Monday, September 2, 2013

Russia, China and Iran warn U.S. strike against Syria may have Severe Repercussions

A U.S. strike in Syria may have severe repercussions. It may get the United States enmeshed in an inter-ethnic Syrian conflict. It might spark an international crisis with anti-American superpowers Russia and China. It could cause Bashar Assad to act in an irrational manner against his pro-American neighbors. 

When one chooses a violent course of action in a region full of nitroglycerin, one can never anticipate the outcome. One must be prepared for the unexpected, even the catastrophic.

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

A senior Iranian lawmaker said Israel would be the first casualty of any U.S.-led strike on Syria, according to regional media reports.

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, claimed the United States would not dare attack Syria but said that if it does, “the Zionist regime will be the first victim.”


Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei: An Attack On Syria Will Be A Disaster For The Region

On August 28, 2013, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself said that a U.S. attack on Syria would be a "disaster for the region," adding that with such an attack, the U.S. would not only set the entire region on fire but would itself be harmed: "Intervention and warmongering [in Syria] will no doubt harm those who fan the flames. If this intervention happens, the Americans will no doubt be harmed, as they were harmed in Iraq and Afghanistan. An intervention in [Syria] by powers from outside the region will only ignite the flames [of war] and increase the nations' hatred towards [these powers]. Such warmongering is like a spark in a gunpowder depot, and its dimensions and consequences cannot be estimated."

As United Nations inspectors assess whether either side used chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds of people in Syria’s civil war, there is a heated debate in this country over President Barack Obama’s authority to use military force. Well over 100 House members signed a letter saying Obama must have congressional approval.

"Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution," the letter said.

The latest poll suggests the public leans heavily the same way. According to NBC polling, nearly 80 percent of Americans think Obama should get the go-ahead from Congress before launching any attack.

The question of whether the country faces an immediate threat is the big question. In the case of Libya, Obama argued, "Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States."

Invoking the idea of indirect threats has always been open to strong disagreement. The House members who warned against an attack on Syria without congressional approval stated explicitly, that "no direct threat to the United States exists".


In the most forceful US reaction yet, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described the recent attacks in the Damascus area as a "moral obscenity". 

He said Washington had additional information about the attacks that it would make public in the days ahead.

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday.

Well Mr. Kerry, what about a code of morality when the U.S. used chemical weapons in Vietnam? What about morality when Obama's drones kill innocent women and children? How are these deaths any different?

Kerry continued: "Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people."

 "The world's most heinous weapons"? Dead is dead. Do you think the families of the dead care which weapons were used? They only care that their loved ones were killed. Period.

And for every Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan, or other innocent woman and child killed by a U.S. strike, we create terrorists who want to kill Americans and destroy the United States. Every innocent woman and child killed by a U.S. strike has a mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousin or friend who will devote his or her life to our destruction.

Lets quit making enemies all over the world. Don't we already have enough people who hate us?

The American people don't want war! So isn't it our government's duty to respect We The People's wishes and stay the hell out of Syria? Shouldn't it be our government responsibility to its citizens to avoid war with Syria, Iran or any other country not attacking us?

Tell Washington, "Mo More War!"

By: Tom Retterbush


Russia and Iran Warn Against Intervention in Syria
Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike

Iranian Official: Israel to Be ‘First Victim’ of U.S. Attack on Syria

Iran: If Syria Is Attacked Israel Will Be Destroyed

What the law and the past say about attacking Syria

Document Report : U.S. Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack
The Fuse to Armageddon?