I am not a supporter of military engagement in Syria by America. If “they” do so, “they” will do it without my backing. If “my” military must engage in the long mismanaged debacle in Syria, it is due to the incompetence of our own government—driven by progressive politics that does not represent me—but has “progressed” along to do their own thing for global reasons. By saying such a thing I understand that the “establishment” will attempt to label people like me as a radical for not supporting our military—but so what. I could care less. To understand why, watch and listen to every video on this article so that you too may come to understand the real intentions, and meaning of the Syrian military engagement and what is really behind it.
Few recently have even contemplated how Syria acquired the supposed “chemical weapons” to begin with, which has set off this whole debate. As to the question as to why America must become involved in Syria the reason is that it is highly likely the weapons came from American CIA involvement to begin with. Here’s why:
As reported in the New York Sun on January 26, 2006:
“‘There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”
“Mr. Sada’s comments come just more than a month after Israel’s top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam ‘transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.’
“Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in 2003…
“The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the UN investigation.”
In September of 2002, Reid is quoted as saying:
“Saddam Hussein has, in effect, thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”
And then in October of 2002, he said:
“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”
And then, finally, in 2008, said:
“Now I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense…and you have to make your own decisions about what the President knows…is that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as is indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”
I would also be equally nervous if I were Nancy Pelosi, who in December of 1998,said on her congressional website:
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
And who then said in May of 2004:
“I believe that the president’s leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers…”
Read more details about this issue at the link below.
But how did the weapons get to Iraq? Well, many have long forgotten that Saddam Hussein was put in place by American desire to send Iraq into war with Iran, and the weapons likely were given to him by America, directly or indirectly, to off-set the Iranians during the Iran, Iraq war. From 1980 to 1988 Donald Rumsfeld could be seen shaking hands with Saddam Hussein openly showing support for Iraq.
Tensions between Iran and Iraq were fueled by Iran’s Islamic revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force, in contrast to Iraq’s Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq’s goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab,[note 2] the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran’s Revolution, which overthrew Iran’s Shah, who was seen as a common enemy. It is difficult to pinpoint when tensions began to build, but there were some cross border skirmishes, including when Iraqi aircraft bombed an Iranian village that anti-Iraqi Kurds allegedly hid in on June 1979.
After this incident, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government, and it was received with considerable anger in Baghdad. On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini’s call, Saddam gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. When Khomeini rejected Saddam’s overture by calling for Islamic revolution  in Iraq, Saddam was alarmed. Iran’s new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the Ba’ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed. Some scholars have argued that Iranian-backed attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion.
However, Iraq’s regime was very politically secure, and in little danger of being overthrown by alleged plots of revolution-wracked Iran. According to some sources, Khomeini’s hostility towards Saddam was actually milder than his Arab neighbors hostility towards Saddam. Saddam’s primary interest in war stemmed from his desire to right the supposed “wrong” of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower. Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the “leader of the Arab world” and to achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf. He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation. Saddam had heavily invested in Iraq’s military since his defeat against Iran in 1975, buying large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and France. By 1980, Iraq possessed 200,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks and 450 aircraft.:1 Watching the powerful Iranian army that frustrated him in 1974–1975 disintegrate, he saw an opportunity to attack, using the threat of Islamic Revolution as a pretext.
Read all about that war at the link below, which also has a nice picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein warmly greeting one another.
It would appear that once the relationship disintegrated between America and Iraq leading to two wars in two subsequent decades, the Iraq’s chemical weapons were stored across the border in Syria so that UN inspectors would not discover them leading up to the war with Iraq during 2003. America knew Iraq had the weapons because they allegedly supplied them, even if they couldn’t find them. That was because Hussein’s buddy Assad was storing them in Syria.
But years later after America had finally removed Hussein from control of Iraq, the modern progressives went to work on Assad. This is how John Kerry as a senator was seen dinning with Assad as their wives gathered to discuss all the fine shopping options in Syria. A photo is going viral (GO AHEAD, CLICK ON THE LINK) showing the Kerrys and the Assads enjoying quite the intimate dinner in 2009.
Kerry was leading a delegation to Syria to discuss peace in the region at the time. According to French news agency AFP, Assad told Kerry during that visit that America needed a “proper understanding” of issues Syria faces.
Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.
“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that
Now that all the progressive manipulation in the Middle East region has come to fruition it is time to cash in on the years of investment and wash everyone’s hands of the evidence. That is the cause of most conflicts between nations, when governments have to clean up their mistakes from the past. War is the great eraser which wipes away the sins of history—the manipulation of progressives in a region designed to advance their agenda.
The current situation in America is that Obama has a trail of scandals behind him and is falling in the polls. The Republicans are terrified of getting stuck in a budget battle in September, so all the statists in the American government need something to avoid the justice seeking their careers. War is the great unifier which often brings together members of all political parties under a common flag. After all, that is the mantra of the Skull and Bones Society. Military action of any kind is an attempt by the current government in America to erase years of mistakes they have made following interests that do not reflect The Constitution. I do not trust the American government to do the right thing, so I certainly don’t trust them to spend lives and limb to erase their errors at a cost I provide with tax money.
I’m all for providing humanitarian aid, but the poor people of Syria are only a small group of people in the grand scheme of the world where millions upon millions of people suffer under governments not advocating capitalism. Military engagements to help rebels who are built by terrorists to help former friends of Saddam Hussein is a no win situation that will not bring about justice, but only serve to allow the current government in America full of statists, progressives, and open socialists to cover the sins of their mismanagement of the Middle East region. So I do not support military engagement in Syria. If the U.N. wants to see justice there, let them use their own troops not supported by America do so, and see how far that goes. I am not open to allowing the United Nations to believe they have authority over Syria by dragging America into a war so that they can take the credit for justice at our expense. Syria is a mistake and will only serve to allow the bad guys to hide just a little while longer, and many of those bad guys, are in the American government. They cannot be trusted to do the right things…………because if they could be, there wouldn’t be chemical weapons in Syria to begin with.