Reblogged from
- By Michael Snyder - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/25-quotes-about-the-coming-war-with-syria-that-every-american-should-see
If Barack Obama is going to
attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American
people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the
United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the
British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama
administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against
Syria. But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do?
A
"limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is
certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging
inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda
affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even
worse than Assad. Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels
have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian
villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters?
There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely
horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S.
military to get involved in such a mess?
It isn't as if it is even
possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on
in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam
vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand
years.
Assad is Shiite, but the
majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been
pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love
to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power
in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow
that to happen.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have
no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their
political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S.
has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in
Syria.
But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.
If it could be made to look
like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the
U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene
militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great
excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the
Saudis for them.
So that is where we are
today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama
administration is giving us goes something like this...
-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.
-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.
-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.
-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.
The U.S. government spends
$52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our
intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has
been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have
used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue
to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to
strike Syria immediately.
Shouldn't we at least take a
little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we
start letting cruise missiles fly?
Because the potential
downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote
about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of
starting World War 3 in the Middle East.
We could find ourselves
immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be
far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a
war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.
If you are going to pick a
fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and
they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will
never, ever forgive.
A full-blown war with Syria,
Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not
hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don't
think that most Americans have any conception of what that could
possibly mean.
If the American people are
going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25
quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...
1.
Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20,
2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
2.
Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no
constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless
we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And
if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."
3.
U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress
back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on
Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the
authority to redline the Constitution."
4.
U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that
this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."
5.
U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as
commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our
national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional
obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United
States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been
attacked or threatened with an attack."
6.
The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no
'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the
attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public
intelligence presentation."
7.
U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national
security connection to the United States and victory by either side will
not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United
States."
8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."
9.
Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn't been any indication from the
administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this
particular situation."
10.
Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he
has ensured - for the very first time in history - that the United
States will be on the same side as al-Qa'ida."
11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we're about to become al-Qaeda's air force now?"
12.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to
surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The
second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."
13.
A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within
the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment
to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself
up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its
people."
14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we're capable of responding."
15.
An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on
Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a
war with Israel."
16.
Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country
which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years
will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this
war."
17.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will
be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and
unspecified outcomes and consequences"
18.
General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an
attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."
19.
Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been
involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will
respond with full force."
20.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the
civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm
us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."
21.
The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime
are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah
bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on
Wednesday."
22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"
23.
Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas
against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who
have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."
24.
Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do
the impossible and harm our children's future because we think we just
have to do something."
25.
Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and
fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb
us, too?"
God is not bound by a man-written document such as the Constitution of the US however excellent and durable it is. Just as he will use the Peace treaty to bring the antichrist on the scene and as he will pull Gog with hooks in the jaw to invade Israel with an enemy coalition, he is sovereign and binds himself only to his word eternal and unchanging which he has magnified above his Name Psalm 138:2. He acts according to the pleasure of his will. Ephesians 1:4. And no one can thwart his purpose: Isaiah 14:27.
ReplyDelete