Congress should be very inquisitive about the evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. The evidence so far is purely circumstantial.
Far more credible evidence exists that the chemical agents released came from the insurgents, but nobody knows who was behind the attack at the moment.
Congress should also be very meticulous in assessing the risks of adverse consequences of launching any military attacks on Syria.
It is possible that it will lead to a full blown regional conflict with Israel involved or suffering casualties.
What happens if America or Israel suffer casualties from retaliatory actions by Assad or Shia extremist groups?
Kerry has also stated that after some cruise missile strikes "it may be possible to assist the insurgents further".
Congress should ensure that any approval for a limited action is not seen as the green light for significant other actions.
How would Congress be able to stop covert actions to broaden American involvement?
There are already hundreds of CIA and U.S. "training" forces in Jordan that are already intervening in Syria.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are openly arming the Islamic Extremists in Syria.
Who stands to benefit from attacking Syria?
It would primarily be Saudi Arabia.
It is not in America's interests to install an Islamic Extremist government in Syria.
It is not in America's interests to waste more billions of dollars on pursuing another ill-advised war in the ME.
America should not be getting involved at all.
Far more credible evidence exists that the chemical agents released came from the insurgents, but nobody knows who was behind the attack at the moment.
Congress should also be very meticulous in assessing the risks of adverse consequences of launching any military attacks on Syria.
It is possible that it will lead to a full blown regional conflict with Israel involved or suffering casualties.
What happens if America or Israel suffer casualties from retaliatory actions by Assad or Shia extremist groups?
Kerry has also stated that after some cruise missile strikes "it may be possible to assist the insurgents further".
Congress should ensure that any approval for a limited action is not seen as the green light for significant other actions.
How would Congress be able to stop covert actions to broaden American involvement?
There are already hundreds of CIA and U.S. "training" forces in Jordan that are already intervening in Syria.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are openly arming the Islamic Extremists in Syria.
Who stands to benefit from attacking Syria?
It would primarily be Saudi Arabia.
It is not in America's interests to install an Islamic Extremist government in Syria.
It is not in America's interests to waste more billions of dollars on pursuing another ill-advised war in the ME.
America should not be getting involved at all.
Syria is sounding more like an Iran-Contra type affair every day.
There are various reports that chemical weapons were supplied to the insurgents by outside agents.
The Egyptian military government has now joined the fray with their own story on this.
There are various reports that chemical weapons were supplied to the insurgents by outside agents.
The Egyptian military government has now joined the fray with their own story on this.
The reports that Prince Bandar and Saudi Arabia have been supplying chemical weapons to the Islamic Extremist insurgents need to be thoroughly investigated by an independent agent (not the U.S. government).
There are now also reports that U.S. military intelligence were involved in the chemical weapons release.
Colonel MacDonald of U.S. Intelligence should be brought before Congress to testify.
The U.S. should be mindful that arming the mujahadin in Afghanistan led to Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
The U.S. should not repeat the mistakes of the '80's.
There are numerous possible risks that direct military action will lead to Blowback.
Ter rorist attacks from Shia extremists such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
The threat of further destabilising Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq etc.
The threat of terrorist strikes on Americans and American assets both at home and abroad.
The threat of Iran covertly stirring up trouble and possible cyber attacks.
The threat of rocket attacks or similar on U.S. bases in Kuwait from Iraq.
Southern Iraq is Shia.
There are 23,000 U.S. troops stationed in Kuwait.
Russia is also likely to supply Assad with more and better weaponry after any American intervention.
They are sending more surveillance to the Eastern Med.
Why won't they supply this info to Assad to launch attacks against American warships as an act of self defense?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria.html
My previous comments on the risks of adverse consequences of any American direct military action
The facts about the conflict in Syria that Obama does not want you to see
0 comments:
Post a Comment