The link below gives a pretty good argument for
NOT supplying weapons to the rebels in Syria. Warning!!! This short video is very graphic and not for the weak of
heart or stomach. If you are at all squemish, do not look at the video.
Reading the text below presents a pretty good argument.
This man makes some good points. We
had better think this problem through before making a sad
mistake.
5 Reasons Not To Bomb Syria
John Hawkins
9/3/2013 12:01:00 AM - John
Hawkins
Speak softly and carry a big stick,
and you will go far. -- Teddy
Roosevelt
Barack Obama knows that America's
military is a big stick, but unfortunately Roosevelt's advice about speaking softly doesn't seem to
have stuck. Because Barack Obama recklessly shot off his mouth about a
"red line" in Syria, he's demanding that our nation
insert itself into a civil war between terrorist groups, both of which have chemical weapons,
to protect his ego. Happily, the American people recognize what a foolish
move this would be. A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that only 9% of Americans currently support bombing
Syria. This is why Barack Obama has punted his Syrian War to Congress.
He's hoping that it'll be foolish enough to vote in favor of war to give
him the political cover he needs to bomb. Not only should Congress vote
against the war in Syria, if Obama bombs that country
anyway, Congress should immediately cut off funds for the war and move to
impeach him. Why?
1) We don't have a son-of-a-b*tch in
Syria. During the Cold War,
America used to semi-regularly ally
itself with some rather unsavory leaders and groups. The oft repeated
rationale for supporting a dictator in those days was, "He may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's our
son-of-a-bitch." In other words, both sides are bad guys, but
this bad guy would work with us instead of the Soviets. In this case, we
don't have a dog in the fight. It's a civil war between two groups that
both despise us and will continue to hate us.
Why risk American blood and treasure for people who will hate our guts no
matter what we do?
2) Why act as Al-Qaeda's Air Force?
Barack Obama
is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he should know that Al-Qaeda
attacked America on 9/11. Well now, Bin
Laden’s boys are teamed up with the rebels that are fighting Bashar al-Assad.
We just spent a decade killing as many members of Al-Qaeda as humanly
possible in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and
Pakistan; so how much sense
does it make for Barack Obama to help Al-Qaeda take over Syria by bombing
Bashar al-Assad? Bashar al-Assad may be our enemy, but we should be
thrilled he's killing Al-Qaeda and getting more of his terrorist pals in
Hezbollah offed in the process.
3) What makes anyone think Obama can
pull this off with no repercussions? What is there in Barack Obama's tenure in the
White House that makes anyone think he's likely to handle this well? The
fact that he didn't kill a drone program George W. Bush set up? Because he
was too distracted playing cards with Reggie Love to screw up killing Osama Bin
Laden? Bush essentially won Iraq and Obama screwed up pulling out
of that country and has put a hard-earned victory at risk. He's also on
track to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. His incompetence
got Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya. In Egypt, Obama helped
get rid of a relatively friendly dictator in favor of anti-American,
pro-terrorist theocrats who lasted just over a year before they were thrown out
of power by an Egyptian public that seems to hate Obama almost as much as the
Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, we now think Obama is going to insert himself
into a terrorist-heavy civil war in the Middle
East without creating as many problems as he solves? That's
like emptying a box of live spiders in a teenage girl's slumber party and not
expecting any screaming.
4) It invites retaliation from
Iran and Hezbollah.
Many
conservatives believe that if we have a choice between bombing
Iran or letting it acquire
nuclear weapons, we'd be better off to bomb Iran.
However, that is supposed to be a last resort after every other measure
has failed. Given that Iran and Hezbollah are actively
supporting Bashar al-Assad, bombing him means actively opposing both of them in
a war. Could they retaliate against us with terrorist attacks?
That's certainly possible. Will they go after Israel to get at
us? That's highly likely. Will Israel
respond to those attacks? Yes, Israel will. Could this set off
a larger regional war? Again, that's certainly possible. While Iran
and Hezbollah have much more to fear from us than we do from them, you don't
walk up and kick a bee hive just because President Prissy Pants has worked
himself into a huff.
5) It's not in our national interest
to bomb Syria. Costly though it may have been, it
was in our national interest to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan over 9/11 and to target an aggressive
enemy of America like Saddam
Hussein in Iraq. That being said, had we
known in advance how long our troops would be stuck in Iraq, it's
highly doubtful that we would have ever invaded. On the other hand, what's
the rationale for bombing the side that's fighting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
Both sides hate
America. Both sides cooperate with
terrorists. If
anything, since Al-Qaeda is determined to kill Americans and Assad is not, the
current dictator in charge is probably the lesser of two evils. Moreover,
encouraging other nations to join us in imposing harsh sanctions on
Syria would be just as effective as
bombing when it comes to discouraging the use of WMDs without being as
provocative. So, what argument is left? Are we supposed to bomb
Syria to avoid looking "weak?"
Well, if people have that impression, they can ask Saddam Hussein, Osama
Bin Laden, and Anwar al-Awlaki what they think about that if they're willing to
search through the bowels of hell long enough to find them.
Now I have had my final say even though I didn't write this
piece.
The best argument
against a democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~~~
Winston Churchill
