I urge all of our Congress people to vote NO concerning a military strike on Syria.
There is currently no smoking-gun that documents that Assad actually used chemical weapons. Sure, the Obama administration has dug-up selective “facts” that they cite to assert that Assad used the chemical weapons. But based on other un-truths, why should we believe the Obama administration?
For example, Kerry in making the case for US military involvement claimed that at least 1,429 people died. The Nation, however found this figure to be suspect. The Nation wrote: "Days later and we still have no idea where Secretary of State John Kerry
got that amazingly precise number of 1,429 killed in the alleged Syria
chemical agent attack. He hasn’t cited full sourcing for it or taken
questions on that. He merely claims he can’t say because it would
“compromise” intelligence, which sounds like utter bull." Infowars.com believes that the actual death toll is much lower: "Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian
capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at
least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a
neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.".
Moreover, an internet search will disclose that the rebels may have been the ones who used the chemical weapons. According to RT.com (May 31, 2013) Turkey found sarin gas in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists. Infowars.com writes: "Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to
Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible
for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have
blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were
the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons
provided to them by Saudi Arabia."
How truthful the above sites are, I do not know, but they do raise credible doubt concerning the Obama administration’s claims. These claims must be investigated before taking any military action. Even Putin called for further investigations. The US, as of now, is making a rash and premature decision.
The Obama administration cites that over 100,000 people have died. That figure may well be true, but the Obama administration ignores that this is a brutal civil-war. Both sides are doing the killing. The rebels are not simply standing in front of Assad's troops with flowers.
The Obama administration with much fervour points to Assad's atrocities. Again the Obama administration purposely suppresses from the public the fact that the rebels also commit atrocities that are just as horrendous. The New York Times on September 5, 2013 finally got around to publicly exposing rebel atrocities, in the article “Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West”. Unfortunately, this article neglected to delve into the issue that the rebels have been targeting Christians. According to TownHall.com (September 5, 2013) Syrian rebels attacked the Christian village of Maaloula and beheaded a Christian priest. Clearly, if Obama seeks to punish Assad, Obama should also be explicitly condemning the rebels for their atrocities. It is quite disingenuous of Obama to publicly assert that one person is “bad” and then to ignore the “bad” behaviour of others. So who should the US bomb?
The Washington Post on September 5, 2013 wrote: “Obama and top administration officials have argued forcefully that a U.S.-led military strike is needed to enforce an international ban on the use of chemical weapons ...”. What's wrong with that statement? No one appointed Obama as the UN Secretary-General with the authority to enforce international law. In fact, the real UN Secretary-General Ki-Moon was quoted by Reuters as stating: "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization, remarks that appear to question the legality of U.S. plans to strike Syria without U.N. Backing." Based on Mr. Ki-moon's statement, Obama is mistakenly asserting authority that he does not have. Obama is making a mockery of due process.
The Obama administration has been “selling” the proposed attack on Syria as a simple limited, no boots on the ground, slap on the wrist to teach Assad a lesson. Well, an attack on Syria, even if limited, is an act of war. Assad would have a right to defend himself and may even strike-back. The Obama administration apparently has not contemplated the fact that Assad, in defending Syria, could sink one of our warships and/or shoot down the cruise missiles. What happens then? Escalation?
What happens should the Syrian rebels win? Will Syria become an Islamic theocratic state systematically practicing genocide on the few remaining Christians and murdering the Alawites? Will Syria become unstable like Iraq and Egypt? Simply getting rid of one tyrant will not mean that democracy will bloom or that another tyrant won't reemerge. How will the Obama administration handle Syria then?