The More We Know About Syria, The Less We Need To Get Involved With Bombing Or Any Other Military Action

The more that I hear the Dear Leader, President Obama, and even conservative supporters regarding bombing Syria for the use of chemical weapons the less inclined I am to support such a mission and oppose it stronger each and every day and more so by the hour.
Today in a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the G20 summit, the Dear Leader, President Obama, may have said one of the most idiotic things in regard to the situation yet. Here is the quote:

"Over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we fabricated, this is not something we are using as excuse for military action . . .I elected to to end wars, not start them."

Oh Dear Lord, this is douchbrainery on steroids.
Lets take the estimate of those killed in the attack.
According to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the number is over 1,400. Yet even in this article many do not believe that number and in fact believe that the numbers are less than 1,400. Granted some of that skepticism comes from Russia, an ally of the current Bashar Assad regime in Syria. But again in the article it suggests many leaders have skepticism about the claims.
But the whopper is the left's always fall back position whenever "action" needs to be done.
It's because or for the children.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, cited a number of over 400 who died being children.
It is an awful way for children that are innocent victims to die. No matter who was behind the attack. But my question for the Dear Leader, President Obama is this. What about the 98,000 plus that died as a result of conventional warfare? And the second question is what about the many children who died out of that 98,000? What their lives were not important until one side or the other used chem weapons? That is sure the implication I get from such a comment.
And the real zinger is why the Dear Leader, President Obama, thinks that he was elected.
To stop wars, not start them.
UGH!
Really that is a sophomoric comment because he is not starting a war but becoming an active participant in a civil war. A war that not only the majority of Americans oppose but one that is not in our national interest.
Again, understand that everyone in Syria just plain sucks.
The current dictator, Bashar Assad, is certainly no friend to the United States. He is allied as noted with Russia and worse, Iran. Assad is an Alawite Islamic which is an offshoot of Shi'a Islam. Alawites are serious Twelvers and like some Christians who believe in the End Times, these people do to from a radical Islamic perspective. And many would have no problem speeding up the Islamic End Times.
Oh, but those that oppose Assad, from the Free Syria Army, the least objectionable group to the Al-Nusra Front, well they are primarily Sunni Islamics and even worse than what is in power now.
While some proponents of bombing Syria, such as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, say the Free Syrian Army are pretty cool, they dismiss the other groups allied with the FSA as a minority. Well, like so many things Sen. "F--- You" McCain is wrong about, he is here too. In fact if you read this post I wrote and start adding the numbers, well they are roughly equal in numbers. The substantive difference is that the FSA were former members of the Assad armed forces.
And while both sides practice brutality, the rebels are really more brutal than people want to realize. Even the Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, reported on this yesterday when a former rebel smuggled video of an execution of seven Syrian soldiers. The following video does not show the actual execution but is graphic none the less. And it shows the dead soldiers being thrown in an unmarked grave.



.

But if that is not enough for you, here is Abu Sakkar a rebel fighter and watch what he does.

Yes, this sick degenerate eats the heart of a dead Syrian soldier.

And the Dear Leader, President Obama, our illustrious secretary of state, John F. Kerry (Reporting for duty*), Sen. John "F--- You" McCain want to shed American blood and treasure to support these bastards.

Again, ALL SIDES in this civil war suck. Not one is in the interests of the United States to see in power. But in this case, you have to go with the Devil you know against the people that we do not know about or want to bury our collective heads in sand and ignore. It is not just the atrocities but what the rebels could do once the overthrow, execute Assad and his family and implement. Radical Islam right on the Mediterranean Sea.

Yet those that want to attack Syria are planning, adjusting and refining what action the armed forces of the United States will take. No doubt it will be the navy with warships and aircraft carriers, and the air force. For now.

And remember, we do not know for certain who committed the chem weapon attack. We are asked to believe Team Obama and the rebels that it was the forces loyal to Assad blindly. Remember these people did not want to and did not blindly follow former president George W. Bush and the much more verifiable evidence of WMDs in Iraq, And also the fact that Saddam Hussein used the weapons and invaded another nation, Kuwait, in 1990. Without more absolute verifiability, we can not do what our president is asking us to support.

The more we know about the Syrian civil war, the more that we should not get involved in the matter that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new allies such as Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham. We need to continue to let our leaders know that We The People just say no to bombing or any other military action in Syria.

 

Why We Should Not Get Involved In Syria's Civil War

UPDATE:

To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.

09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:

YES
Sen.  Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)

NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen.  Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.