The United States should not intervene in Syria unless the situation is a threat to our vital national interests.

     Right now, it would appear that the main threat to our national interests is the United States itself. If we intervene in the middle-east, we will have avoided all the dire warnings that have come from the Syrian government, Russia and others. In essence, we could spark a world war. The fallout from such intervention could, in the words of many, be catastrophic. Do we want that?

     President Obama has supported regime changes all over the middle-east since the “Arab Spring” has sprung. Virtually all those changes were to the favor of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood. And with that, has come chaos and Islamic extremism in places like Egypt and Libya. By backing the rebels in Syria, we will be supporting al Qaeda and the extremists which are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood.

     There are no white hats in Syria. One side is as bad as the other. It is a lose-lose situation which we better stay clear of or America will probably end up paying an unforeseen cost, but what might affect our entire economy with oil embargos, shipping routes blocked, lives lost and the risk of massive war with Russia and Iran in which we will also see Israel fight for their sheer survival.

     The president drew the red line which was great for photo ops and national imaging. But he may have bitten off more than he can chew. If congress says “No” to intervention, he will look like an amateur. If he intervenes anyway, he risks impeachment. And the American people risk another Muslim-related war in the middle-east.

     Enough already.

     The use of chemical weapons is abominable. But to whose advantage would it had been to deploy chemical weapons?  Certainly not the Assad regime which has been winning the war against the rebels without using them. It would be a major coup for the rebel side, which includes al Qaeda, if they found a way to deploy chemical weapons and make it appear they came from the authority of Assad. That would be their only chance of turning the tide against Assad, by drawing the United Sates to their side.

     Assad should be replaced?  With who?  Another Morsi?  Another HAMAS regime?

     The Germans of 1933 wanted to get rid of the political establishment and they got Hitler. Regime changes and elections do not always bring the desired results, and often do the opposite. Just as the Egyptian people learned when they elected the most fundamentalist Islamist organization in the world.

     The gassing of people in Syria is tragic and horrible. So is the throwing of children off building roofs and shooting little kids in line-ups because they helped the other side. So is the displacement of multi-thousands of Syrians and the deaths of more than 100,000. But who started this all? It wasn’t Assad.

     Whatever losses we suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan have apparently gone for naught. Both countries are in turmoil since we’ve ended the conflicts there. Syria is a civil war, which has no bearing on America’s vital interests.

     No more!

    Click here: The Disastrous Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria | Alternet