Skip to comments.Should U. S. have operated jointly with Israel against Syria? (missile arsenals, WMDs)
Posted on 05/26/2013 10:11:30 AM PDT by imardmd1
Israel -- and by extention, the West -- owes the Syrian dictator, BIG time. But why is Obama ignoring his lessons?
... Homeland Security Minister Gilad Erdan has been warning repeatedly that it is certain that Israeli population centers will be hit by Syrian ballistic missiles ...
... the second danger is that the weapons in Syria will proliferate far and wide. US officials have already admitted that they have lost track of much of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.
The party most responsible for the barbarous, protracted Syrian civil war that will almost certainly drag Israel into a regional war with is of course the Syrians themselves. But the party second most responsible for this mess is the Obama administration.
Since the outset, the US had only one good option for intervention. It could have operated jointly with Israel to destroy Syria's missile arsenals and confiscate its weapons of mass destruction. That is the only sure bet move the US had. Every other action came with high risks.
Rather than take its sure bet move, at every turn, the Obama administration has opted for the most dangerous action with the smallest possible payoff.
After Obama ensured that pro-Western forces would have no chance of taking over a post-Assad Syria, he allowed Russia to make matters worse. Rather than threaten Russian President Vladimir Putin in a credible way to prevent him from supplying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, Obama sat back and did nothing to block the imminent transfer of the game changing system to Syria.
>>bolded emphases by excerpter, not the author!<<
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
None of the above named alternatives met that standard.
Obama and the Democrat party will be judged on it however.
As a little further note, Christians have been murdered in Syria since Saul-->Paul started out for Damascus to do just that. It has not stopped,and will not, until the Lord comes and makes things right. IMHO
We should have assisted neither the Assads nor the rebel/MB/AQ haters. There is only one solution for us--to align ourselves against Islam wherever we must. (again, IMHO)
I agree. No good outcome was ever possible in Syria. Assad has been a trouble maker since assuming power, and the rebels who are trying to depose him are even worse. And there is nobody else we could hand the reins to even if we did go in—risking a war with Russia, plus angering every Muslim on the planet.
Obama’s dithering in Syria actually makes more sense than his going in on the wrong side in Egypt, Libya, and everywhere else.
Russia vancelled the sale/delivery.
It appears that Obungo wants the moose slime brotherhood to rule Syria but al qaeda is not cooperating. A fool like Obama has no idea how to lead out of such a morass. He will do as he’s always done ... vote present with no direction.
Why? The US is an enemy of Israel.
“the game changing”
I see this “game change” rhetoric everywhere.
It is not a game.
This constant drum beat in the media over Syria should give everyone pause...
It is simply none of our business.
And, I would sooner trust Bashar al Assad before I would trust John Kerry or any senator that voted to confirm him (especially McCain).
I see this game change rhetoric everywhere like in this article...
It is not a game.
Syria is a trap, and we shouldn’t be involved.
I believe there is a solution to all of this. Openly support Christianity. America and the west will stay out of it as long as Christians are not harmed.
Another Afghanistan. 0’s nose is long enough!
I’m frankly tired of people thinking the American soldier is nothing but a piece on a game board.
If the Israelis are threatened, they need to carpet bomb the place...
We need to protect our borders.
What the hell do we even have an Army for?
1) For social engineering experiments. 2) As an employment safety net for the GLBT crowd.