Syria: To Strike or Not to Strike? – the Boy Who Lied Wolf!

If President Obama elects to strike Syria with or without the approval of the Congress, with or without the approval of the people of the United States. He will be criticized, no matter what he does.

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? And, there wasn’t a wolf, and the boy knew there was no wolf. But, he got the approval to go hunting for the wolf. Then when there was a wolf, no one would believe him and no one came to help him. What happened to the boy who cried wolf?

When the boy lied WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, all the time knowing there were no weapons of mass destructions. He made enough people believe him and like the boy who cried wolf, he got the authority to attack a country that had no weapons of mass destruction. And the boy knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, but he got the go ahead to attack a people who had no weapons of mass destruction.

So, now that there are no weapons of mass destruction, all the people or at least most of them still think of the man/boy who cried wolf (i.e. weapons of mass destruction.)

Our country is war weary, especially after the LIE that was perpetrated on the American People to get the authority to get the American people to go along with his fetish for war and go into Iraq, to topple the Hussein regime.

And, to what end? This has caused mistrust of any call to action by our President.

Now, the American people are leery of doing anything for any reason for another country, no matter what atrocities are perpetrated on its populace by their dictator(s).

“Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov says he has told his Syrian counterpart that one way to head off a United States strike could be if President Basher Assad hands over control of his regime’s chemical weapons to international monitors.” (npr by: Mark Memmott)

Given one week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack

According to (Patrick Wintour of theguardian.com) in a conference with William Hague, there is sufficient evidence that the Assad regime attacked his own people with chemical gas, from test of hair and blood samples.

U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry gave Syria a week to hand over chemical weapons or face attack. (Patrick Wintour of theguardian.com)

September 10, 2013 1:57pm – five hours ago at this writing, according to Fox news – President Basher al Assad, has accepted the proposal to turn over its cache (the largest in the world) of chemical weapons. (Fox News.com)

Two days ago according to thekguardian.com German surveillance sources suggests that President Bashar al-Assad was not personally behind the chemical attacks. (theguardian.com)

It seems kind of strange that Assad could hand over chemical weapons that he has no control over. Of course that was two days ago.

I heard an interview of Assad yesterday and he was saying that if the United States should attack, we could expect every action in retaliation.

The interviewer asked if we could expect chemical weapons attack. Assad said, “well if the rebels have them!”

President Barack Obama is expected to bring his case to the American people tonight at 8pm Eastern Time.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Jr. on the Alex Witt show said that if the Assad regime is toppled, that a member of al-qaeda could step up in President Assad’s position, and the area would become even more unstable.

Also John McCain who voted against a military strike on Syria. Is this the same man who said “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb; Bomb, Bomb Iran?” Oh, but that was when he was running for President of the United States.

I am torn on the question of whether we should or should not strike Syria.

My personal opinion is more in the form of questions.

Did someone push President Assad to attack his own people to cause President Obama to attack Syria, so that other countries would say: 'Look the United States is attacking' and then jump on the band wagon to attack the U.S?

Give me your point of view. Please leave a comment.