Military Revolts Against Obama Attack On Syria

Investors.com ^ | September 6, 2013 | Editorial

[jazusamo]

Mideast: The administration's planned strike on Syria is increasingly opposed by many in a U.S. military coping with the scars of two long wars, a rapidly shrinking budget and soldiers saying we're "tired, stretched thin and broke."

That sentiment was expressed by an active-duty soldier with a rank of Sergeant First Class in an email to Rep. Justin Amash. The Michigan Republican has been receiving, compiling and tweeting emails from current and former service members now being asked to commit to an ill-defined mission with an unclear goal in support of rebels mostly linked to al-Qaida and other unfriendly interests.

"The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria," Amash tweeted. Most objections relate to the lack of a clear objective in striking Syria and the muddled line between anti-government rebels and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists.

The backlash against boots on the ground or even wings in the air has exploded on social media. Many in the military are posting photos of themselves holding signs stating they'd refuse to fight on the same side as al-Qaida in Syria. The photos went viral, with one post alone generating more than 16,000 shares on Facebook.

"Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody," Business Insider's Paul Szoldra quotes former Cpl. Jack Mandaville, a Marine Corps infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq. "It boggles my mind that we are being ignored."

A decade of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many of the rank and file seeing the fruits of their victories squandered by the Obama administration's precipitous, ideologically driven withdrawals, raises the question why we should bother about Syria.

[familyop]

Syrian soldiers hack marine site, ask for help against al Qaeda
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3061655/posts

[Carry_Okie]

When this happens, nukes could start popping, the Middle East could become radioactive for a half life of at least 10,000 years, and Saudi oil would then become unobtainable on the world market.

10,000 years eh?

First, did you hear about the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Well, here's Hiroshima, after but 70 years...

Well, well, what do you know? And here's Nagasaki today:

Apparently the Japanese didn't know about how the land would be destroyed for 10,000 years, so they rebuilt those cities and live there now. I guess you weren't there to tell them.

Second, nukes would do absolutely NOTHING to oil more than a dozen feet underground, which is all of it.

Before blathering such drivel on a public forum, try reality. It's really quite refreshing.

[clintonh8r]

The JCS should resign. And they should do it in a very public way.

[DJ Taylor]

"Before blathering such drivel on a public forum, try reality. It's really quite refreshing."

Apparently, you don't know how far nuclear weapons have come since Hiroshima.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

[Carry_Okie]

Apparently, you don't know how far nuclear weapons have come since Hiroshima.

I'm well aware of the 25MT monsters the Soviets made. That has NOTHING to do with subsequent radioactivity. You're full of crap, especially in the case of Nagasaki, which was a plutonium bomb.

Baseless fears, ignorance, and apathy are the biggest killers when it comes to surviving nuclear war. My suggestion is that you consult a reliable source: Nuclear War Survival Skills, by Cresson Kearney. It's free online, but the book is worth the money. Your life may depend upon it.

[atc23]

I thought those were atomic weapons we used against Japan - is there not a difference between little atomic popwads and thermonuclear explosives?

[Carry_Okie]

I thought those were atomic weapons we used against Japan - is there not a difference between little atomic popwads and thermonuclear explosives?

Sure, in terms of yield. They're actually more efficient. See the reference in post 26.

[af_vet_rr]

I would have joined a military coup against an anti USA civilian leadership, knowing the probability was high that I would die or be imprisoned for the rest of my life. So we circle back to why my entire wing was on lock down, when Carter passed through... The oath to fight "against all enemies, foreign or domestic" is one that many swear, but few completely understand, untll they are faced with the unthinkable.

I was unfortunately around Carter and Clinton quite a bit and was never locked down nor entertaining thoughts of military coups.

But Carter never asked me to fight in support of Communists, and Clinton never asked me to fight in support of Saddam. As much as I disliked them, I knew a Republican would come along. Reagan came along, for instance.

Obama on the other hand is asking people to fight on the side of Al Qaeda. I wonder if we should be forming some kind of legal defense fund for those who are conscientious objectors when it comes to fighting for Al Qaeda. My son is in the Marines and daughter is in the Air Force, and I have no problem with them bowing out of this one. Both are going to be leaving anyways as soon as they can - they have seen the writing on the wall and the GOP insistence of running liberals on the ballot like Bush/McCain/Romney and know that it's a trend that will not stop.

[Iscool]

I’m guessin’ Obama wants as much of the military as possible out of the Country...

[jazusamo]

You’re point is well taken and probably true.

[MrEdd]

Which is in a round about way part of how Israel came to be restored.

[tacticalogic]

You may be right, but using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples might not be accurate. Those were fission bombs.

[444Flyer]

I’m guessin’ Obama wants as much of the military as possible out of the Country...

That EXACT thought has crossed my mind numerous times.

[sarasmom]

“But Carter never asked me to fight in support of Communists”
ROTFLMAO.
LIAR!

I know Carter was informed he would endure a military coup.
IDK (lol) what “they” told Clinton.
That “they” got nervous about allowing civilian idiots to try to control the DOD is something only seasoned veterans will appreciate.

[353FMG]

>WHY THE HELL AREN’T WE USING OUR OWN?? ARE WE MAD? (Don’t answer that.)<

.
Any of our congresscritters care to answer that question?

[sickoflibs]

I love that video played over and over on the cable news channels now showing a woman who claims she came from Syria scolding McCain on his attack Syria position, at a town hall.

She says ‘Don’t make Syria another Iraq or Afghanistan’

Any day McCain is yelled at is a great day.

[353FMG]

>Obama on the other hand is asking people to fight on the side of Al Qaeda.<

.
He is merely asking people to fight on his side.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

IF The Congress votes to prevent a Syrian attack—and Obama does order it anyway—the joint Chiefs would be within their rights to depose him, arrest him for treason, and rule as a Junta until free elections could be held. They could appoint a senator as President to serve out the remains of the Obama term—I would even support Interim President McCain. But a better choice would be Rand Paul or ....

[The Bat Ladys Husband]

I served my country in the military for 5 years.
My son served
My father served
My brother served
My stepfather served
My father-in-law served
My brother-in-law served
I would not now recommend service under our current CIC under any circumstances
O Canada! maybe called upon again to serve as a refuge for our youth and our misused military after 40 years.
Our military must not be a mercenary force for Islamic ragheads.