The U.S. is about to attack Syria. Here’s what you need to know:
- Bombing Syria will only strengthen the hardliners… and harm America’s national security. The top U.S. military commander says that attacking Syria would be risky and expensive. (Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging a war which is not absolutely essential to defend ourselves from imminent threats weakens national security and increases terrorism. Indeed, just spreading our resources too thin leaves us vulnerable to terrorists.)
- A Syrian war could be one the least popular wars in American history
- In fact, most of the world is against attacking Syria
- There is no“coalition” supporting a war
- War against Syria could spike oil prices and plunge us back into another recession
- Russia has repeatedly stated that it would consider an attack on Syria as an attack on its national security. China has also strongly cautioned the U.S. against attacking Syria. China and Russia hold a lot of U.S. debt, and could make life difficult for us economically if we unnecessarily anger them
- Experts initially expressed some doubts that chemical weapons were actually used
- The American government – in a replay of the Iraq war – is trying to stop UN weapons inspectors from seeing if chemical weapons were used
- If chemical weapons were used, it’s unclear who used them
- Even though the U.S. government claims that the Syrian government is the perpetrator, it admits that it has no idea who in the government ordered the attack. It could have been a rogue, low-level military officer. Given that American, British and other Western soldiers have pleaded guilty to massacring civilians and committing war crimes, should we condemn the entire Syrian regime if it turns out to be a crime carried out by one rogue officer? (Update: U.S. and British intelligence now that admit they don’t know whether it was the rebels or the Syrian government who carried out the attack)
- The U.S. has repeatedly falsely accused others of using chemical weapons
- The Syrian rebels have – apparently – previously used chemical weapons
- The U.S. has been backing Al Qaeda and other known terrorists in Syria
- A former Democratic Congressman said that a U.S. strike on Syria would make America “Al Qaeda’s Air Force“
- The U.S., Britain and Israel have used chemical weapons within the last 10 years
- “Humanitarian” wars usually don’t turn out very well
- Attacking Syria without Congressional approval would be unconstitutional, and over 150 Congress members have demanded a vote on Syria
- The U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran)
- The U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight
- The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006
- America is not involved in Syria because that country poses a threat to America’s security … but for entirely different reasons
- Many see the timing of the Syria crisis as an attempt by the U.S. government to distract from its domestic scandals. If you need a reminder about what’s going on inside our country, here’s a cheat sheet on spying