Here is the email. Please pass it along to all you know!
~ Christine
*******
To All,
I was looking for the outrage about military action in Syria
on the social media and a call to action,
but I don’t see it. From polls being taken most people do not think it is a
good idea to lob a few hundred missiles into Syria without any real strategy,
goal or objective, but for some reason they are quiet. Yes, fourteen hundred
people were killed in Syria with chemical weapons, but was it Assad or the Muslim Brotherhood or someone else? To my
knowledge no one has definitively answered that. The other thing that bothers me
is it has happened before and on a much grander scale yet then we didn’t call
for immediate action. Is it now about a red line from the President, and somehow
by doing this he can save face?
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his people in the
90s, and killed over 5,000 men, women, and children in one day! Altogether he
killed over 50,000 people with chemical weapons! It wasn’t until after 911 that
we finally decided to do something. The majority of Republicans, and Democrats
in Congress agreed to go in and take him out of power. We didn’t get the
chemical weapons even when we went into Iraq. There is quite a bit of
evidence(him using them to kill people) that the weapons were there even though
at the time people were saying we went to Iraq for the oil. Funny thing though
we never did take all that oil. One commander that fought with Saddam before the
war, and later defected to the other side even wrote a book in which he
explained that Saddam shipped the chemical weapons out of the country before we
attacked. Many of the weapons were trucked across the border to Syria according
to this man. If we had kept a military presence in Iraq maybe Assad would have thought better about using chemical
weapons, but we will never know now.
What will we achieve by lobbing missiles into Syria, with no
targets in mind? The President said these are to be just warning shots. Will
Assad quit using chemical weapons? Probably
not, and then what about retaliation against the United States? Don’t forget
Iran and Russia have both said we need to stay out. This is a civil war, and
China too wants us to remain neutral. Do we want to go into Syria and fight with
the rebels to get Assad out of control?
Maybe, if we could be assured that some sort of Democratic government would be
installed, but the chances of that are slim to none. The majority of the rebels
are extremist Islamic. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Muslim Brotherhood, makeup the
majority of the rebels, so we would give them access to chemical weapons. Our
military support would have been given to an enemy that has already proven that
they will come over here and kill us. The better plan in my opinion is to let
them fight it out amongst themselves. This has been our policy so many times
before. Africa has been fighting amongst themselves for years to the tune of
over 400,000 being killed. Hacking and mutilation by machetes doesn’t seem very
humane to me either. Saudi Arabia, or some other country in the Middle East should use their military to send a message to
Syria not us.
Build up and fund our military now. Preparing against a real strike against Iran, is what should
be happening. The President can stop
sequestration against the military. It is his choice. Iran is where our soon to
be nuclear enemy is, let’s concentrate on
them. We should have several plans of action being put together against Iran
already. Here is another bit of advice I would give our Representatives, don’t
tell our enemies when, how long, and how little force we are going to use against them. That is like telling a teenager, “I
am going to smack your hand, and send you to your room tomorrow for you staying
out past your curfew tonight.” Chances are they will make sure they stay out
even later the next night, and they almost definitely will do it again knowing
there was no real punishment.
Please if you haven’t looked into what is going on in Syria
for yourself make sure you find out, but
hurry. Then if your vote would be No for sending missiles over there, call,
email or write your representatives immediately. We still can make a
difference, and they really do appreciate our
input. Remember they work for us.
Thanks,
Donna
*******
Update: In a texting conversation, Donna also mentioned that this entire debacle over Syria may just be another "wag the dog" ploy by Obama because he doesn't want Americans to notice some executive orders he is signing. I also added that he may be pushing this Syria strike so that all of the recent scandals are off the news!
Pay attention to the hearings going on! Read blogs, forums, and commentaries on the subject. Get educated about this!!
No matter what, if you are like-minded and agree that we should not do what Obama STUPIDLY wants to do, then make those in Washington HEAR YOU!
Hat tip:
My friend Donna N. via email
Posts
1 comment:
I don't like the idea of an attack on Syria.
Contrary to what your correspondent says, we already have a likely nuclear-armed enemy on the other side of Asia: the DPRK (North Korea). They fired a missile that overflew Japan (nine years ago!), and tried to fire another one in our direction. Compared to that, Syria isn't much.
But ten years ago I considered Syria to be more of a threat to the Middle East than Iran ever was, and more than Iraq could ever be. Ahmedinajhad was the cock in the barnyard, content to strut around and crow, while Assad was more like the weasel who could sneak in and take the chickens anytime he wanted.
One question not raised here: does Syria have the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons?
Possibly they do now, IF all thse rumors about Iraqi munitions being shipped there is true. It would be quite simple for any decent chemist to analyze the formula and duplicate it. But those claims of secretly acquired Iraqi gases were never proven, and chemical weapons have an average life of about eight years; then they go inert. It's definitely a “use it or lose it” weapon.
Syria is also both smaller and more densely populated than Iraq. Even if such large stocks exist, I doubt we'll be sending ground troops to find them; the events of the past decade have soured most Americans on that idea.
As a former military man, I have no doubt whatever that there are designated targets—we won't be shooting at nothing. When you throw a million-dollar missile at something, you want it to be something specific, as well as the right thing. We've sent several missile destroyers to the eastern Med; if we were really serious, we'd have sent a carrier (and we have one in the region at all times anyway).
There's not been much noise from Jerusalem, either. A year ago they were straining at the leash to go after Iran, but now the positions are reversed, they seem happy to let us go ahead. They must know that their neighbors will see this as collusion, and step up their own attacks on the West Bank and the cities.
The wisest move Obama has made so far is to hand it over to Congress to make the authorization. The power to declare war is part of their job, and one they have not exercised in over 70 years. If they don't feel it's serious enough to cut short their vacations and return to work, then why should they care if the president orders an attack?
Post a Comment