On the evening of September 10, 2013, President Barack Obama addressed United States citizens explaining why he wants to bomb Syria. Similar to the Bush regime in addressing the United States on why we should bomb Iraq, Obama revealed no evidence last night President Assad of Syria was responsible for using chemical weapons on his own people. Even though Syria has accepted terms of a resolution, President Obama seemed intent on bombing Syria anyway during his address last night. Syria is in the middle of its own civil war and President Obama is interested in intervening with the U.S. military.
President Obama never seriously threatened Syria with military action while 100,000 Syrians were reportedly killed by President Assad; however once 1,400 were affected by chemical weapons, President Obama has been on the warpath with a strong focus that innocent children were killed. Ironically, President Obama himself has killed approximately 2,070 innocent Pakistanis since coming into office, with estimate of 140 to 460 innocent children dying on his orders. And that is only in Pakistan. President Obama has killed many other innocent lives in other countries as well, the most of any Nobel Peace Prize winner in history.
Like President Bush that preceded him, President Obama is creating more enemies around the world than friends.
President Obama is relying on the idea the American public does not read other nation's newspapers to find information American mainstream media is unwilling to reveal. Those that choose to do the research will find there is much speculation as to whether President Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on its own people last month. The American public could do itself some good by reading an article I published on September 5, 2013 where a senior United Nations investigator said, "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities." A German newspaper also is saying there is strong evidence President Assad is most likely not responsible for the chemical attacks.
President Obama's main argument to the American people is that if America doesn't bomb Syria to punish President Assad for the use of chemical weapons, then bad actors around the globe will have little reason not to use them - potentially on America. What Obama did not state in his address is the serious threat of blowback if we do bomb Syria. The reality remains that if Obama bombs Syria, Syria could directly attack us back causing both military and civilian American casualties; Iran (sympathetic to Syria) would likely attack Israel, forcing us to help defend them and resulting in a war with Iran; other Islamic extremist groups as well as Hezbollah would likely carry out attacks on Americans throughout the globe; and without a clear resolution from the United Nations, Syria could legitimately charge the United States and specifically Barack Obama with war crimes.
Ironically, it was Vice President Biden, two months before the 2012 general election, that warned the nation that if Mitt Romney won the presidency, then Romney would intervene in Syria.
The Libertarian Party has come out against intervening in Syria's civil war with its chairman, Geoffrey J. Neale, stating, ""There is no Constitutional justification for America to unilaterally use force in Syria. Syria is not threatening our country. We have no national interest in intervening there. There are no reasons for the U.S. to support either the Assad dictatorship or the opposition warlords." Even groups largely responsible for getting Barack Obama into the White House have come out against intervention. And of course the Republicans are strongly against going into Syria, though not on principled grounds, as they would clearly be in favor of such an action if a Republican was in the Oval Office.