- Published on Wednesday, 04 September 2013 16:56
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
The potential involvement into the problems that are occurring in Syria is too important to ignore, so the series of Straight Talk will have to be put on hold for now.
The Nation is in the process of evaluating what, if anything, action the country should take in regards to the slaughter that is taking place in Syria.
The President took it upon himself to suggest that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its citizens, that they will have crossed a red line in the sand that our country could not tolerate, and we would take strong actions to prevent any further use of chemical weapons.
It is being reported that chemical weapons have been used at least three times since the President’s statement was issued, and yet no action has been taken by this administration to back up the President’s warning. Recent developments have called into question the rationale for doing anything involving the overt use of the military force to show the Nation’s concern over the use of chemical warfare being employed in Syria.
There are a number of aspects that the nation should consider before it commits to the action that it is contemplating. The President is responsible for the position that the Nation finds itself in today; his statement went beyond saying that the Nation would find the use of chemical warfare unacceptable, he implied that we would take military action in the event of the use of chemical weapons.
The first portion of the statement most people would find acceptable, but committing the Nation to take an action that can be considered an act of war is not acceptable.
Make no mistake about the fact that we would be committing an act of war with the first missile that landed in Syria, even if it was only one projectile. This is not the same as firing a shot across the bow of a ship which lands in the water; if the missile were to hit the ship it would be an act of war, let’s put things in the proper perspective.
There has been no support from the United Nations (UN) or NATO, the only support that the President has managed to receive is a tentative verbal commitment from France.
Most of our friends are suggesting that they would rather we don’t take the action that the President is contemplating; there is a real and valid concern that the President’s actions could lead to a broader conflict than the Present is expecting. The President has not laid out a clear plan to show what his objectives are and how they will be met.
The President has spent a good part of his time in office condemning the Nation’s past actions, for doing what he is about to do, but with far less attention to the rules of the various bodies that he appears to be willing to ignore in this case. The motivation for this action must be called into question in light of his past statements and actions. Our military has been called upon, on almost a continual basis, to address problems around the world that don’t directly impact this nation’s security. We are about to involve the military in another action that does not impact us directly; this is being done during a time that the military is being hit by sequestration cutbacks, and with little or no support from those that have supported us in the past. No military strategist would approve of the President’s plan given all the variables that would impact a decision to go or not to go, including the actions that the Commander-in-Chief has taken up to this point.
It should be clear to the President that the world does not look at the United States as being in a leadership role any longer; the President has accomplished yet another of his goals that he has suggest in the past.
It would appear that the President has managed to find a stone that can undo what the mythical Philosopher’s stone is capable of, which is turning base metals into gold; his stone turns gold into lead.
It would seem that the Congress could call for a vote on the question of military engagement in Syria, without declaring war, this would let the President know where Congress stood on this question and it would give the electorate something to aid them in the selection of their representatives in the next election.
There will be repercussions if the President goes through with his current plan, and it would be nice to know what representatives are in favor of this ill-gotten plan.
Additional information, the President has called for Congress to take a vote on the actions he is proposing for Syria; this is an action that Congress should have called for as soon as the President pronouncement was made for military action in Syria.