Events Are Moving Quickly In Syria … Here’s What You Need to Know

The U.S. is about to attack Syria. Here’s what you need to know:

1. 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. And many military other officers say it doesn’t make sense. (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.)

2. A former general, and former vice chief of staff of the Army, said that the U.S. is planning a substantial military campaign … not just a “limited strike”

3. A Syrian war could be one the least popular wars in American history

4. In fact, most of the world is against attacking Syria

5. There is no “coalition” supporting a war

6. On a purely humanitarian basis, Syria’s tragedy is exceeded by many conflicts that the US abstained from participating in

7. The top American military official can’t even say why we’re going to war with Syria

8. War against Syria could spike oil prices and plunge us back into another recession

9. 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

10. The Pentagon doesn’t have the money to fight a war in Syria

11. Experts are skeptical that government-made chemical weapons were actually used

12. The American government – in a replay of the Iraq war – is trying to stop UN weapons inspectors from seeing if chemical weapons were used

13. If chemical weapons were used, it’s unclear who used them

14. 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)

15. The U.S. has repeatedly falsely accused others of using chemical weapons

16. The Syrian rebels have – apparently – previously used chemical weapons

17. The U.S. has been backing Al Qaeda and other known terrorists in Syria

18. A former Democratic Congressman said that a U.S. strike on Syria would make America “Al Qaeda’s Air Force“

19. The U.S., Britain and Israel have used chemical weapons within the last 10 years

20. “Humanitarian” wars usually don’t turn out very well

21. Attacking Syria without Congressional approval would be unconstitutional, and over 150 Congress members have demanded a vote on Syria

22. 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)

23. The U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight

24. The U.S. started backing the Syrian opposition years before the uprising started

25. America is not involved in Syria because that country poses a threat to America’s security … but for entirely different reasons

26. 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

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/cheat-sheet-on-syria.html