Thursday, September 05, 2013

What Will America Achieve by Lobbing Missiles into Syria, With No Targets in mind?

The following is a great email sent by my friend Donna N. (who joined me during the TEA Party rallies against Obamacare back in 2009) regarding the need for outraged Americans to call their representatives and tell them that we don't want to get involved in the civil war going on in Syria!

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.



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

1 comment:

GMpilot said...

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?