The Biblical Prophecy Argument For American Military Action Against Syria

Yesterday I pointed out 5 misguided arguments for American military action against Syria, but there’s a 6th much less publicized argument in favor of war in Syria. And it’s the most ridiculous reason of all. There are more than a few Christians who believe American military action in Syria, more specially the ancient city of Damascus, will lead to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

• • •

4 Humanitarian Alternatives To American Military Action Against Syria

As discussed on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight, there are alternatives to American military strikes against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. While there are no options that will result in an immediate halt to human suffering in Syria, we know military action, particularly a strike designed to “send a message,” will only add to the human carnage. It will only result in more destruction, more death, more suffering. So let’s consider 4 alternatives to American military action in Syria.

• • •

Do We Stamp A ‘Moral High Ground’ Guarantee On Each Cruise Missile We Launch At Syria?

So it looks like we are getting ourselves involved in yet another war. And I don’t really care what the Obama administration wants to call it. When you launch cruise missiles into another country, that’s an act of war. You can attempt justify it, you can make your case, and even if you were correct, it changes nothing. War is war. Or let’s put it another way so that everyone can understand. If another country took an aggressive action against the United States, and we called that aggression an act of war (which we would), than it is still an act of war when we do it to them.

• • •

What Will U.S. Military Force Against Syria Accomplish?

Today President Obama announced he decided the United States will use military force against Syria for its chemical weapon use. The President said he would seek the approval of congress, but noted that he has the executive power to authorize this action without congressional approval. That is something in stark contrast to his previous stance as Senator. In 2007, while on the presidential campaign trail, Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” I know we are supposed to believe presidents are privy to more information than us mere mortals, but this seems like a huge compromise of ethics, not to mention constitutionally questionable.

• • •

Counterview: Syria Chemical Weapon Use. Does It Change Anything?

Today Secretary of State John Kerry said, “What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world.” He added that is was “undeniable” despite “excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured,” which is likely directed at Russia. And of course he’s right. There is no excuse. But does that mean there can be a viable excuse for use of conventional (non-chemical) weapons?

• • •

Obama To Arm Syrian Rebels: Does Anyone Remember The Sequester?

Never mind whether it’s a good idea to go along with old-man John “get off my lawn” McCain and arm the Syrian “rebels,” I ask, can we afford it? I mean, remember “the sequester” cuts? It was the across-the-board cuts to all kinds of government programs including defense. This was what we got instead of a sensible budget deal. It’s also what we got instead of tax increases above the rather minimal tax increase for top income earners that happened at the beginning of the year. Because why raise taxes on those who can afford to pay more taxes when you can just fuck the poor instead.

• • •