`A Short Guide to the Middle East
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi [Egypt]! But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.! Gulf states are pro United States. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And ...General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states! Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
A letter to the Financial Times 8/22/2013`
`John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria. The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles. Has it come to this -- U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheiks, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?...... The United States does not have any national security interest in Syria’s war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to "degrade” Assad’s military, when that army and air force are all that stands between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria, not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.
`The highest purpose of American power is first and foremost to protect the security and freedoms of Americans. We should not go about abusing the freedom and security of other nations in the process, but protecting our freedoms is why we put the federal government together in the first place. It’s also why we spend billions of dollars to build a military force…..
It would be another matter entirely if Assad’s chemical weapons were threatening America’s security interests. Then the social compact of security with the federal government kicks in, and it is obligated to not only protect us but to enlist our help in doing so. But that is not what the moral argument for Syrian intervention claims.
Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state,
is a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation writing at the "National Interest”`
`On another level, the proposed strike is unlike anything that has come before — an attack inside the territory of a sovereign country, without its consent, without a self-defense rationale and without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council or even the participation of a multilateral treaty alliance like NATO, and for the purpose of punishing an alleged war crime that has already occurred rather than preventing an imminent disaster.
Charles Savage – The New York Times`
`President Obama foolishly declared a "red line” in the Syrian civil war and now he wants to embark on a military adventure in Syria that is more about saving his political credibility than it is about protecting America’s national security.
What’s more, Secretary of State John Kerry has now revealed that the wealthy, oil-rich Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are willing to pay for us to fight on the side they are backing – even though there is ample evidence that many of the Syrian rebels are radical Islamists aligned with al Qaida.
We don’t think the United States should contract out its national security decisions to the oil rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the United Nations or anyone else – we should make our own decisions and always act to protect our own national security – and the United States does not have any national security interest in Syria’s civil war.
Richard Viguerie’s Conservative HQ`
`Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Hussein Obama elected by American people to put an end to the ignominious, not to say catastrophic, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, is now preparing to start war number three, this time in Syria, a war fraught with totally unpredictable consequences to America, Middle East and the rest of the world….. Of course, there is still a way for President Obama to get out of his quandary with minimal loss of face – that is if Congress votes against military action. Then Obama should issue a call for an immediate ceasefire; for ending all arms deliveries to all the parties to the conflict; and for convening a multi-lateral peace conference without any preliminary conditions. I am sure that both Russia and China would back such proposals and Peace Nobel Committee could sigh a relief that they did not make a terrible mistake by awarding Obama with this most distinguished prize. If, however, Congress chooses to approve warfare, Obama will definitely go to war all we can then do is pray, "God save America!”
President, American University in Moscow.`