5 Reasons Congress Should Not Authorize Obama's Syrian Shoot Out

[Mr Mannn]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/5_reasons_congress_should_not_authorize_obamas_syrian_shoot_out.html
This is just the good parts. You can click on the link for the rest.

5 Reasons Congress Should Not Authorize Obama's Syrian Shoot Out

--snip--
1. Sheriff O and Congress do not have the support of American People for war in Syria. Reuters/Ipsos found that this week just 20% of Americans thought the US should take action against Syria. That's up from 9% last week, but still a long way from support numbers that would make this an American action and not an Obama quick draw. Rasmussen found that even after Deputy-of-State Kerry's melodrama on Friday, 40% oppose getting involved any further in Syria, with only 37% supporting increased involvement. Congressional debate is not likely to alter this.

2. Even if Obama gets Congressional approval, the potential for a regional war, as Charles Krauthammer noted, or global war is real. Imagine if North Korea launched 200+ missiles at key military centers in and around Los Angeles and San Francisco, but sent a message to Obama that this was just a "shot across the bow" or "limited strike." Americans and US allies would be indignant and demand the Hermit Kingdom be blown to kingdom come.

Striking Syria without committing to the conflict until victory is won risks drawing the regions' powers and allies into escalated conflict.  Iran and Syria have promised this would happen. Russia & China feel duped on Sheriff O's Libyan crusade and may decide to step in this time turning O's limited strike into a global show down. Additionally, an attack on Syria justifies to Iran and Hezb'allah terror strikes on American interests, and possibly US soil.

3. American Intelligence under Obama has an embarrassing history of distortions, lies, inanity and mistakes in this region of the world. Sheriff O's intelligence posse assured him that he was backing the winning team with Morsi in Egypt. Aunt Susan, his current trusted National Security Advisor, guaranteed when she was at the UN that Benghazi was a protest in reaction to a movie. And even now, with holsters ready and hats tipped, O's intel machine has convinced him that giving the "good" Al Qaida in Syria air force cover and assisting the jihading Al Nusra cannibals and Christian killers is in America's national interest. Congressional approval does not change bad intel.

America doesn't have a respectable track record of accuracy in the region and we do know that intelligence reports have been unreliable in the past  (Iraq and WMDs.) Until we actually know who's responsible for the chemical weapon attack, what will happen if Assad falls, and how US security might be affected if we go to war, going in guns a blazin' -- with or without Congressional authorization -- is a completely unnecessary risk militarily, financially and civilizationally.

4. Obama's red line will turn into a red noose for America if not rejected by Congress. If Congress caves to this leftist regime's efforts to solidify the US President as the world's top cop by giving him a "cover" vote for an unjustified war, precedent will be set that forces America to take action each and every time a UN rule is violated. Other nations will see that they get a pass and don't have to spend the money or take the risk of war because the US posse will get 'em.

"Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning," gloated Obama in his Rose Garden remarks. Strengthening and further expanding a world order (while simultaneously weakening America's sovereignty) is his larger objective. Sheriff Obama is dedicated to internationalism and as Narcissist-In-Chief sees himself as its unelected leader: "If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?" Deputy Kerry reiterated the same on Friday: "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."

5. Finally, America can't afford it. It's not just the $100,000,000+ that would be a certain cost incurred for the little prick that Obama wants to administer. The cost of unintended consequences could make the price tag of Obama's shootout soar far beyond Iraq's $1Trillion bill (and still increasing.)

Ultimately, it's not Obama's choice as to whether or not the military round up will be a "limited strike" or that boots won't end up on the ground. What if Syria retaliates and shells our warships? What if Iran launches an all-out war with Israel?  What if Russia and China decide that Damascus is not a big enough town for them and Sheriff O? America is broke, has $17 Trillion of debt and millions of its own citizens that are in need. On top of that, the economy as a whole is still weak and may be entering another recession. Regardless, Obama wants to run the country further into debt to prick Syria .

--snip--

[EagleKeeper]

I think that the thing that this article misses is that...ultimately...it is Obamas choice what is done. The problem is that he has this unfortunate habit of getting everything wrong.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a strike on syria although I think the goal should be to hurt syrian regulars enough to stop their momentum and just even things out a little.

[Mr Mannn]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harkin-classified-syria-briefing-frankly-raised-more-questions-it-answered_751549.html

Harkin on Classified Syria Briefing: 'Frankly Raised More Questions Than It Answered'
“I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial."

Harkin is a lib senator from my state of Iowa. Normally he'll do with whatever he's told to by Obama. The fact he's not parroting the talking points is very interesting here.

[EagleKeeper]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harkin-classified-syria-briefing-frankly-raised-more-questions-it-answered_751549.html

Harkin is a lib senator from my state of Iowa. Normally he'll do with whatever he's told to by Obama. The fact he's not parroting the talking points is very interesting here.

Obama has a little over a week to get his ducks in a row, Reid and Pelosi are behind it. I don't know this to be true but I would assume McCain,Graham, Peter King are also behind it . Even so it may not pass but in the end he can do it if he wants

[Mr Mannn]

I think that the thing that this article misses is that...ultimately...it is Obamas choice what is done. The problem is that he has this unfortunate habit of getting everything wrong.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a strike on syria although I think the goal should be to hurt syrian regulars enough to stop their momentum and just even things out a little.

True but a strike on Syria could well lead to boots on the ground.Like the article says, what if they fire missiles at the US navy? What if they drag Israel into a regional war like they threatened to do?

A cruise missile strike may take out an aspirin factory, but there is no guarantee it will end there. As for strike at Assad's troops, Obama himself spilled the plan of attack, and Assad has already dispersed his forces...it would take months of bombardment to make an impact, all the while with Russian missiles taking down our planes.

Lastly I prefer to leave Assad in power rather than allow Al Queda rebels to seize control of the chemical weapons plants.

[EagleKeeper]

True but a strike on Syria could well lead to boots on the ground.Like the article says, what if they fire missiles at the US navy? What if they drag Israel into a regional war like they threatened to do?

Well ok, so...what is the alternative, and by alternative I mean any action in middle eastern waters for any reason?

A cruise missile strike may take out an aspirin factory, but there is no guarantee it will end there. As for strike at Assad's troops, Obama himself spilled the plan of attack, and Assad has already dispersed his forces...it would take months of bombardment to make an impact, all the while with Russian missiles taking down our planes.

The first thing, and this is only me, I wouldn't be looking to take down Assad.

You know what the funny thing that happens when you disperse your forces? If you're not careful the opposing forces on the ground might take advantage of that. I'm not a fan of the rebels, I just want them to keep fighting.

Lastly I prefer to leave Assad in power rather than allow Al Queda rebels to seize control of the chemical weapons plants

Did I mention that I just want them to keep fighting. Oh...I also forgot to mention that part of my strike package would take out known chemical weapons stores

[EagleKeeper]

One other thing I forgot to mention.

all the while with Russian missiles taking down our planes.

The Israelis seem to be able to fly around in syrian anti-aircraft defenses, pretty much with impunity, I don't see why we couldn't.

Near as I can tell, we don't have a carrier in range but I hear the Nimitz group is on the way.

[Mr Mannn]

It's kinda hard to argue with you when everything you say makes sense. Stop that.

[I_B_Perky]

I don't really have a problem with the idea of a strike on syria although I think the goal should be to hurt syrian regulars enough to stop their momentum and just even things out a little.

I agree Eagle. As long as they are fighting and killing each other they are not causing trouble elsewhere in the world. It would not hurt my feelings in the least if the middle east muzzies all killed each other off.   

[Dori]

I like what Sarah Palin said; "Let Allah sort it out".   

[Rawlings]

I agree Eagle. As long as they are fighting and killing each other they are not causing trouble elsewhere in the world. It would not hurt my feelings in the least if the middle east muzzies all killed each other off.   

This is exactly right.  Had the Messianic One properly responded to the Iranian Uprising, gotten behind it, both of the most significant enemies of Israel and the Unites States in the Middle and Near East would be embroiled in domestic instability and chaos. 

That's a good thing.

[EagleKeeper]

This is exactly right.  Had the Messianic One properly responded to the Iranian Uprising, gotten behind it, both of the most significant enemies of Israel and the Unites States in the Middle and Near East would be embroiled in domestic instability and chaos. 

That's a good thing.

You like me for my brain right?

[DefiantSix]

You like me for my brain right?

Actually I think he likes how yer flightsuit highlights the curves of your tookus.

[EagleKeeper]

Actually I think he likes how yer flightsuit highlights the curves of your tookus.

It's the brazilian but lift...it makes my fanny burn but it's worth it.

[Rawlings]

You like me for my brain right?

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Wait.  Wait.  Don't say it.  That response would be from my North side, right?

[EagleKeeper]

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Wait.  Wait.  Don't say it.  That response would be from my North side, right?

I can't talk to you in this thread, Carl scares me.

And it's North POLE!

[Eupher]

 

The avatar. Funniest (and the most blatant lie) I've seen all day!

Congratulations, poser. You've done surpassed dirtbag status, surpassed shitbag, and have gone straight to hell.

Are your toes toasty?

[obumazombie]

The avatar. Funniest (and the most blatant lie) I've seen all day!

Congratulations, poser. You've done surpassed dirtbag status, surpassed shitbag, and have gone straight to hell.

Are your toes toasty?

Where is ToastedTurningLegs when we need him ?

[Eupher]

Where is ToastedTurningLegs when we need him ?

Yeah.

Obey this sign.

Hilarious. 

[Rawlings]

I can't talk to you in this thread, Carl scares me.

And it's North POLE!

Right you are.

[debk]

I agree Eagle. As long as they are fighting and killing each other they are not causing trouble elsewhere in the world. It would not hurt my feelings in the least if the middle east muzzies all killed each other off.   

I agree, let them fight amongst themselves. Eventually one will emerge the winner.

When that happens, we should then be able to determine who is friend or foe. Right now, we don't have a clue.

If they be friend... great!

If they be foe...then we can carpet bomb the hell out of the place.

In the meantime, unless they actually attack us ... the US needs to stay the hell out!

If the US attacks without provacation...what's to stop them - any of them from retaliating on us, here at home?

What's to say, if the US attacks them.... there is no way there won't be "collateral dead"....that both sides - and all their buddies in other Islamic countries - won't bond together and attack us here? Which could be why England decided to stay out of it, since they have a high Muslim population in the larger cities.

One important fact Obama seems to be forgetting... he's taken so much money away from the military as it is,  the US is not terribly financially stable, ... where the hell is the money to pay for all this going to come from? I seriously doubt we can expect other countries to financially donate to the cost... they haven't for anything else!