ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Middle East Political & Social Issues

Syria, Obama and Congress

Updated on September 1, 2013


A Threat to US Security?
A Threat to US Security? | Source


There is no doubt that the Syria situation is serious but a few things, to me, don’t add up.

I am certainly not a lover of the Syrian government but why would they want to use chemical weapons when they are winning the war on the ground?

The US says that the Syrian government would ‘doctor’ the bombed sites before the UN inspectors could reach them. They also say though, that all the bombed sites are under the control of the opposition, which is why it must have been the government using the weapons. If the areas really are under the control of the opposition how could the government ‘doctor’ the sites, only the opposition would have access to do that.

The US government say that they know the Syrian government have chemical weapons. I don’t doubt that and the US government know for certain because just with Iraq; the US government still have the receipts from when they sold them the weapons.

The US government say ‘where would the opposition get the chemical weapons?’ Just because the US government didn’t give or sell the opposition the weapons doesn’t mean that they don’t have them and the US government know full well that the chemical weapons from Libya went to Turkey who are big supporters of the opposition. Besides if the opposition don’t have any, how come on the original UN inspection a couple of months ago, the team concluded that the opposition had used the chemical weapons, not the Syrian government and that is why Obama suddenly kept quite after the original ‘line in the sand’ statement.

As I have said, I am certainly not a fan of the Syrian government (by the way what defines a regime from a government?), but what is the alternative? So far IT IS KNOWN the opposition have used chemical weapons, have allowed Al Queda to assist them and refused to attend peace talks. The government on the other hand have only been accused of using chemical weapons, have successfully stopped Al Queda from getting a foothold in the country and have agreed to attend peace talks.


Now President Obama is doing a flip flop, why?

Is it because he knows that his perhaps rash and confidently made statements may not hold up? Is it because the leader of the free world feels he is only capable of treading in the footsteps of the UK, after all, the US in modern history has not taken any action without the support of the UK and ITS allies.


Protecting the Security of What?
Protecting the Security of What? | Source


So the US politicians will discuss the matter, not now but when their vacations are over. At least the UKs Prime Minister thought the situation serious enough to call the politicians back from their holidays, so why, if this matter is so grave, is it that Obama thinks that it can wait?

Isn’t it Obama who said that 1400 children were needlessly killed? If he is correct, how many more 1400s can be needlessly killed in those next 10 days, unless of course Obama thinks it was the opposition who really used the weapons, in which case their point has been made and they have successfully stirred the dragon and so there is no more need to use the weapons again.

Why the 10 day wait?

Let’s face it, if the politicians returned and voted on the matter straight away, it wouldn’t allow the real financial warmongering rulers of the US, time enough to upgrade the politicians’ vacations and let them know which way to vote. After all, what are 1400 Syrian children’s lives as opposed to a healthy bank balance?

Security of the US

This, as well as the other conflicts that the US are involved in around the world, are about national security but the financial security not the physical security of the US.

If there was world peace that the US proclaim that they want, all the US soldiers could go home. The US government cannot house them and neither can they pay them, as currently, whilst on UN sanctioned duties the UN pays them meaning that yes, the US does pay most into the UN but they are also the largest recipient from the UN, with US soldiers getting paid far more from UN funds than the US pays in. So if all the US troops were to return home, the US would quickly have a fiscal meltdown, making the current one look like nothing but a trickle next to the Niagara Falls that would ensue.

Yes, the security of the US is at stake but the financial one only. This means that the puppet masters of the US politicians must step in to, or create situations where good American soldiers may lose their lives, in order to maintain the few elitist’s personal, egotistical, financial statuses.

US Action in Syria

Should the US politicians vote to take military action in Syria?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.