“I didn’t join the Navy to fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war!” reads the placard covering the face of a US sailor decked out in full military regalia.
As leaders of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached an agreement yesterday on a draft authorization for the use of military force in Syria, numerous photos are making the rounds on social media depicting soldiers protesting an impending invasion of Syria.
The photos are evidence of the broad popular opposition to a strike on Syria. The American public is against a strike by 48 to 29 percent, according to Pew’s latest poll. At yesterday’s Senate hearing, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul reported that nobody he saw in 40 cities during his August break was for attacking Syria.
I haven’t had one person come up to me and say they’re for this war, not one person. We get calls by the thousands. Nobody’s calling in favor of this war. I didn’t meet one when I was home all month. I went to 40 cities. I didn’t have one person come up and say — do they all agree it’s a horrendous thing? Yes, we all agree that chemical attacks are a horrendous thing. But people are not excited about getting involved, and they also don’t think it’s going to work.
And then there are troops on social media. From Australia’s Business Insider: Some US Troops Appear To Be Posting Photos In Protest Of Syrian Intervention
Photos of service members have apparently popped up on Reddit, seemingly in protest of Syrian intervention. (Since they are not identified, it’s impossible to verify they are indeed serving in the military.)
The basic argument is that the line between moderate rebel factions and al Qaeda-affiliated ones are somewhat murky in the two-year-old civil war, so the U.S. should stay away from intervening on the rebel side (even in response to a large-scale chemical weapons attack).
…..
It’s also worth noting that, while some military members may agree with the message of the photos, many don’t agree with using the uniform to bolster the argument.
More photos here.
I hate doing this, but if you’re enlisted in the Navy, you’re a “sailor” not a “soldier.”
Oorah!
Semper Fidelis,
Dan
The picture says it all, which will be the subject heading when I share this.
I read that the cost of each missile the US would fire at Syria is 1.5 million.
How anyone can look at the US financial situtation—the sequester, the cuts to US domestic programs, the cuts to the US military which also affects the benefits of the rank and file troops, the increased aid to Israel despite our budget straits, the continuing aid to Egypt and others, the US 2012 52 Billion spent on ‘Security’ Agencies and industries to protect us from terriers, and now yet another costly involvement that looks like a prelude to Iran–and not see that US leadership is totally removed from reality is beyond me.
Yea the public thinks the US is too rich, has too many resources, to ever collapse like Russia did. And the politicans think they can always squeeze the population for more spending money for their wars and meddling, and rob more domestic funds.
The only thing the US has ‘degraded’ with it’s ‘master of the universe act’ is the US and it’s people.
BTW, if anyone wants to keep up with which way congress members are voting or ‘leaning’ towards voting on Syria Think Progress has a spread sheet on them that is updated as their statements on their position are made.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmXJhRgn8UhudFlwcFdEVWt5TXdCRGFPWW5Pd21Sd3c&gid=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23962413
Obama video, sounds as stupid as GWB, even has the grin to match.
Why he said nothing about Israel’s white phosphorus use when he
first came to office one question a reporter needs to ask the US president.