Skip to comments.Rand Paul: No U.S. Interests at Stake in Syria
Posted on 08/28/2013 2:27:49 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Wednesday that the U.S. has no direct national security interests at stake in Syrias civil war, as he cautioned President Obama against ordering military strikes on the Middle East nation.
Mr. Paul, possibly the leading anti-war Republican in the Senate, said the U.S. should condemn use of chemical weapons an accusation rebels have made against the Syrian regime but said if a decision to take military action is made, it should come from Congress, not from the White House.
We should ascertain who used the weapons and we should have an open debate in Congress over whether the situation warrants U.S. involvement, he said.
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,
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“Woulda, shoulda, here we are in the real world. You either back Assad, or you back al qaeda, or you stay out of it. Choose. “
Therefore, stay the hell out of it, let them kill as many of each other as possible and don’t put at risk a single American or waste a single dollar over that land of perpetual clan warfare.
The Prophet Obunghole, lobbying a few missiles into that cesspool can not, will not, ever stop the centuries of clan warfare. No honest, rational person can claim otherwise.
Alternately, we could kill everyone over there...
“Yes, this is really true. Assad is in a fight against al qaeda - the guys who killed 3,000 Amicans on 9/11. For some strange reason *cough, obama is a muslim brotherhood manchurian candidate* our presitard is hellbent on helping al qaeda. As long as the U.S. stays out of it, Syria is a problem for its dicatator and the terrorists to figure out. Once we start bombing and killing civilians in a show of force to punish Syria for killing civilians, we expose Israel to attack, not from Syria, but from Iran.”
Al Qaeda linked groups, behind the Benghazi killings of Americans including our ambassador, train jihadists for Syrian rebel groups! http://freebeacon.com/u-s-al-qaeda-linked-group-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for-syrian-rebel-groups/
When Obozo Liar 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-Qaeda or any enemy, who has killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11 or in the past.
Quite an alliance! The al Qaeda Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation, whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. The same killing thugs, who killed our ambassador and 3 others in Benghazi last September. He refused to send our military to help those Americans and allowed them to be slaughtered in Benghazi. Yet, he will use our military to fight against Syria’s enemies, al Qaeda.
What would have happen to FDR if he had ordered our Flying Tigers to attack the army of China instead of Japans air force and troops in China? The same evil Japanese military that killed our sailors and others on December 7, 1941. The same evil Japanese military which slaughtered millions of innocent Chinese with their cruel aerial bombings and on the ground military slaughter and rape of innocent Chinese.
LBJ went from being a so called great president with the liberals with his war on poverty, which is still being lost, to one of the worse presidents ever after he deepened the Nam War because of the so called Gulf of Tonkin event.
Now, Obozo Liar appears to be following in the footsteps of LBJ with his lies about Assad and Syria, while covering for the Muslim Brotherhood Thugs and al Queda in Syria.
"Obozo Liar is drawing us in and he will go with or without the consent of the Congress and the Consent of the Governed. This could be an impeachable act if he botches it and was not legally covered. What's it to him if a few US pilots get shot down, some guys get seriously injured in the cruise missile prep on our ships, Americans citizens are kidnapped by Hezbollah in Beirut,, US Embassy and consulates across the Middle East are MANPAD-ed with major strikes, and otherwise all hell breaks loose. Domestically, he can get NSA, Obozo care, Fox News wiretap-gate, IRS-gate and Benghazi off the front pages."
If Obozo Liar 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-Qaeda. Quite an alliance! The Islamic thugs/serial killers, who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago.
I disagree with Paul on aid to the Egypt military. The Egypt military deals with the illegal aliens in the Sinai. Israel would not get away with those methods.
The chemical attack was not directed by Assad. It could be an angry soldier whose family was killed, a double agent or the FSA.
Now will Republicans rally around Rand or are they all brainwashed like Robert King and John McCain?
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
President Joe Biden. That does sound like an improvement...
Every retired military officer I’ve seen on TV has stated that there are no US security interests at stake regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
I agree that the conflict between al Qaeda and Assad is not a US security interest.
I do think, though, that al Qaeda potentially possessing chemical weapons is an issue of US security due to terrorist delivery systems and the willingness of terrorists to suicide while killing hundreds/thousands of people.
An aerosol can similar to a bug bomb released at a sporting venue in the US could be devastating.
Obama is not talking about doing anything to capture/destroy WMDs, so my concern will not be the motive behind any action he might take.
Bob Corker is supporting the strikes against Syria. Another McCain-wannabe RINO.
Of course not. They’re Iran’s interests, and Iran needs them to finish its nuclear weapons buildup in order to work for Libertarian interests.
Which Libertarian interests are those? I’m curious.
Anything for cheap freight fuel, titles and benefits of royalty for lawyers, open borders, legalized prostitution, legalized abortion, legalized drug cartels, contracts with foreign communist nations against the U.S.A., slavery, etc. Funny, though, that’s a list of desires of all political parties now.
I was trying to summarize demands of various types and shadows of L(l)ibetarians, because like feminists, various liberaltarians have stated support for every side of every argument, each depending on the group their trying to persuade. The official Libertarian Party has its official platform on the Net, BTW, for those who don’t mind spending much time divining the meaning of every word and implications.
“Id have taken Assad out when we had our whole army in Iraq and he was supporting attacks on our troops. And we should have put a moderate government in power, not the al queda factions.”
I respectfully disagree.
The USA shouldn’t be “putting” any more governments in power. We need to stop it!
Clear & concise. Thank you.
Yes, it is true that Assad is aligned with Iran. The problem though is this - when it comes to geopolitics and trying to distil probable ramifications going forward, things are never black and white. Syria has been another Alawite minority leadership for decades, and while they have been a constant thorn in the side of the West/Israel it has been largely a stable situation. Just like Iraq under Saddam, or Egypt under Mubarrak, or even Libya under Gaddafi (once he stopped financing terrorists taking down planes and decided to focus on simply being mad), radical Islam was more or less kept firmly under control. Those strongmen were definitely not saintly, and every now and then you'd hear of Israel sending some F-16s to bomb some random site in Syria or Gaddafi threatening to expose some financial dealings with Sarkozy, etc. But generally it is a stable relationship in the vein of how cops sometimes have a 'relationship' with a criminal gang ...where the gang is operating, but they know not to shoot a cop or to do certain types of crimes, and the cops arrest the gang members but generally don't do a huge operation to get the gang's leadership. Not the best of situations, but a situation that can create a 'stable relationship' for a very long time.
Now, change that. Since Assad is aligned with Iran, let's take him out.
The first (probably the main) question that should be asked is WHO WILL BE THE REPLACEMENT. I think that is the problem that has plagued a lot of Western influence in other countries, where certain leaders are replaced without careful thought on who will fill the power vacuum created.
Now, let's look at this particular situation. The groups seeking to replace Assad are aligned with Jihadi organizations, and are already executing attacks on minority groups (Alawites, Christians, etc) in the parts of Syria that they control. Those groups are unlikely to be friendly towards Israel if the problem was Assad's relationship with Israel. Or take Egypt. Egypt some decades back was one of the main adversaries to Israel, engaging in serious war with the Jewish state. With Mubarrak, Egypt not only had normal relations with Israel, but it became the USA's main ally in the region. When Mubarrak was taken out, the Muslim Brotherhood started rattling sabres against Israel, and it is only with the new revolution (coup?) weeks back that they were taken out. Or look at Libya ...Gaddafi was not a nice guy, but are the people running the place now better than he was or far dangerous?
I cannot predict the future, but I can assure you that if Assad is removed in a year or so people will be wishing that hadn't happened.