We mustn't strike Syria

  • Follow Letters

I want to register my opposition to any U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including retaliatory military strikes being considered by President Obama because of Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people.

Our nation is war-weary. We have been at war in the Mideast since 2003.

The goals of U.S. foreign policy have not been met in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and our involvement in Afghanistan.

Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in extremist attacks since the U.S. military left. Afghanistan is not much better. Al-Qaida has not been neutered in spite of the blood spilled and the thousands maimed physically and mentally who have bravely served in the U.S. military.

Our civilians working in the Defense Department recently had six unpaid furlough days because of lack of funds from the government. We cannot afford to send cruise missiles into Syria at $690,000 a shot or fund even a limited military strike.

Assad’s use of chemical weapons last month is not a threat to global peace and security, as Obama says. It is a threat only to the Syrian people.

There is no guarantee that a quick, convincing strike on Syria will end with that strike. Radical Muslims have proved they will retaliate through terrorism that could again reach the United States. Other nations such as Iran have promised retaliation, possibly attacking Israel to get back at the United States. After the cruise missiles are fired, the potential terrible consequences by radical Muslim terrorists and Muslim nations that are hostile to the United States are out of Obama’s control.

The involvement of the United States in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia that resulted in regime changes did not bring the desired democracy to these people as the Obama administration had hoped. The United States cannot control outcomes.

I am sorry about all of the people killed in the chemical attacks, but it is not our business to get our military involved again in a Mideast conflict. It is not in the best interest of the United States.

I hope and pray that Congress will not authorize the use of military retaliation against Assad, and that Obama will back off his desire to use the U.S. military against Syria.

The Rev. Dan White

Appling

Comments (26) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 09/14/13 - 03:35 am
2
6
"Assad’s use of chemical weapons last month is not a threat ...
Unpublished

to global peace and security, as Obama says. It is a threat only to the Syrian people."

So says Rev. White, pastor of the all hallowed 'I don’t’ give a crap about anyone else except me’ church of Christ.

For all naysayers of American foreign policy there is no denying two simple truths. Since the American threat of retaliation against Syrian forces for their use of chemical weapons two constants remain:
a) The Assad regime has not repeated its use of chemical weapons attacks against opposing forces.
b) The United States has not had to fire a single shot or put US forces in harm’s way in their enforcement of this humanitarian goal

How messed up is that.

Riverman1
83537
Points
Riverman1 09/14/13 - 06:15 am
5
3
Obama wants to

Obama wants to fire some missiles in an "unbelievably small" attack so bad he's giving the teleprompter shaken baby syndrome. He's mad that Putin has told him he can't.

soapy_725
43676
Points
soapy_725 09/14/13 - 08:10 am
0
0
Read your Bible for the answer to this "global posturing"
Unpublished

Read your Bible for the answer to this "global posturing"

Little Lamb
45852
Points
Little Lamb 09/14/13 - 08:15 am
4
2
Blood Lust

Obama got the blood lust with the bin Laden assassination; and that led to more killing by using the drones. Now he wants to expand his blood lust by using Tomahawk missiles. Once you get a taste for it, it is hard not to expand the killing. There is no military goal in striking Syria. It is only for Obama's blood lust.

carcraft
25751
Points
carcraft 09/14/13 - 08:23 am
4
1
Little Lamb, you are correct,

Little Lamb, you are correct, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff could not tell the Congress what the Objective was!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/14/13 - 08:36 am
4
3
"For all naysayers of
Unpublished

"For all naysayers of American foreign policy there is no denying two simple truths. Since the American threat of retaliation against Syrian forces for their use of chemical weapons two constants remain:"

Wrong fedex. Obama threatened military action on Syria over a year ago if they used chemical weapons.....and they still used them. Are you believing Obama when he said he never drew the red line?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:30 am
2
0
Quote from LTE

"Our nation is war-weary. We have been at war in the Mideast since 2003"

This statement is very true. I am very disappointed in Obama for not getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries have GOTTEN MORE THAN TOO MUCH help from The US Troops!!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:35 am
0
3
LL @ 8:15

"Obama got the blood lust with the bin Laden assassination; and that led to more killing by using the drones"

Obama may be a lot of things to you conservatives, but I don't think he is a "vampire" yet. Even though he wanted to strike Syria, liberals don't really like fighting.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:41 am
0
3
carcraft @ 8:23

"Little Lamb, you are correct, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff could not tell the Congress what the Objective was"

The objective was what Obama has been saying all along. That being to sent a message to Assad, and to the world for that matter, and even possibly help the freedom fighters have a level battle field.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:46 am
1
2
fedex227 @ 3:35

"b) The United States has not had to fire a single shot or put US forces in harm’s way in their enforcement of this humanitarian goal"

Yeah, The US is going to depend on Russia to handle it.

Little Lamb
45852
Points
Little Lamb 09/14/13 - 09:48 am
4
1
Limited Warfare

About this "boots on ground" thing:

A war not worth dying for is not worth killing for.

If we do not think an action taken by another country is important enough to commit troops to all-out war, then we have no business trying to "punish" the people there with limited air strikes.

The notion of "limited" war is immoral, in my opinion.

Little Lamb
45852
Points
Little Lamb 09/14/13 - 09:51 am
4
1
Al Qaeda

t3bledsoe posted:

The objective was . . . to possibly help the freedom fighters have a level battle field.

These "freedom fighters" include al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic extremists. We are technically at war with Islamic terrorism. Therefore, we should not be about the business of helping them in Syria or anywhere else.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:52 am
0
4
Quote from LTE

"Assad’s use of chemical weapons last month is not a threat to global peace and security, as Obama says. It is a threat only to the Syrian people"

It could be a threat to Isreal. Now, should we just look away?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 09:58 am
0
4
LL @ 9:48

"The notion of "limited" war is immoral, in my opinion"

I fail; trmendously, to see how a limited war is "immoral"? OH, excuss me. I see you used the escape claus, "In my opinion".

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 10:02 am
0
4
LL @ 9:51

"Therefore, we should not be about the business of helping them in Syria or anywhere else"

Liberals are all about being "human". I think Obama sees the gassing as completely "in-human", therefore wanting to do something to show that the free world will not stand for this.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 10:07 am
0
4
LL @ 8:15

"Once you get a taste for it, it is hard not to expand the killing. There is no military goal in striking Syria. It is only for Obama's blood lust"

I have been accused of making statements just to "get under posters skin". Do you REALLY believe the above statement?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 10:16 am
0
4
Quote from LTE

"There is no guarantee that a quick, convincing strike on Syria will end with that strike"

Which will be a more convincing out-come, "A missile strike OR depending on Russia to do the right thing?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 10:33 am
0
4
Quote from LTE

"I hope and pray that Congress will not authorize the use of military retaliation against Assad, and that Obama will back off his desire to use the U.S. military against Syria"

I guess even a man-of-the-cloth doesn't get prayers answered. I would say, perhaps even beyond Russia, is the idea that The US could very well be helping terrorest groups. I just can't get over how conservatives are willing to pay no attention to the demands of McCain and Graham!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/14/13 - 10:38 am
0
3
McCain and Graham

If the president had have listened to these two Sen., we would already have boots on the ground. Other than Russia, The US has to consider the pros (getting Assad out of power, or (cons), helping terrorists groups.

Dixieman
14942
Points
Dixieman 09/14/13 - 12:40 pm
3
2
Dear Rev:

Your religious credentials and position do NOT make your opinion on US foreign policy worth anything. I have an opinion on particle physics but don't know anything about it, so my opinion is worth nothing. Or less than nothing. This is like movie stars coming to Washington to testify to Congress about global warming, a topic about which they are wholly ignorant.
Back to your pulpit, please.

Little Lamb
45852
Points
Little Lamb 09/14/13 - 12:41 pm
3
1
RINO

McCain and Graham are not conservatives. They are RINOs. Graham will likely be defeated the next time he runs. Hopefully, McCain will retire at the end of this term.

Little Lamb
45852
Points
Little Lamb 09/14/13 - 01:03 pm
3
1
Whoa

I'll put Rev. Dan White's foreign policy credentials and positions up against Obama's any day of the week, and the Rev.'s will win out.

Darby
25496
Points
Darby 09/14/13 - 03:07 pm
3
1
"That being to sent (sic) a message to Assad,

and to the world for that matter, and even possibly help the freedom fighters have a level battle field."

.
Has anyone mentioned to you bledsoe, that a significant number of the so-called "freedom fighters" are al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention "volunteers" from Iran?

Didn't think so. So now you want to give us another Egypt?

If the "Freedom Fighters" win, then the systematic assassination of their leadership begins.

Let's see OzBama put that genie back in the bottle.

Darby
25496
Points
Darby 09/14/13 - 03:20 pm
2
1
"Which will be a more convincing out-come,

"A missile strike OR depending on Russia to do the right thing?"

.
You seem ambivalent bledsoe. What's your iron clad answer?

Just wondering... How many thousands of "missile strikes" have we sent into Afghanistan? What has it changed for us?

Have the Taliban surrendered? I must have missed the memo.

Would Russia even be involved if Kerry hadn't inadvertently stuck his size 10 foot into his EVEN LARGER mouth? I'll save you the trouble. The answer is a big, resounding....

NO..............

Russia had been pretty much bench-warming since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Now, thanks to the incompetents Kerry and the Great and Powerful OzBama, they're back in the starting lineup.

owensjef3
5639
Points
owensjef3 09/14/13 - 05:18 pm
1
4
Wow some dislike the Preside
Unpublished

Wow some dislike the Preside so bad they would for Putin instead, sad I've been watching Fox and that is what they are doing.

kissofdeath
413
Points
kissofdeath 09/14/13 - 05:42 pm
1
1
The use of chemical weapons

The use of chemical weapons is morally reprehensible, and it should be punished. Congress need to approve President Obama's request for " limited military involvement" in Syria amid mounting evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. It's time to hold Assad to account for carrying out this attack using poison gases, chemical weapons to kill upwards of 400 children, and the attack which killed almost 1,500 civilians is unacceptable. Contact your member of Congress and let him know that this not a war and no ground troops will be involve. Vote yes on the joint resolution to authorize the use of military force against Syria.

Pops
8276
Points
Pops 09/14/13 - 06:20 pm
2
1
Who do we strike

and what good would it do when we do hit them...it will just fuel the fire against the mean ole U.S.A......cut off all the foreign aid to these wretched pseudo-countries and let them eat each other.......we are feeding over half the world.....this includes North Korea.......gosh....I'm so mean......

LillyfromtheMills
13206
Points
LillyfromtheMills 09/14/13 - 06:41 pm
0
2
WHERE IS JOHN WAYNE

I am sick of the pansies running this govt - stand up like real men and tell Putin to kiss your [filtered word]. Sorry Sean!

Darby
25496
Points
Darby 09/14/13 - 10:49 pm
2
1
"Vote yes on the joint resolution to authorize

the use of military force against Syria."

.
Vote yes on WHAT joint resolution? Oh! You mean the one Harry Reid took off the table because of Democrat defections and the House never even considered?

That one?????

Darby
25496
Points
Darby 09/14/13 - 10:53 pm
2
1
".....cut off all the foreign aid to these

wretched pseudo-countries and let them eat each other......."

.
Can't do that until we grow a backbone and decide to become energy independent.

Then, and only then, we can tell the Arabs to go pound sand.

Until that time, we need them as much as they need us. Maybe more so!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs