Are these rebels, the ones Obama is siding with?
As bad as Assad may be, I think the rebels could be worse, especially as they
seem to be radical Muslim. Who should we help...Assad, who seems determined to
eliminate half his citizens, or the rebels, who seem to be linked to al Qaida? I
think we should find a way to help the people, the victims, in a humanitarian
effort, and stay out of the civil war. Our military is spread thin now, and
underfunded. We don't seem to have definitive proof that Assad used
chemical weapons. It could be al Qaida, or some other group.
Syrian rebels = muslim brotherhood = Al Qaida. Stay out of it, Obama.
This is probably the reason Senator Lee isn't supporting an immediate
intervention. Which side can the U.S. support? It looks like a lose -lose. As
the mother of an American soldier, I strongly urge lawmakers to refrain from
spilling one drop of American blood by sending our family members into a fight
where neither side is concerned about the best interest of the Syrian people or
So, one side probably (not 100%) used some chemical weapons, the other side
likes to throw acid on their wives and daughters for the audacity of going to
school or dating and falling in love with the wrong person. Let them handle it
We all know that the Christians haven't been singled out by the way he has
liked the money those Christians bring to his economy.The terrorists
or rebels have one common goal and that isn't freedom for people,
especially Christians. It has never been their goal.Our President
and country through undermining tactics and unwritten policies have a goal to
cause instability throughout the world. Leaders in many countries have found
our weakness in our leadership over the past 5-10 years as we have been at war
in various countries.Sadaam tried to lure us into war and throw us
down but Sadaam went down but in the long run we have spent much of our assets
for revenge after 9/11. Our Generals such as Patreaus have helped us be in a
void of leadership over the years. Generals are and have been politicians in
disguise and Colonels will do anything to make the rank of General. Even though
the common Soldier, Airman, Marine and Seaman may have integrity, their leaders
have learned from cheating and other scandals that the Academies have set an
example of lack of integrity and other good characteristics.
Why would the United States of America push for the Chemical Weapons specific
treaty dealing with this type of situation 20 years ago and not use that treaty
with the United Nations that enforces that treaty? We pay most of the costs of
that treaty with inspectors from military and industrial backgrounds from 80 of
the 189 nations that are signatory to that treaty. Syria isn't a signatory
but is still a member of the United Nations.The Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has experts and facilities to verify the
existence of chemical weapons and procedures to deal with a country that has and
uses chemical weapons. This President has avoided all discussion about this.
With his Susan Rice person that does all the President's bidding was the
Ambassador to the United Nations until just recently and hasn't done
anything it would appear to do anything.The Democrat leadership is
into a worse position than President Bush in pushing the military action. At
least President Bush had 9/11 and chemical weapons. President Obama has
chemical weapons and no direct attack. The attack in Syria was on their own
citizens and the rebels don't have an international agreement.
JWB, you make some good points regarding the already-existing chemical weapons
treaty. It seems that there is already a procedure in place to deal with a
country who violates that, even though, as you said, Syria did not sign the
treaty, but they are members of the UN. Makes me wonder if Obama is even aware
of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and if he is, why
he doesn't use it to deal with Syria, along with other countries who also
signed the treaty. These other countries who were signatory should also be
willing to enforce the specifics of that treaty. Lobbing a few missiles into
Syria will not stop the problem, but I think it will create many new ones. We
cannot support an al Qaida-backed organization, which the rebels seem to be. I am also an Army mom, PLM, and I'm glad my son will out of the
Army by the end of this year. He spent time in Afghanistan last year. One
deployment is enough.I think our efforts have to be humanitarian,
not military. The people/victims need our help...the world's help...not
@Utah Girl....I like your thinking.
Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without Radical Islam?
@Utah GirlSOME of the rebels are linked to Al-Qaida (Kerry notes
there's 11 groups, the most notable of which is the al-Nusra front). The
largest group of rebels however is the Free Syrian Army which would rather like
to do without those foreign extremist groups except they're kinda losing
and need any help they can get. The extremists are the only ones actively
involved so the FSA has gotten more reliant on them over the past two years.
C'mon people it's time to bomb the government. Obviously the
"rebels" are only interested in civil rights for all.