.

No Strategic American Interest at risk No imminent threat

No strategic American interests are at risk nor is there a creditable imminent threat [unless you are a Coptic Christian in the Arab Republic of Egypt then BHO imitates Pontius Pilatus] so why are we going to war.  Make no mistake about it, lobbing Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a sovereign country is going to war with them even if you don't have the personal courage to say so!

BHO and his administration have failed to demonstrate what strategic American interest is at risk or the existence of an imminent threat to These United States as a result of the alleged Syrian Arab Republic’s violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.  Our traditional allies both bilateral and treaty [UK, Canada, Australia, NATO and SEATO] have failed to make a case that any sovereign, bilateral or cooperative strategic interest is at risk or that there is an imminent threat to same.

The United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretary-General, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague have all been silent on the alleged violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and to date no formal actions has been taken. To frame the issue in a way similar to that used by BHO during his press conference with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden, 193 member nations have failed to raise the issue [of the allege use of prohibited weapons] in the General Assembly nor have any of the member nations requested Security Council action [clearly there is a global consensus on the issue and it differs with the President]

Lacking a demonstrated strategic interest and a clear and imminent danger, BHO asserts that under the Constitution he still has the unilateral authority to launch Tomahawk Cruise Missiles to support al Qaeda & the Muslim Brotherhood [oops should have said to “punish” Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Republic for their alleged violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, a treaty which they Acceded to in 1968].  He further assert that his failure to do so would be immoral.
  
As with many traditional concepts, morality is situational or relative for a Progressive Collectivist and only applies in support of the greater good.  It is most certainly not absolute. For example, BHO continues to support the deposed President Mohamed Morsi and his Freedom and Justice Party’s [the rebranded Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt] and is SILENT on their efforts to ethnically cleanse the Arab Republic of Egypt of all Coptic Christians.  In case you have not been paying close attention to what is happening in the Arab Republic of Egypt members of the Muslim Brotherhood are

  • killing Coptic Christians
  • raping Coptic Christian women, girls and nuns
  • destroying Coptic Christian churches, orphanages, monasteries, nunneries, schools and community centers
  • stealing goods and chattel which belongs to Coptic Christian Churches and other affiliated religious institutions, and
  • stealing the goods and chattel and then burning the homes and businesses owned by Coptic Christians [can anyone say Kristallnacht - do they still teach what happened on the nights of the 9th & 10th of November 1938, in the new Common Core Curriculum? ]
BHO and John Kerry say it is immoral NOT to go to war with the Syrian Arab Republic, because the military of Syrian Arab Republic allegedly use of chemical agents against its rebellious population not because there is a civil war which has kill over 100,000 citizens and displaced over 2 million others. Yet the Obama administration is SILENT on the ethnic / religious cleaning occurring in the Arab Republic of Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood engages in a coordinate campaign of murders, rapes, and steals from Coptic Christians using "conventional" means, a rather a selective application of the UN  Doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect [R2P].

I submit that borrowing money from my children and grandchildren [or just printing it] to unilaterally “punish” Bashar al-Assad for his alleged violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol is immoral. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President has the authority to deploy the American Military to enforce international law and to borrow money to do it.

So the international community does not agree with BHO, he has failed to meet the requirements of the Constitution or the War Powers Act, he selectively applies the R2P doctrine ignoring Christians in favor or Muslims, he sides with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and borrows the money to fund his efforts to assuage his wounded pride.

Shame on anyone who votes in favor of going to war in support of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Shame on BHO if he takes us into another war without Congressional approval. Any CT politician who supports this new unjustified war should be primaried and defeated at the poles.  

Shame on BHO and the CT delegation for their silence on the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Arab Republic of Egypt that at last count has left 638 dead, over 4,000 injured and 10’s of thousand homeless and out of work [guess we have to wait until the death toll reaches 1,400 to warrant action - you could not want for more video or documentary evidence?].  

Gotta love Progressive Collectivists, their flexible morals, and willingness to use "the children" to move their agenda Forward, just don't be a Coptic Christian in the Arab Republic of Egypt, a Roman Catholic in the South Sudan, or a Catholic Hospital in Hartford that does not want to pay for contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, or abortions on the grounds of religious beliefs.  Then "Responsibility to Protect" becomes "use the coercive power of the State to remake the world closer to the hearts desire"!  I miss America!

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

MAC September 06, 2013 at 10:28 PM
Congressman Joe Wilson said it best this week. He asked Secretary of State John Kerry, who was testifying before the House committee "Why was there no call for military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals; the failure of Obamacare enforcement; the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote? Again, why was there no call for military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed?"
MAC September 07, 2013 at 07:44 PM
AP: Congress Voting 6 to 1 Against Strike...................................... ..."Nearly half of the 433-member House and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided. ...Some 192 House members outright oppose U.S. involvement or are leaning against authorization, according to the AP survey."... http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Congress-Against-Syria-Strike/2013/09/07/id/524364?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something