or any other dictator - think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don't dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other - any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?
It's true that some of Assad's opponents are extremists. But al Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.

The majority of the Syrian people, and the Syrian opposition we work with, just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policemen.

I agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations, but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days, we've seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they'd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments, but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies.

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.

I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies – France and the United Kingdom - and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st, and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, I've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight I give thanks, again, to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have borne them.

And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of
America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideas and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.

That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.