What Is The Threat To The US?
Sep 4, 2013 Military, Political
Some entity in Syria used the nerve agent Sarin in the ongoing civil war. The United States claims that the government used the nerve agent and the UN says the rebels used it. The US report on the issue is full of caveats including one that we do not have assets on the ground. There is even some doubt as to whether Sarin was used or if chlorine was the gas that killed all those people (some report smelling chlorine). The Obama regime wants to attack Syria as a punishment for using the chemical weapons.
Is our military supposed to be used to punish other nations?
Regardless of the reason for the use of force the US Congress is the body given the power to authorize the use of force. There is a law (50 USC Chapter 33, ss 1541) called the War Powers Resolution. The purpose of this was to give presidents the ability to respond to an emergency requiring military force when the response was needed before Congress could act to authorize it. There are three items listed that allow the use of force and they are:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There has been no declaration of war and there is no statutory authorization (such as a treaty or UN Resolution), and there is no national emergency created by an attack upon our country, its territories or possessions or our armed forces.
Given these facts there is no authority for the use of force under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama and his sock puppet John Kerry claim Obama has the authority but he clearly does not.
The US Congress must authorize the use of force and that is being debated at this time. Keep in mind during the debates that saving face for an American president is NOT one of the reasons that use of force is allowed.
The UN is unlikely to authorize the use of force as that body contends the rebels used the nerve agent and given that Russia has a veto vote and is a strong supporter of the Syrian government they will likely veto. This leaves it to the US Congress (unless, of course, Obama decides to strike no matter what) to allow or disallow the use of force. That body should think long and hard before it commits the use of our nation’s military and it should look at what threat is posed by the use of chemical weapons in Syria as well as the likely ramifications of the use of force.
If we attack Syria what will happen? Syria and Iran will attack Israel as punishment for the attack. We will condemn such acts but is their use of force for punishment any worse than ours?
The attacks on Israel will draw a huge military response form that nation and many other countries will be drawn into the conflict. World War Three will begin.
What happens if we attack Syria and hit the chemical weapons storage sites and those agents end up killing untold numbers of people? We claim we will not attack the storage sites but how do we know where they are and what is to say that Assad (or the Rebels) will not move the agents to places we are likely to hit in order to have such a release? How will we be viewed if our acts cause death by chemical agent?
What happens if we attack the Syrian Government and it turns out the Rebels used the nerve agents? If Obama thinks he needs to save face now what will he do if he attacks and was wrong all along? There will be no face saving measure in the world if he attacks and is wrong about it.
As far as I am concerned the nerve agent attacks in Syria took place in a civil war and their use did not affect us in any way whatsoever. Our property, our nation and our people were NOT attacked so there is no reason to shoot at anyone involved in that conflict.
If we decide to use force against the Syrian Government we will be helping al Qaeda (the Rebels) and these people are our enemy. These Rebels have been filmed murdering children at a firing squad and cutting out the heart and liver of a soldier and eating them. Are these the people we want to help?
Why in the name of all that is good would we want to help either side in this conflict? Both sides have animals in them but right now those animals are fighting each other. We should sit back and watch the fight and not get involved unless we are attacked.
Obama is foolish and inexperienced. It was his mouth that backed him into this corner and that is his problem. We should not use our military to help him save face.
We will end up looking like fools.
Any member of Congress on the left who screamed all those years about Bush lying to get us into war should remember all the things they said about Iraq not attacking us before they vote on Syria. Obama should remember he said he would not have voted to authorize force (yes Bush went to Congress and got approval regardless of what anyone thinks of the reasons) and John Kerry should remember what he said about Vietnam not posing any threat to the US when he was an anti war protestor oh so many years ago.
Republicans, you better sack up or you will face backlash on election day.
As for Democrats, who knows what they will face. Their party has mind numbed drones with short memories who follow the collective.
Say no to attacking Syria…
Related:
Will Rand Paul Filibuster?
Syria hiding weapons and moving troops
France now wavering
Putin warns US
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: assad, constitution, john kerry, Obama, rebels, Syria