Michael Snyder: 22 Reasons Why Starting World War 3 In The Middle East Is A Really Bad Idea!

Economic Collapse. August 29, 2013. USS Barry (DDG) launches a Tomahawk cruise missile March 29, 2011, in the Mediterranean Sea while operating in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. While most of the country is obsessing over Miley Cyrus, the Obama administration is preparing a military attack against Syria which has the potential of starting World War 3. In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes could begin "as early as Thursday". The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be "limited", but what happens when the Syrians fight back? What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States? Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands. And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to retaliate by hitting Israel? If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that. And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion. We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning. Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two superpowers. Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other? Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things. The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea. #1 The American people are overwhelmingly against going to war with Syria. Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says. About 60 percent of Americans
surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act. #2 At this point, a war in Syria is even more unpopular with the American people than Congress is. #3 The Obama administration has not gotten approval to go to war with Syria from Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires. #4 The United States does not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it. #5 Syria has said that it will use " all means available" to defend itself if the United States attacks. Would that include terror attacks in the United States itself? #6 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday. "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves." #7 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria. What do you think would happen if images of sinking U.S. naval vessels were to come flashing across television screens? #8 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a good chance that Syria will attack Israel. Just check out what one Syrian official said recently. A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.

No comments: