Thursday, September 05, 2013

17 Reasons Going to War with Syria is a Mistake

The USS Nimitz, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which is currently supplemented by biofuel, sails about 150 miles north of the island of Oahu during the RIMPAC Naval exercises off Hawaii July 18,2012. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry

Suppose the Congress declares war, what are the reasons that would be a mistake?
  1. The United States has not been attacked.
  2. The security of the United States is not at issue, and war should always be a response of last resort to a threat to our security.
  3. No international body has determined that a human rights violation did in fact occur.
    1. Committing to war solely on the basis of our intelligence, which may or may not be accurate, without the benefit of a neutral adjudicator and without giving the accused an opportunity to defend, is lawless.
    2. It is like sending the captured bank robber to jail without a trial.
  4. Going to war risks escalation into nuclear conflict.
  5. Our striking forces of the Syrian government would support Al Qaeda.
    1. Putin's intelligence is that the rebels have incorporated strong elements of Al Qaeda, which is consistent with common sense and the rebels' killing of Christians.
    2. Obama has incorporated members of the Muslim Brotherhood into highly placed jobs in our own government.
    3. This raises questions about why Obama wants to attack the forces who are fighting Al Qaeda.
  6. No nation or nations have come forward to partner with the United States to punish this alleged human rights violation.
    1. Neither the United Nations, nor Arab states in the region, nor European allies, nor the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come forward.
    2. In the first Gulf war, some 50 nations supported the United States
  7. Going to war would be based on the erroneous notion that we have authority to intervene in the affairs of another nation.
    1. Thinking that we are the world's policeman is an arrogance we in which we should not indulge.
    2. Even if we were the world's policeman, there have been many human rights violations in Syria and other nations to which we have not responded.
  8. The motives for such a war are questionable.
    1. Obama has said it is a shot across the bow.
    2. Kerry has said it is a signal that atrocities will not be tolerated.
    3. Boehner has said "enemies around the world need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior."
  9. None of these motives is justification for war.
    1. Shooting across the bow is an irresponsible act that risks much and accomplishes nothing.
    2. We are not the policeman of the world and have no authority to say what will be tolerated in another country.
    3. If enemies do not fear us, going to war will not help (see 10 and 11 below), and beyond that, who would fear the United States when Obama is president, regardless of what response we make in Syria?
  10. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 4, 2013 that he had no idea what we were seeking to accomplish by the proposed military action.
    1. If the chairman of the joint chiefs doesn't know what the proposed military strike will accomplish, it's unlikely that Obama or Kerry know.
    2. Voting to approve of this military strike would be like voting for Obamacare to find out what's in it.
  11. Dempsey's testimony reveals that there is no military or strategic benefit to Obama's proposal.
    1. A military strike that has no clear strategic objective is an exercise in pointlessness.
  12. Many supporters of this war are closely aligned to the military-industrial complex.
  13. The nation is war-weary and likely to vote against anyone who votes for war with Syria.
  14. Any war will drive the national debt beyond its current 84 trillion dollars (entitlements included).
  15. Obama on September 4, 2013 announced that he did not draw a red line in the sand. Congress, the world and the American people did that.
    1. If Obama is referring to the Geneva Protocol and the CWC, banning the use of chemical weapons, both signed by the United States, he forgot to add that while these agreements ban the use of chemical weapons, they do not require the United States to act alone as investigator, adjudicator and executioner.
    2. The embarrassment of having a president who will not accept responsibility for what he has done is a stain on our honor that no war can erase.
  16. It is likely that one of Obama's motives in dragging out this deadly game is that in doing so he will redirect attention away from Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, and the AP scandals as well as the evolving catastrophes that are Obamacare and the budget deliberations.
  17. Insofar as Congress is motivated to save the reputation of the president and the United States, going to war cannot do that.
    1. Obama has revealed himself as a community organizer who was elected president. A military strike will not change that.
    2. The reputation of the United States as a responsible world power can be saved only by the impeachment or voluntary resignation of this incompetent president.

Read more:

Monday, September 02, 2013

Attack on Syria? Three Reasons Why Congress May Not Approve

The USS Nimitz, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which is currently supplemented by biofuel, sails about 150 miles north of the island of Oahu during the RIMPAC Naval exercises off Hawaii July 18,2012. REUTERS/Hugh Gentry
Obama has challenged Congress to approve an attack on Syria for the release of Chemical Weapons on its people, however Congress may not want to approve the action based on the three reasons listed below:

Weak House: The House tried and failed several times to get war authorization through on Libya. They gave up trying when U.S. military action there ended. And Libya had the backing of the United Nations, NATO and the UK. Getting something through the House on Syria will be even harder than passing approval on Libya. With Libya, there was only moderate public interest in the Congressional machinations, since the authorization was retroactive given that President Obama had already approved U.S. involvement. This time around, all eyes will be on the House and the pressure will be intense. There’s a reason House Speaker John Boehner didn’t call on Obama to seek a vote of approval for action in Syria: This was one nightmare he was keen to avoid.

Splits both parties: Remember the 2004 election when President George W. Bush went around scaring folks about how Democrats were weak on defense? The days where Iraq and Afghanistan were partisan issues have gone. Washington has reverted to a foreign policy more akin to President Clinton’s days where both parties split on intervention. Now, as it was in the 1990′s, you have Democratic doves aligning with isolationist Libertarians. They face off against Republican Hawks and Democratic bleeding hearts. This makes whipping votes complicated, to say the least. It also makes Syria less of a partisan issue, which is the way going to war used to be. By throwing this to Congress, Obama is basically challenging all the backbenchers who have been vociferous in their criticism in the last 10 days—Liberals fearing another Iraq, Hawks saying we need to go farther on regime change—to stand up, be heard and unite behind a military action. It will likely be chaotic. Already two Republican Senate hawks, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, have announced they will not vote to authorize force in Syria unless Obama commits to an “an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict.” The White House has previously argued that there is no acceptable military solution for the civil war in Syria.

Unpopular: Polls show most Americans don’t want to see any kind of intervention in Syria, so if Congress votes to support this, they will be going against their constituents’ wishes, which is never easy especially for those up for reelection. Members are going to have to defend the intelligence and make the case to their supporters why it’s important to do this. To that end, a limited engagement is better, as they can make the argument that this isn’t the beginning of another decade of war.

Read more:

Sunday, September 01, 2013

72 Types Of Americans Considered “Potential Terrorists” By U.S. Govt.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link:

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

Read More Here: