Questions America should resolve before using military force in Syria
Just a summary of thoughts and questions that Americans should be asking themselves and calling on lawmakers to resolve before intervening in Syria.
Why would Bashir al-Assad use chemical weapons now?
After the war with rebel insurgents has waged on for the last couple of years and thousands have perished in these battles, why would the Assad regime resort to biological warfare now?
As the focus on Egypt diverts attention away from the bloodshed and conflicts, why put the Syrian war center stage?
Why does the use of chemical weapons matter now? Did the rebels use these weapons also?
Back in May the rebels used nerve gas in an attack on Assad supporters and civilians. Even then the Obama administration only spoke about military actions if Assad used these weapons and never addressed the use by rebels.
So months later, despite allegations that the rebels used the weapons, not the Assad regime, and despite the accounts that by the rebels themselves, the US is targeting the Syria leadership.
What will the role of Iran, Russia and China be in a conflict with Syria?
Direct warnings from these government have not deterred US leadership. If the US economy is so helpless to push back against the Chinese, then why ignore them now?
Vladimir Putin is no friend of America, but wasn’t he correct when he pointed to the violence of the rebels and even cannibalism. More details here
Putin was referring to video footage posted on the Internet last month of a rebel fighter eating the heart of a government soldier.
Why should the US help terrorist, Islamist, Al qaeda and other brutal leaders of the rebel resistance?
Even if there is only passive assistance by toppling the Assad regime, why should America assist brutal Islamic rebels who have murdered, even butchered, Syrian soldiers or Christians?
- rebel leader eating body parts of a captor and executing prisoners
- rebels are training and using children to behead Assad soldiers
- Syrian rebels behead Catholic priest
How is the death of Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans indicative of America’s success on escalating these conflicts in the Middle East?
No matter the details of Benghazi, the resulting country of Libya in turmoil is hardly a model of democracy. No one is supporting Assad as a great leader but John Kerry has gone from having dinner with Assad in 2009 (see photo here) to comparing him to Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
Why ignore the American people?
Afghanistan, Iraq and our roles in other Middle East conflicts aside, why ignore the polls on this one?
10% or less favor the war with only 25% approving if chemical weapons were used – full details here.
No one wants to see more bloodshed but wasn’t the Iraq War a strongest enough lesson that democracy is near impossible in the countries?
Why is the method of death more important than the deaths themselves? To state another way: why wasn’t there intervention before 100,000 died?