Thursday, August 29, 2013

25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See

Michael Snyder
Activist Post

If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British.  Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria.  But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do?  A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria.  Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad.

Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort to massacre entire Christian villages.  Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters?  There is no good outcome in Syria.  The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse.  Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?

It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country.  At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam.  It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.

Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria.  On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.


Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals.  And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.

But there was a problem.  The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels.  So something had to be done.

If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels.  In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.

So that is where we are today.  The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...

-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.

-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.

-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.

-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it.  In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.

The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000 a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious.  WND has been able to uncover compelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.

Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?

Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive.  As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.

We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was.  It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.

If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch.  They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless.  They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.

A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States.  I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now.  The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked.  And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."

6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."

7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."

8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."

9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."

10. Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida."

11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"

12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."

13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."

14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding."

15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."

16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."

17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"

18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."

19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."

20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."

21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."

22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"

23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."

24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something."

25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"

This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.



BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The takedown of Syria was not initiated by Saudi Arabia. The long held plan to remake the middle east and take down several countries, including Syria, came from the global elite and was principally championed by the neoconservative wing. Even globalist Wesley Clark admits as much.

The Saudi elites are in bed with the global mafia, they only care about maintaining power, not a particular branch of Islam - that issue is just a wedge, a tool they use to control and exploit their rapidly growing and largely clueless population. Fortunately, there seems to be a small percentage of increasingly awake Saudis and the Shiites in the eastern part of the country, representing 17% of the population, are losing their patience.

Jim Ludwig said...

Only 25 (pick your reasons or whatever) this time?

More "lawerspeak"?

How soon will we get to 666 reasons why (pick your target, prosecution, plaintiff, defense....)

Isn't this (pick your #) reasons (or whatever) getting banal?

Sheesh (for ?#) reasons (or whatever), eh?

The Internet is too important to be rotted out of independent thinking by trite "numerolgy". Do we really need all the #s?

An obvious campaign to drain the Internet of intelligence is taking a monstrous toll.

FRESH ideas anyone?

DavidGordon said...

Good point Jim. Seems this author, with otherwise respectable analysis and astute observation, still operates within the conventional paradigm and the standard propaganda matrix. Trying to comprehend that region's politics, Sunni vs. Shiite and even tribal allegiances is impossible. Enumerating them adds no clarification. Many of the commenters are certified war criminals who, strangely for the first time in their career of death, counsel avoidance. Odd that $52 billion a year for "intelligence" avails none. Which is because they do the opposite of their namesake and steal the money. Department of Defense in endless wars of conquest for example. Hawks saying peace for a change is weird. Sequestration must have diminished their ability to pad their own comfy nests.

Still where is our diplomatic corps? Same as all the other 3-letter agencies - doing the opposite of their charter. There is no reason to think reason prevails. The effect of the govermob run opposite their stated purpose.

Not sure it qualifies as a fresh idea but, throw out all names of partisan groups, see them for who they by their deeds and ask, "who benefits?" Careful analysis gives you mish-mash in this day and age. George Castanza had it right - "do the opposite" of what was done before a get some results.

Anonymous said...

america dumbest country in the world, always makes conspiracies against other countries.

Anonymous said...

The true questions are: WHY IS OBAMA STILL PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND HASN'T HE BEEN IMPEACHED YET.
And
Why are the incompetent impotent members of congress still members of congress and haven't they been arrested as traitors yet!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Syria one of the few countries left in the world that wasn't under the control of the Central Banks? The first thing done in Bagdad after the US invasion was the complete changeover of its banking. Same with Afghanistan. North Korea remains isolated from the Central Bankers, and I believe that the first thing that will be done in Syria is the complete changeover of its banking to being under the total control of the Central Bankers. If this is incorrect and the Central Bankers already control Syria, then who is the US military working for here? Certainly, not 99% of Americans.

Brenda Duffey said...

Who's counting? That's petty! Every person willing to put his/her name to a quote that helps the average citizen ferret the truth is important.

Anonymous said...

There's alot of angry muslims residing in the USSA
and four nuclear warheads still "missing" ...only eight more days before armagadon ..

Anonymous said...

I believe Syria and Iran are the last and only two countries not tied to the NWO Banks

Anonymous said...

This is definitely not rocket science. Every war on Earth has been for the control of resources. The last two World Wars have been for oil. WWI was started by England fearing Germanys challenge of their control of the worlds oceans after Germany followed English conversion of its navy from coal to oil fired ships. The second World War (a continuation of WW1) was driven by Germany's drive to control Eastern European and North African Oil as well as Japan's attempt to control Southeast Asian oil and other resources as well as Indonesian oil. The next one that is likely to start soon will be over control of Middle Eastern gas, the new oil. One comment said that it can't be over gas or else Europe would be willing to help the US. Russia currently has a monopoly of gas supplying Europe and is a staunch ally of Syria. Any support for the US could cause Russia to turn off the spigot to Europe. Europe is not in a position to help. The most likely scenario I can envision will be a nuclear response to an Iranian attack of Israel due to a US attack on Syria. This likely will trigger a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. China will remain on the sidelines unless attacked by India or Japan. Pakistan will attack India.

Anonymous said...

Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Iran are four countries that are without a Rothschild controlled central bank.

Post a Comment