Subject: RISE UP TO OPPOSE WW III
Below there are links that you may want to use to help. I recommend the FCNL link in particular.
It appears that President Obama wants to be known as another U.S. President who actually started his own war, this time a war to spread out of Syria. It appears that he cares nothing for international law or U.S. law--that he is ready to go rogue, become a scofflaw in other words.
Below (name in bold), Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich (Wikipedia link) ( explains why the possible use of chemicals by the Syrian government would be no special excuse.
I remember the time of the Korean war somewhat and the time of the Vietnam war very well. In 1973, after the Vietnam war experience, Congress passed what is known as the War Powers Resolution with the direct purpose of preventing U.S. presidents from starting wars on their own.
Since presidents do not seem to enjoy having their powers limited, and especially since those in the war business do not seem to like having their business limited,* President Obama is not the first president to have gone rogue and started wars against the will of the people. Of course he will pretend that what he is doing is for our own good. Well it would not be for my good. You can decide for yourself whether another big war would be for your good. Think about how the wars you've lived through have affected you and people you know. Ok, so maybe some guys had jobs for awhile. Then what happened? Please think.
There appears to be a high likelihood that a U.S. attack on Syria would draw in Russia, Iran, and possibly even China against the U.S. That would be most excellent for the U.S. and global corporations involved in the war business. But would it be most excellent for you.
A new poll says that 80 percent of the American people want no war started against Syria without an act of Congress. There is an effort going on to get Congress to get involved in in this public, not just in behind the scenes secret and unaccountable "consultations."
Please do whatever you can to further that effort. Here are some links that may help. I like the top one:
http://fcnl.org/issues/middle_east/take_action_syria/
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-18
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8463
------------------------------
"While Cameron Defers to Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/30
See also:
"Why America Cannot Live without Wars"
by Chidanand Rajghatta
Times of India, August 29, 2013
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-29/us/41580072_1_chemical-weapons-war-veterans-syria-government
easier to read:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/29-4?print
Larry
* Perhaps you will remember that President Eisenhower made a very big point of warning that we were coming to the point where U.S. presidents would no longer be able to keep the military under control. That has happened, as I have discussed many times in more recent years. This case seems to be yet another case of the tail wagging the dog, which is to say the war business wagging the President.
Below there are links that you may want to use to help. I recommend the FCNL link in particular.
It appears that President Obama wants to be known as another U.S. President who actually started his own war, this time a war to spread out of Syria. It appears that he cares nothing for international law or U.S. law--that he is ready to go rogue, become a scofflaw in other words.
Below (name in bold), Dr. Andrew J. Bacevich (Wikipedia link) ( explains why the possible use of chemicals by the Syrian government would be no special excuse.
I remember the time of the Korean war somewhat and the time of the Vietnam war very well. In 1973, after the Vietnam war experience, Congress passed what is known as the War Powers Resolution with the direct purpose of preventing U.S. presidents from starting wars on their own.
Since presidents do not seem to enjoy having their powers limited, and especially since those in the war business do not seem to like having their business limited,* President Obama is not the first president to have gone rogue and started wars against the will of the people. Of course he will pretend that what he is doing is for our own good. Well it would not be for my good. You can decide for yourself whether another big war would be for your good. Think about how the wars you've lived through have affected you and people you know. Ok, so maybe some guys had jobs for awhile. Then what happened? Please think.
There appears to be a high likelihood that a U.S. attack on Syria would draw in Russia, Iran, and possibly even China against the U.S. That would be most excellent for the U.S. and global corporations involved in the war business. But would it be most excellent for you.
A new poll says that 80 percent of the American people want no war started against Syria without an act of Congress. There is an effort going on to get Congress to get involved in in this public, not just in behind the scenes secret and unaccountable "consultations."
Please do whatever you can to further that effort. Here are some links that may help. I like the top one:
http://fcnl.org/issues/middle_east/take_action_syria/
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-18
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8463
------------------------------
Andrew J.
Bacevich
Professor of international
relations at Boston University
From a moral perspective, it appears
that observers see killing civilians with chemical weapons as
somehow different from killing civilians with conventional
weapons. I don’t know why there would be any distinction.
Egyptians who are killed are just as dead as the Syrians who were
killed, and though it appears that dying of a chemical weapons
attack is an awful experience, frankly bleeding to death from a
gunshot wound to your chest or stepping on a mine that blows off
your leg is equally awful. So anyone who makes an argument that
there’s a moral obligation to act has to address that question:
Why here and not there?
The second aspect it seems to me is:
What do we expect to achieve? Even if there is a moral case for
intervention, how does the use of force remedy the situation? It
appears to me that this is going to be a very limited attack with
a very limited target set. There’s no intention of overthrowing
the regime and no intention of limiting the chemical weapons
capability of the Syrian Army.
So beyond allowing ourselves to feel
virtuous because we have done something in response to a
reprehensible act, what has been gained? If indeed the episode in
Syria rises to the level where it is different from Egypt and we
really are morally obligated to do something, then it ought to be
something more than just a gesture. And of course as a practical
matter, nobody’s got the appetite to do anything more than make
gestures.
-----------------------
See also this excellent piece from today August 30, 2013 by Norman
Solomon:"While Cameron Defers to Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/30
See also:
"Why America Cannot Live without Wars"
by Chidanand Rajghatta
Times of India, August 29, 2013
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-29/us/41580072_1_chemical-weapons-war-veterans-syria-government
easier to read:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/29-4?print
Larry
* Perhaps you will remember that President Eisenhower made a very big point of warning that we were coming to the point where U.S. presidents would no longer be able to keep the military under control. That has happened, as I have discussed many times in more recent years. This case seems to be yet another case of the tail wagging the dog, which is to say the war business wagging the President.
