http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/09/political-class-insanity-special.html
http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/09/political-class-insanity-special_8.html
Let us continue our discussion today, looking at more public opinion findings on such a military excursion and other sources of news and reality that continue to show how useless and potentially dangerous such a limited military attack would be.
1) Consider some research findings of Americans that would tend to be political aligned with President Obama:
- The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) recently released some survey results of its members.
- Their findings find that more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73% of them opposed the U.S. taking military action in Syria.
- Just 18% supported strikes, and just 14% said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies.
- A majority of the PCCC activists don’t even believe President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest when they lay out their justifications for taking military action.
- Four out of five said they believe U.S. action will lead to deeper involvement in the civil war.
- “In the last 72 hours, we surveyed PCCC members across the nation – in every state and congressional district. We’ve received over 57,000 responses so far, and a clear result: Your progressive base stands firmly against bombing Syria,” said Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, co-founders of PCCC.
Another group of American check in with their views and it does not support bombing Syria.
2) It is not just bombing Syria that Americans are overwhelming against, seems the country is also overwhelmingly against supplying arms to one side of the Syrian civil war, as identified by PEW research from this past June:
- Overall, 70% of those surveyed oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government rebel groups in Syria.
- Only 20% favor supplying weapons to one of the sides in this civil war.
- These findings are little changed from December of last year (24% favor) and support is down slightly from March, 2012 (29% favor).
- About two-thirds (68%) say the U.S. is too overcommitted to get involved in another conflict, and just 27% disagree.
- The public also has questions about the opposition groups in Syria: 60% say that they may be no better than the current government.
- Majorities of independents (74%), Republicans (71%) and Democrats (66%) oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups in Syria.
- Nearly identical majorities of Democrats (69%), independents (69%) and Republicans (68%) also believe that U.S. military forces are too overcommitted to get involved in another conflict.
- Independents (66%) and Republicans (64%) are most concerned that the opposition groups in Syria may be no better than the current government, but 52% of Democrats also agree with this statement.
No bombing and no getting involved by supporting the rebel side with military equipment. The findings and feelings prove that this is not a partisan argument, Republicans, Democrats, and Independent Americans are together in opposition to both military actions, supplying arms and sending in cruise missiles.
3) On August 24, 2013, the Heritage Foundation laid out five logical and fact based reasons why militarily attacking Syria is a very bad idea, both long term and short term (the following words are lifted directly from their post, I hope they do not mind since their reasoning was so succinct and to the point, much better than any summary I could have written):
1. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is not adequate justification for direct military intervention. This dangerous doctrine, promoted at the United Nations, undermines U.S. sovereignty by arguing for an obligation of nations to intervene. As Heritage’s legal expert on sovereignty matters, Steve Groves, explains:
“A doctrine that compels the United States to act to prevent atrocities occurring in other countries would be risky and imprudent. U.S. independence—hard won by the Founders and successive generations of Americans—would be compromised if the United States consented to be legally bound by the R2P doctrine. The United States needs to preserve its national sovereignty by maintaining a monopoly on the decision to deploy diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, political coercion, and especially its military forces.”
2. A vital U.S. interest is not at stake. The U.S. does have an interest in the resolution of the conflict, but military force should be reserved for areas where the U.S. has a compelling need to act in defense of its own interests. There are other and more prudent options for advancing U.S. interests to help resolve the conflict.
3. It would not be a wise use of military force. Military force should be used only if there is a clear, achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its involvement in the crisis.
4. Missile attacks would only make President Obama look weaker. Much like President Clinton’s ineffective cruise missile strikes on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps, strikes would only be seen as a sign that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action. The Middle East would see this as another effort from the Obama Administration to look for an “easy button” and lead from behind rather than exercise real, constructive leadership.
5. It would distract from what the U.S. should be doing. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working in a concerted manner with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and the destabilizing efforts of Iran and Hezbollah
Well said, virtually no upside and plenty of downsides.
4) Back on May 5, 2013, Reuters ran a report that cited United Nations experts concluding that rebel forces, not Syrian government forces, had used sarin gas in civil war action. U.N. human rights investigators had gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte: "Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.
This is not to say that the government did not use poison gas in the latest incident of civilian dying from exposure to poison gas. However, at least according to the United Nations’ experts, it is not out of the question by any means that the latest poison gas deaths were caused, either intentionally or accidentally by the rebel forces.
As we asserted in an earlier post, the Syrian government, with help from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah is winning the civil war. Why would they want to get outside forces, like the U.S. military involved by using poison gas on its citizens when their side is winning? Makes no logical sense.
Thus, what have we learned today? The vast majority of Americans, across all political and geographic divides, think arming either side in the Syrian civil war and bombing either side in the Syrian civil war is a very bad idea. The Heritage Foundation laid out a coherent and logical argument why U.S. military action is the wrong strategy for Syria at this time. And rebel forces have in their possession and have used poison gas before/. Who is to say that the latest use was not theirs, given that the Syrian government had nothing to gain by deploying poisons gas attacks.
Tomorrow we will talk about Syria but use the words and quotes of Americans, both inside and outside of politics, to show that helping Obama save face for his ill advised and ill prepared threat of a “red line” dare to Syria is a dangerous and stupid waste of time and resources.
Until then, if you want to avoid getting the U.S. involved in yet another doomed Middle East military adventure, please call your Congressional representatives and tell them to not support giving Obama permission to drag this country into another unsinkable Middle East conflict.
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:
www.loathemygovernment.com
It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
Term Limits Now:http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment