81% of Americans Are Against Intervention in Syria

There is no wonder why the vast majority of Americans are opposed to military action in Syria when the possible outcomes are so damaging:
 
1. The US military attacks with cruise missiles which does some damage, Assad stays in power, their civil war continues as it has. Why attack, no change? Except with no international support, the credibility of the US is severely damaged. Bad outcome. US forces are put in harm's way and we kill people with no strategic change in the situation in Syria. 
2. The US attacks, Assad stays in power, Syria and/or Iran attacks Israel in retaliation to US attack, much larger regional conflict is ignited. Bad. We could be dragged into defending Israel from an attack which we instigated with no long-range plan of success. Or we could abandon Israel. Also very bad outcomes. 
3. The US military attacks, destroys Syria's air force and air defenses, Assad falls. Rebels, including Al Qaida seize control including Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. Bad. This scenario doesn't even guarantee the end of the conflict as Hezbollah, Al Quds, Iran, Alwites still support Al Assad and could easily continue fighting even after Assad is gone - Think Egypt, only worse. Very bad outcome. We give chemical weapons to Al Qaida. 

To make matters worse, our allies have decided NOT to assist us in military intervention. The UN will not support military intervention. 81% of Americans are against intervention. Russia and China have warned us against intervention (which would make no difference to me if our national security was threatened, which it is not), Syria and Iran have promised to attack Israel if we attack Syria. Again, we have a totalitarian regime fighting against Islamic extremists groups, including Al Qaida. What's our role here? 

We can, however, provide humanitarian aid to the victims and Syrian refugee civilians, support our true ally in the region, Israel and interdict Iran's supply routes into Syria in Iraq. All good outcomes.

Chemical weapons cannot be destroyed by an air attack. Delivery systems can be damaged and the chemicals themselves can be spread by the use of explosives, but not destroyed. Either Assad will retain the chemical weapons or the opposition will seize them. 

How can this Administration convince us that they know everything that happened in Damascus with this chemical attack- what weapons were used, how they were delivered, who conducted the attack, and just as importantly, who did not conduct the attack, how many casualties there were, which chemical agents were used, etc with a "high confidence" ? But they still can't tell us anything about Benghazi where we apparently had dozens of CIA agents on the ground? So, we're supposed to trust their word now? How many times has this administration lied to us?

Views: 90

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Frank D. Harrisson on September 7, 2013 at 10:36am

Back in 1913 President Woodrow Wilson (D) rammed down our throats Amendment XVI that created our income tax system, Social Security, and IRS of which amendment I understand was never ratified and Amendment XVII on the election of US Senators to be made directly by the people and not as called for originally in the US Constitution Article1 Section 3 whereas the state Senators were to be elected by their respective state legislatures of which placed them under the state legislature's direction. This alone has removed most of the power away from the states. The US Senators of today are elected by the people directly and they vote by "Going along to get along" be it a good decision or a bad one. Prior to 1913 the states had the power over their lands and resources, coal, oil, water, farms, and ranches, etc. not the Federal Government. Today we have a sorry assed government that is over blown, cocky, arrogant, and belligerent. We need to change this and there is no better time to do it then right now. We need to have a Convention. There are two ways to call for it. One is to have the US Congress to call for it. Well we know how far this will fly because they know that they will lose a lot of power. Our forefathers' gave us a second way through Article 5 USC and that is for you and I to hammer our state legislatures and governors to call for a Convention and convince them that we need to repeal both Amendment XVI and Amendment XVII from the USC and from that we can downsize our Federal Government big time, keep a lot of our own money, and to return the authority of our lands and resources back to the individual states where they belong. I know the state legislatures will balk at this because it will add more work for them but the work does belong among the people of each state who owns the land. The Federal Government owns nothing except the military and foreign business. Article 5 USC states that we only need 33 state legislatures out of the 50 state's to call for a Convention and 3/4ths of the states or state legislatures to ratify the change for Repeal of Amendment XVI and Amendment XVII. So let's get cracking folks, writing letters, signing petitions, phone calling, and emailing and go after our governors and state legislatures to get this Convention going to return our country to a Federal Country once again. I hate to think of the alternative outcome if we do not do this.

Comment by M16ark58 on September 4, 2013 at 6:23am

For starters: If the dictate in chief OblammaInsane/Hussian is for anything, it has GOT TO BE BAD NEWS!  Anything the regime proposes is evil, and we should always veiw whatever he decrees as being to our detriment! 

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

Florida Sheriff — “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video. It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service