Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ClearCase_guy

I Think many here are being too hard on Boehner over this issue. I am no Boehner fan and hope he gets a viable primary challenger in 2014 because of his lack of a backbone and willingness to fight over the truly important issues like Obamacre and the debt ceiling. However, there are two valid sides to the Syria wmd argument.

Pro attack:
1. US credibility is on the line and that really matters in the Middle east (It was naive of Obama to draw a red line in the sand, but that boat sailed a year ago)
2. Iran may become emboldened if we fail to act.
3. Assad is a petty dictator, human rights violator and war criminal. He deserves anything we do to him.

Con attack:
1.It could cause a wider war in the region. The US could be more deeply drawn in and forced to put American lives on the line.
2. There may be no good guys in the Middle East to support. We don’t want to be AL Qaeda’s air force.
3. The attack will cost US taxpayers money and strain an already strained US Military.

These are just a few of the pros and cons, but the issue is hardly a clear cut one from a Conservative point of view. It is more clear if you are a Libertarian. Of course some would argue it is a ruse and the rebels may have launched the attack. If the intelligence reports are accurate, that issue has been settled.


60 posted on 09/03/2013 9:23:32 AM PDT by Askwhy5times (http://bluegrasspundit.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Askwhy5times
For me, it is entirely clearcut --

On the one hand, we can side with al Qaeda and overthrow one of the last secular leaders in the Middle East, while also angering that leader's close ally, Russia

OR

We can stay out of it.

You may see both sides as roughly equivalent, but I have no difficulty choosing a path.

62 posted on 09/03/2013 9:26:06 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Askwhy5times

Yours is an interesting perspective, and I appreciate you sharing it. I would like to add something into the mix:

This is all about Russia’s monopoly on European natural gas and the desire of the Arab states to break into that market. It has NOTHING to do with chemical weapons, Iran’s nuke, or the continued existence of Israel.

This is something that Saudi Arabia and its client and satellite states want. We are clearly now a full-on client-state of the Saudi Arabian Empire. They say JUMP and we ask HOW HIGH AND WHEN, SIR.

This may be the reason Obama bowed when meeting the Saudi leaders.

There IS *some* good news that comes out of this, if Russia and China hold their fire and don’t respond to our WWIII provocation:

Now that we are fully a client, satellite-state of the Saudi Arabian Empire, they are likely to spend some of their trillions floating our impossible economy by buying our worthless bonds.

That means we get a few more years before we become a full-on, Max-Max third world shithole.

Me, I’m stocking up and planning a way out.


64 posted on 09/03/2013 9:28:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Askwhy5times
There is absolutely no “pro” to attacking Syria and we have no national interest being served in doing so. Let the enemies of America kill one another as often as they wish to and do nothing to stop them. We should never again use Military force unless we declare an all out war, destroy our enemies until they are no more and come back home... no humanitarian aid and no mercy or quarter... and no nation building.
73 posted on 09/03/2013 10:02:51 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson