The president isn’t planning to take us into a war in Syria, RIGHT?
After all, it will ONLY be…
- We send a few boats and carriers
- Perform coordinated pinpoint bombing strikes
- We will only hit military targets
- We aren’t trying for regime change
- There will be no “boots on the ground”
That’s all. We aren’t going to war. We’ll be in and out in days.
Read the bullet point description of the action above again
Where have we seen such an action before? Here’s a hint.
[And they were in and out in a shorter time than “days”.]
There are no “good guys” in the Syrian civil war.
The guys we are siding with scream “allahu akhbar” on the way into battle and are frequently pictured beside the black flag of Al Qaida. I’ll be damned if we’re going to celebrate the next anniversary of the Twin Towers falling by sending our kids to war on the same side as a bunch of jihadists. And make no mistake, if we go in, we ARE going to be engaged in a war.
Obama got us into this with his boasts about “red lines”.
Make no mistake, the world may dissaprove of chem weapons, but only Obama made it OUR obligation to cure it in Syria. We have tried sucking up to islamists in the past. Doing so with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan came back to bite us. We armed them, and they turned on us the minute a common enemy was chased away. That’s the genesis of our relationship with bin Laden.
Call your congressmen. Send emails, hit ’em on Facebook, tweet ’em on Twitter
Tell them our military is NOT the air arm of Al Qaida. If they still feel action MUST take place, we’ll give THEM a leave of absence from the House or Senate to go ACT on that conviction.
Frankly if they made the guys that start wars fight them, there’d be damned few wars.