With U.S. ships moving toward Syria’s coast and the McCainiacs assuring us we can smash Syria from offshore without serious injury to ourselves, why has Congress not come back to debate war?
Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan was sold the same bill of goods the War Party is selling today — that we can intervene decisively in a Mideast civil war at little or no cost to ourselves.
Reagan listened and ordered our Marines into the middle of Lebanon’s civil war. And he was there when they brought home the 241 dead from the Beirut barracks and our dead diplomats from the Beirut embassy.
The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Congress should cut short its five-week vacation, come back, debate and decide by recorded vote whether Obama can take us into yet another Middle East war.
The questions to which Congress needs answers:
•Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?
•What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?
•If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?
•Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?
•If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?
Liberals might ask what's the difference between the action we took against Iraq compared with Syria? Reasonable question. The answer: Syria has not invaded Kuwait and disrupted oil supplies in the entire Middle East. Also, there is no evidence that Syria has or is pursuing a nuclear arms program.
FYI, most Democrats voted against both Iraq wars.
There's also no evidence that Syria plans on giving WMD to known terrorist organizations. In fact, given that they're battling Al Qaeda-backed insurgents, quite the opposite is true.
I was well aware of this but other than the introduction of partisan politics, it's not relevant to my point; my point being there was considerable more justification to take action against Iraq compared with this situation in Syria. We should stay out of what amounts to civil war in both Egypt and Syria. And yes, we should not have gotten involved with the civil matters in Libya either
Yup, against a country whose leaders murdered 1.7 million of its citizens
Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 1 in the 1990s ,
Saddam disregarded the cease fire treaty because both France and Russia was assuring him they would block any enforcement of said violation , (Iraq had given both countries future sweetheart deals we found out later in documents we uncovered in Bagdad.)