The Syria Thread 2011 - Present

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby conniption » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:16 am

This article contains valuable information (see APPENDIX) though it was written over a year ago.

Lew Rockwell (embedded links at source)

Forget Democracy

By Michael S. Rozeff
July 17, 2012


There are people vigorously promoting America's entry into new wars in Syria and Iran. Many of them eagerly advocated the U.S. aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the failures of these wars to achieve the projected goals, they are urging new U.S. wars. They are the neoconservatives. They applaud U.S. military action in places like Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. The neoconservative paradigm also looks favorably upon a U.S. military presence in countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and the Central African Republic.

Neoconservatives seek democracy almost everywhere, with the choice and emphasis depending on their interpretation of American interests and with lip service to costs. Zachary Selden writes

"The realist school of thought contrasts sharply with the neoconservative camp, whose agenda could not be unfamiliar to Woodrow Wilson. He too sought to remake the international system from a position of relative strength, to spread democracy and the rule of law. It is true that today's [neoconservative] crusaders are not about to place their trust in international institutions to do the job, but the basic ideals are similar in that they seek to use American power to reshape the global environment in the name of a set of liberal democratic ideals."

However, democracy is a failure in America and there are good reasons why it is a failure. (See Hoppe here.) Democracy doesn't produce wealth. (For some evidence, see here.) Capitalism does. Capitalism involves free markets, the division of labor, the price system, the search for and making of profits, and well-defined and secure property rights. Democracy, especially of the unlimited variety that America increasingly resembles, involves endless political battles over the gains in wealth that capitalism produces. These battles and the resulting laws (supported by both major political parties) destroy capitalism. If liberalism in an economy means capitalism and if liberalism in politics is construed to mean democracy, they are in mortal conflict.

The neoconservative agenda by its expansive and highly challenging nature that involves war and remaking whole countries brings enormous costs without benefits. This is already evident. If I said that the neoconservatives in pushing for new wars have learned nothing from their erroneous aims and methods, I might be partly right, because I think they have little or no understanding of economics and capitalism. I'd also be partly wrong, because these people are intelligent and they know what has happened in these failed wars. It therefore also appears that they do not care what has happened. They are focused on their goals and attempts to reach those goals, no matter what the costs are. Even actual outcomes that are bad and do not achieve their goals do not matter to them. They stubbornly continue to call for more warfare and more interference in other nations.

What goals do the neoconservatives have? I will suggest only one at the moment, and it will be a goal that is much broader and deeper than what Selden has suggested. The most important leaders among the neoconservatives, such as William Kristol, promote American supremacy throughout the world. They want the U.S. to be the sole superpower and to remain the sole superpower. Their goal is the global hegemony of the U.S. See here and here.

If neoconservatives promote democracies, it is in order broadly to replicate the U.S. system and in the process to produce satellites that are compliant allies of the U.S. To achieve global hegemony, the neoconservatives want to build up a worldwide American military organization that dominates every continent along with worldwide economic institutions that tie every country to the U.S. The latter are by nature anti-capitalistic. They are centralized and monopolistic. They are instruments of tyranny run by an elite consisting of people who look just like neoconservatives.

The pro-war coalition has been very successful in getting America into wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and elsewhere. It's now working on Syria and Iran. Ordinary Americans have nothing to show for these wars. This is because global hegemony is a politico-military concept that does not translate into the generalized economic well-being of Americans. America has gone downhill since getting militarily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I challenge any and all neoconservatives to prove that ordinary Americans are better off for having the U.S. government spend 3.7 to 4.4 trillion dollars on these wars in Iraq and Central Asia. The burden of proof is on them because they promoted these wars. I would like to see them prove even that the $115 billion in "assistance" to Israel (over many years) has made ordinary Americans better off. The Congressional Research Service goes into great technical detail about the composition of this aid, but there is not a word about what its benefits are to Americans.

What the pro-war people consistently fail to do while spreading their ideas is to mention the many costs of their policies. These costs include but are not limited to

the 1993 Trade Towers bombing
the 9/11 catastrophe in 2001
the deaths of thousand of American soldiers
the injuries, wounds and traumas of many more thousands of American soldiers
the deaths and injuries of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis
trillions of dollars to pay for military and aid expenditures
slower economic growth, due to higher taxes and the diversion of labor and capital to war rather than industry
discouragement of economic growth by peaceful capitalistic means
decreased security within America due to enhanced risks of foreign retaliation
police state measures at airports and borders
police state measures in all forms of transportation
the militarization of domestic police
the setting aside of rights of Americans
the assumption of power by the president and rule by executive order
the ignoring of constitutional declarations of war
the movement toward use of military forces within America to bypass and weaken the Posse Comitatus Act
the use of torture and rendition, indefinite detentions and secret prisons
the claim to and use of a presidential power of assassination, including use against American citizens
a government heavily in debt
a depreciating currency
violations of international laws, mores and standards that make war criminals out of American leaders
encouragement of violent resistance against the U.S. from domestic dissidents
encouragement of violent resistance against the U.S. from foreign sources intent on terror, revenge, etc.
encouragement of resistance against the U.S. from nuclear-armed nations like Russia and China

The near total silence of the neoconservatives and others who are promoting these wars regarding these costs suggests to me that they are blind to and ignorant of these costs and that they just do not give a darn about the costs. They don't experience these costs personally, indeed they experience benefits from their activities, and so they simply ignore the costs or shuffle over them quickly in their minds and hearts.

Here in America, the people within the pro-war coalition achieve success in fomenting wars through working the American political system. Working that system involves well-paid and/or comfortable positions in education, government, political campaigns, foundations and journalism. It involves, writing, advising, consulting, and speeches. It involves media appearances, articles, books, reports, letters, press reports, and statements. All of this activity is intellectual in nature, but it is not primarily or solely in the service of scholarship and research to discover truths. It is not scientific research. Instead, what is called research frequently is to promote political goals, to write possible laws, and to influence congressional legislation. For example, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tells us that

"As part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Iran's leaders from acquiring nuclear weapons, continuing to support terrorist acts and oppressing their own people, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies conducts extensive research on ways to deny the Iranian regime the profits of its energy sector."

Within the pro-war coalition, individual motives, opinions and judgments vary. People vary their positions over time. These variations are unimportant, but because of the variance some pro-war people may have occasionally been critical in the past of some of the positions of other pro-war people. They may also have been critical at one time or another of government officials who in other respects have done exactly as they desired. The pro-war people almost surely have justified their positions using different rationales. None of these frictions, differences, contradictions and variations are major as compared with the fact that they have urged the U.S. government to make war and have successfully convinced it to do so. These intramural differences, interesting as they may be, are a source of confusion to observers. They should not be allowed to obscure the main fact: there is a strong coalition for war in this nation. The coalition has definite aims but they are deeply flawed. What they claim is good for America and Americans is not good at all.

This article lists a few of these advocates of war, 56 of them to be exact. These 56 want the U.S. to intervene in Syria. These 56 people wrote an open letter to President Obama on Feb. 17, 2012 in which they urged him to take certain immediate actions:

"Immediately establish safe zones within Syrian territory, as well as no-go zones for the Assad regime’s military and security forces, around Homs, Idlib, and other threatened areas…"

"Establish contacts with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and, in conjunction with allies in the Middle East and Europe, provide a full range of direct assistance, including self-defense aid to the FSA."

"Improve U.S. coordination with political opposition groups and provide them with secure communications technologies and other assistance that will help to improve their ability to prepare for a post-Assad Syria."

"Work with Congress to impose crippling U.S. and multilateral sanctions on the Syrian government, especially on Syria’s energy, banking, and shipping sectors."

These actions amount to the U.S. making war in Syria. They do not ask Congress to declare such a war. Instead they ask the President to initiate the war on his own authority.

This letter emanates from two organizations: The Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). William Kristol is behind both of these intellectually and organizationally; major funding sources are provided in the linked article.

The 56 people who signed the letter are listed below in an appendix.

Some of these people are familiar names. Many others you and I have never heard of before. In a way, that's the point. Although these and others like them are the people influencing government policies, and although they often have been in government themselves, you and I and most Americans have never heard of them much less control them or influence them.

Who wants the U.S. to make war in Syria? We have here a sample of 56 people. There are many ways to characterize them. There appear to be about 7 from either Syria or the Middle East. The exact number isn't important. We'd expect such a contingent who are trying to get the U.S. directly involved.

Beyond this group is another substantial sub-group, namely, pro-Israel Jews. There are around 22 in this group, possibly a few more, possibly a few less. It is of obvious importance to the interests of Americans to know that a concentrated group of pro-Israel Jews is promoting U.S. entry into another Middle Eastern country. The same thing happened with Iraq, with such neoconservatives as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith leading the charge. America is not Israel. The interests of Americans are not the interests of the State of Israel or of specific interest groups within Israel. America should not be led, pushed, or drawn into wars either by Jewish voters in America or by pro-Israel interests who concentrate in offices in Washington to generate articles, promote their agenda and broadcast their views widely. When this happens, as it has, it provides an example of the negative fallout of an unlimited democracy.

The third and largest group that overlaps the pro-Israel Jews consists of neoconservatives, some of whom probably just call themselves conservatives. This takes up most of those who signed the letter. It is no surprise to find neoconservatives again calling for the U.S. to make war.

Of equal interest to the latter breakdown are four other properties of the signatories. First, they are unrepresentative of America by almost any criterion one might name. Second, they move in an axis consisting of government, universities, foundations and quite often the literary world. Third, their habitat is primarily Washington D.C. Fourth, they are highly-educated intellectuals who are heavily engaged in writing and speaking for a living.

Strong support for war is not a new feature for intellectuals. Randolph Bourne observed it in 1917. I offer some conjectures. These are not central to the thesis of this article. Many scribblers are not content with being scribblers. Some who are not really creative or talented scribblers look for a different way to use what talents and skills they have in order to get ahead financially, to hobnob with those in power, to influence them, to make history, and even to exercise power. I conjecture that war is a means of vicarious power for some intellectuals. American dominance is a substitute for a deity to worship. Global hegemony is a springboard for moral crusades. It serves as a vicarious means of redemption for its proponents.

Regardless of these conjectures, I do not suspect these 56 people of duplicity. I suspect that they are doing what they believe in. However, I believe that what they are promoting is wrong. A policy of endless global wars by Americans for the "American system" and with little or no regard for the costs being imposed upon Americans and foreign peoples is wrong

Neoconservative intellectuals do not have the best interests of Americans at heart. I seriously wonder if such a concern ever enters their minds, for they hardly ever push or advertise their policies in terms of what they concretely do for Americans. When they do, do they do so with a true understanding? In promoting global hegemony, William Kristol and Robert Kagan write in 1996:

"Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good. They have never lived in a world more conducive to their fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade, and the security of Americans not only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world."

Most of this thinking was mistaken when it was written, and it's even less the case today after the U.S. government adopted the neoconservative agenda and attempted to actualize global hegemony. Americans did not have it that good in 1996. Income growth was slowing down decade after decade and that slowdown has continued. What was and is conducive to economic well-being is capitalism, not "democratic governance". Freedom has been deteriorating in America. It was nowhere near what it should have been in 1996. Freedom is even more abridged today. Neoconservatism is partly responsible. Furthermore, freedom cannot be equated to democratic governance or linked with it. Kristol and Kagan were also wrong to characterize the international economic system as one of free-market capitalism and free trade. Those are good goals but the system then and now is far from those goals.

This passage illustrates what I argued earlier, namely, that neoconservatives do not understand economic matters and consider them secondary to politics and power.

Kristol and Kagan were more accurate when they observed that Americans were secure here and relatively secure traveling elsewhere "without encumbrance". However, under the neoconservative policies, unencumbered travel is no longer the case.

Neoconservative intellectuals frequently propagate propaganda that calls for war and that disregards its costs. They are out for themselves, plus they are out for a vision of American political supremacy that warms their hearts. As we have seen, a large number are out for Israel, not America.

If neoconservative intellectuals as a group have any understanding of free markets, wealth accumulation, private property rights and their protection, capitalism and Austrian economics, I have yet to see it. They seem almost entirely locked up in a world of their own that revolves around politics, international relations and power. That world is real. It cannot be ignored. But do the neoconservatives even have a correct take on how America should proceed in such a world? It appears that they do not.

APPENDIX

I've used the internet to find out what the people who signed the Feb. 17, 2012 letter do for a living and/or some biographical information. After each name comes a quotation with a portion of that information. The links over their names provide the sources of these quotes and a more complete biography. After a few of the names, I provide a few further facts and comments; but this article doesn't go into detail about each person. The biographical information should not in all cases be taken as providing an accurate picture of a person's actual accomplishments, capacities or capabilities. It is common for vitas to be padded and bios to be exaggerated in order to present a glowing portrait of a person's life and work.

By reading this material and occasionally linking on through to see pictures of these people, you will get an idea of what persons, interests and interest groups are promoting U.S. intervention. It is by no means a complete picture, but you will see a sample of people in the pro-war coalition, and you will get a feel for how it operates.

Khairi Abaza "Khairi Abaza is a scholar at FDD [Foundation for the Defense of Democracies], noted for his focus on democratic reform in the Arab world, the spread of terrorism, and the influence of the media on politics."

FDD is a neoconservative organization. The FDD "team" or "Leadership Council" consists of R. James Woolsey (Chairman, former Director of the CIA), Steve Forbes (the CEO of Forbes Magazine), Bill Kristol (the editor of The Weekly Standard), Richard Carlson (former Director of the Voice of America), Judge Louis J. Freeh (former Director of the FBI), Joseph Lierberman (U.S. Senator), Dr. Paula A. Dobriansky (former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs), Max M. Kampelman (former Ambassador, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom), and Robert u2018Bud' McFarlane (former National Security Advisor).

Who funds FDD? They say "FDD is funded by a diverse group of individual philanthropists and foundations. FDD has also received grants from the U.S. State Department." But also see here.

Ammar Abdulhamid "Ammar Abdulhamid is a leading Syrian human rights and pro-democracy activist and author. An FDD fellow and member of FDD's Syria Working Group, Mr. Abdulhamid is also the founder and director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government's information blockade by enlisting a cadre of local activists and citizen journalists to report on sociopolitical issues in Syria."

Hussain Abdul-Hussain "…a journalist and expert on the Middle East. He currently works as a correspondent with the Kuwaiti daily Al Rai…and lives in Washington DC. Hussain Abdul-Hussain worked for the United States Congress-funded Arabic TV, Alhurra, as a news producer.

Tony Badran "Research Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, DC. He focuses on Lebanon, Syria and Hezbollah…Mr. Badran's writings appear regularly in a range of publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Forbes.com, National Review Online, ForeignPolicy.com, the Jerusalem Post, the Daily Star, NOW Lebanon, and the Mideast Monitor…"

Paul Berman "…a leading writer on politics and literature whose articles and reviews have appeared in numerous publications…Berman argued that the NATO war in the former Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified by the doctrine of u2018liberal interventionism': an intervention intended to rescue endangered populations from extreme oppression and to promote liberal and democratic freedom. He looked on the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the same light."

Max Boot "Max Boot (born September 12, 1969) is an American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian…He has been a prominent advocate for American power. He once described his ideas as u2018American might to promote American ideals.'"

Ellen Bork "Ellen Bork is the Director, Democracy and Human Rights at the Foreign Policy Initiative. Before taking this position, Ms. Bork was the Senior Programs Manager for Human Rights at Freedom House a democracy promotion organization based in Washington, D.C. From 1996 to 1998, Bork was the Senior Professional Staff member for Asia and the Pacific at the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations."

The Foreign Policy Initiative is another neoconservative organization. The four persons on its board are Eric S. Edelman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Dan Senor. Edelman in November of 2011 co-authored an article "Why Obama should take out Iran's nuclear program". Kagan and Kristol are well-known and very influential neoconservatives. Senor is apparently a Romney advisor at present.

L. Paul Bremer "Bremer arrived in Iraq as the U.S. Presidential Envoy on May 2003, and on May 11 replaced lieutenant general Jay Garner as Director of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. In June, the Office was transformed into the Coalition Provisional Authority, and Bremer, as U.S. Administrator of Iraq, became the chief executive authority in the country.

"As the top civil administrator of the former Coalition Provisional Authority, Bremer was permitted to rule by decree. Among his first and most notable decrees were Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1 which banned the Ba’ath party in all forms and Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2 dismantled the Iraqi Army."

Bremer's order to de-Ba'athify Iraq was a mistake. For some explanation of its differences from de-Nazification, see here.

Matthew R. J. Brodsky "Matthew RJ Brodsky is the Director of Policy for the Jewish Policy Center and the editor of the JPC’s journal, inFOCUS Quarterly. Before joining the JPC, Mr. Brodsky was the Senior Geopolitical Analyst for IntelliWhiz LLC and a Legacy Heritage Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He has briefed and advised members of Congress, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, Special Operations Command, and the National Security Council. A specialist in Middle East affairs and Arab politics, he holds a Master of Arts degree from Tel Aviv University in Middle East History."

Elizabeth Cheney According to another source, "Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, is an outspoken and controversial proponent of hardline U.S. foreign and domestic policies on the u2018war on terror.' During the George W. Bush presidency, Cheney worked in the State Department overseeing Middle East policy. After the election of Barack Obama, she became a standard-bearer for the militarist agenda pursued by her father during the Bush years, founding a right-wing lobbying group called Keep America Safe and serving as a go-to pundit on conservative media outlets like Fox News."

Seth Cropsey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Toby Dershowitz "As FDD's Vice President for Government Relations and Strategy, she engages in policy roadmapping that identifies the conceptual issues and the strategy necessary to move the dial in the policy arena."

James Denton "James Denton is the publisher and editor of the bimonthly print journal World Affairs and its online daily edition at WorldAffairsJournal.org."

Mark Dubowitz "Mark Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington D.C., where he leads projects on sanctions, nonproliferation, and countering electronic repression."

Nicholas Eberstadt "Nicholas Eberstadt is a political economist who holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)."

Eric S. Edelman "Eric Steven Edelman (born 1951) is a former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey (2003–2005), former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Finland (1998–2001), and former Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs (2001–2003)."

Jamie M. Fly "Jamie Fly has served as the Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) since its founding in early 2009. Prior to joining FPI, Mr. Fly served in the Bush administration at the National Security Council (2008-2009) and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (2005-2008). He was Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council, where his portfolio included the Iranian nuclear program, Syria, missile defense, chemical weapons, proliferation finance, and other counterproliferation issues."

Reuel Marc Gerecht "Reuel Marc Gerecht is a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies…He was previously a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for the New American Century. Earlier, he served as a specialist at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations."

On July 11, 2012, Gerecht wrote a Wall Street Journal piece titled "To Topple Assad, Unleash the CIA".

Abe Greenwald "Abe Greenwald is senior editor of Commentary. His work has appeared in various publications, and he is a regular contributor to the Commentary blog."

Greenwald endorsed John McCain in 2008 in the course of which he penned these words: "Simply consider Iraq. Senator McCain has the distinction on Capital Hill of being both the most energetic supporter of the Iraq War and the first, most vocal critic of the Rumsfeld strategy. He actually believed in the importance of the cause, and therefore the necessity of victory. A liberated state is not a goal to be scrapped when things go wrong; it's a principle worthy of unwavering stamina and ingenuity."

John P. Hannah "John Peter Hannah (born January 5, 1962), is a senior fellow at the Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington, DC think tank which was founded in 1985. He is a former national security adviser to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney from 2005 to 2009."

William Inboden "William Inboden is a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law and an Assistant Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin…Previously he served as Senior Director for Strategic Planning on the National Security Council at the White House…"

Bruce Pitcairn Jackson "He has served as the Chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and as chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"According to John B. Judis, Jackson played a key role both in establishing the CLI and in lining up Eastern European nations to join the Bush administration’s coalition of the willing that supported the invasion of Iraq. u2018In the late 1990s, while working for Lockheed Martin, Jackson avidly promoted the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe,' he writes. u2018This year Jackson was able to parlay his NATO connections into support for the administration’s war plans for Iraq.'"

Ash Jain "Ash Jain, a former member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, is a Non-Resident Fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States…Mr. Jain focused on a range of strategic challenges facing the United States and its allies. In addition to covering political developments related to Iran and the Middle East, he analyzed prospects for strengthening multilateral alliances and partnerships and the future of the international system."

Kenneth Jensen This may be Kenneth D. M. Jensen, Associate Director of the Economic Warfare Institute, based in Washington, D.C. I'm not sure.

Allison Johnson (No information.)

Sirwan Kajjo "He is a freelance journalist and a human rights activist. He now lives in Washington, D.C. after being granted asylum in 2008. He has worked as a reporter for Kurdistan TV in their Beirut Office. He worked with the Tharwa Foundation, which is a Washington-based non-profit organization dedicated to democracy and human rights in Syria. Sirwan is now a freelance journalist based in Washington, DC. Sirwan has published many news articles and research on Syrian Kurdish politics."

Lawrence F. Kaplan "Lawrence F. Kaplan is editor of Entanglements: Arguing America and the World, a website of The New Republic devoted to foreign policy…"

Irina Krasovskaya "Dr. Krasovskaya is the founder and President of u2018We Remember Foundation,' a civic initiative that seeks justice for the disappeared and other victims of political repression in Belarus."

William Kristol "In 2003, Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote, The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny, in which the authors analyzed the Bush Doctrine and the history of US-Iraq relations. In the book, Kristol and Kaplan provided support and justifications for war in Iraq.

"He also served as a foreign policy advisor for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign.

"Kristol is a harsh critic of Texas congressman and presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul-(R) and his supporters, he has been quoted as stating that he u2018would be happy if Paul ( and his supporters) were purged from the GOP'. He is a sharp critic of anyone who questions the distributions of taxpayer money to Israel."

Michael Ledeen "He is a former consultant to the United States National Security Council, the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Defense. He has also served as a special adviser to the United States Secretary of State. He held the Freedom Scholar chair at the American Enterprise Institute where he was a scholar for twenty years and now holds the similarly named chair at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies."

"Writing in The Nation, Jack Huberman, who describes Ledeen as u2018the most influential and unabashed warmonger of our time', attributes these quotes to Ledeen:

u2018the level of casualties (in Iraq) is secondary'
u2018we are a warlike people (Americans)…we love war'
u2018Change — above all violent change — is the essence of human history'
u2018the only way to achieve peace is through total war'
u2018The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people'
u2018Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business'"

Tod Lindberg "Tod Lindberg is an American political expert and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His research focuses on political theory, international relations, national security policy, and American politics. He also serves as the editor of Policy Review, the Hoover Institution's Washington, D.C.–based bimonthly journal. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations."

Herbert I. London "Herbert I. London is President Emeritus of Hudson Institute."

Clifford D. May "Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, created immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the United States."

Ann Marlowe "Ann Marlowe, a Hudson Institute Visiting Fellow, is a writer and businesswoman based in New York City. A frequent traveler to Afghanistan — who has embedded with the U.S. Army numerous times — Marlowe writes on Afghanistan’s politics, economy, culture, and U.S. counterinsurgency strategy for the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and other outlets. In 2011 she made four reporting trips to Libya, spending almost four months in the country, and returned in March-April 2012."

Ms. Marlowe has downplayed the antics of American soldiers in Afghanistan, writing "Men at war demonize their enemy and enact their triumph over him symbolically. That is part of the psychology that makes them able to kill." Is it unfair of me to point out that there is something else about the psychology of killing that severely affects the killer? Nicholas D. Kristof writes "An American soldier dies every day and a half, on average, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Veterans kill themselves at a rate of one every 80 minutes. More than 6,500 veteran suicides are logged every year — more than the total number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined since those wars began."

Robert C. McFarlane "Robert Carl u2018Bud' McFarlane (born July 12, 1937) was a National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, serving from 1983 through 1985.

"After a career in the Marines, he became part of the Reagan administration, and was a leading architect of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) for defending the United States against missile attack. Subsequently, he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair."

Joshua Muravchik "Joshua Muravchik is a long-standing proponent of interventionist U.S. foreign policies who has played an important role in shaping neoconservative ideology for decades. An erstwhile Socialist Party activist, Muravchik has been affiliated with numerous political pressure groups, rightist think tanks, and organizations associated with the u2018Israel lobby' in the United States.

Martin Peretz "Martin H. u2018Marty' Peretz…is an American publisher. Formerly an assistant professor at Harvard University, he purchased The New Republic in 1974 and took editorial control soon afterwards."

Danielle Pletka "Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank based in Washington, DC."

"On the use of torture, she told the BBC:

u2018I’m not a big fan of torture. Unfortunately, there are times in war when it is necessary to do things in a way that is absolutely and completely abhorrent to most good, decent people. I don’t want to say that the United States has engaged routinely in such practices, because I don’t think that it is routine by any standard. But that said, if it is absolutely imperative to find something out at that moment, then it is imperative to find something out at that moment, and Club Med is not the place to do it.'"

If Pletka can't condemn torture out of hand, I hate to think about what sort of treatment that she would find appropriate for the U.S. government to use against its own citizens.

John Podhoretz He "is an American neoconservative columnist for the New York Post, the editor of Commentary magazine, the author of several books on politics, and a former presidential speechwriter."

Stephen Rademaker "Stephen Geoffrey Rademaker is an attorney, lobbyist and former Bush Administration government official."

Karl Rove "Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950) is an American political consultant and policy advisor. He was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the George W. Bush administration until Rove’s resignation on August 31, 2007."

Jonathan Schanzer "Jonathan Schanzer is an American author & scholar in Middle Eastern studies, and vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies."

Randy Scheunemann "Randall J u2018Randy' Scheunemann (born January 12, 1960) is an American neoconservative lobbyist. He is the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which was created by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), of which he is a board member. He was Trent Lott’s National Security Aide and was an advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He is a paid lobbyist for the country of Georgia and was 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain’s foreign-policy aide."

I've written about Scheunemann before

"Randy Scheunemann was a key figure in drafting this legislation [Iraq Liberation Act, 1998], and his hawkish (neocon) connections are spread far and wide, including links to the world’s largest military contractor Lockheed Martin. He headed a lobbyist firm that represented Lockheed Martin and was President of The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq alongside Chairman Bruce P. Jackson, a former vice-president of Lockheed Martin. Scheunemann, a consultant and advisor to Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq sometime in 2001/2002, joined with William Kristol and others in supporting military intervention in Iraq. His public statements stress moral and other reasons for the Iraq intervention. A board member of the Project for a New American Century, Scheunemann like all of those associated with PNAC automatically assumes that American Empire is both right and prudent. In his work as an aide to Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, John McCain, and Bob Dole, he has been associated with American efforts in Panama, Somalia, Korea, Bosnia, and Haiti as well as with the expansion of NATO."

Gary J. Schmitt "Gary James Schmitt served as executive director (1999–2001) and president (2002–2005) of the New Citizenship Project. He was the executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) from 1998 to 2005. He is now a resident scholar and director of the American Enterprise Institute's Program on Advanced Strategic Studies."

"Schmitt helped found and direct the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a key neoconservative letterhead group formed in 1997 that played a leading role advocating war in Iraq."

Daniel S. Senor "He is also a Fox News contributor and a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal among other publications. He is co-author the book Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, about the economy of Israel and globalization in the Middle East. Senor is most noted for his former position as chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."

Lee Smith "Lee Smith is a writer based at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) known for his belligerent defense of hawkish U.S. and Israeli policies. Formerly a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, Smith contributes to several media outlets, including Tablet Magazine, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal, where he frequently lambasts the purported weakness of liberals in confronting terrorism, attacks writers who are critical of Israeli policies as being u2018Jew-baiters,' and promotes hardline views of Middle East peace."

Henry D. Sokolski "Henry D. Sokolski is the Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington-based nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars and the media. He was appointed by the U.S. Congress to serve on the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and terrorism, which filed its final report in December 2008."

Daniel Twining "Daniel Twining is Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States…He previously served as a Member of the Secretary of State's Policy Planning Staff, where he was responsible for South Asia and regional issues in East Asia; as the Foreign Policy Advisor to Senator John McCain, for whom he handled foreign and defense policy in the United States Senate; and as a staff member of the U.S. Trade Representative. Dr. Twining has also served as senior policy advisor and foreign policy spokesman for several presidential campaigns."

Peter Wehner "Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a neoconservative-led organization founded in the 1970s that promotes an increased role for Christianity in public policy. A former advisor in the George W. Bush White House, Wehner's track record also includes stints in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Wehner has worked with a number of other rightist groups, including the William Bennett-founded Empower America and the Hudson Institute, and he has been closely associated with leading neoconservative figures like William Kristol."

"Although his writings often focus on domestic policy and Christian morality, Wehner is a reliable hawk on foreign affairs, at times teaming up with like-minded activists to push militarist overseas policies. In September 2011, for example, Wehner joined a coterie of Iraq War promoters in signing an open letter to President Barack Obama that called for maintaining a large U.S. military presence in Iraq after the end of 2011."

My comment is that a focus on Christianity and Christian morality is no guarantee of anything.

Kenneth R. Weinstein "Kenneth R. Weinstein is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Hudson Institute. He oversees the institute’s research, project management, external affairs, marketing, and government relations efforts."

Leon Wieseltier "A widely recognized writer of books, articles, and essays on everything from religion to culture, Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, is generally considered a political moderate even though his views on foreign affairs tend to veer to the neoconservative extreme, especially when dealing with Israel and the Middle East. He has supported the work of hawkish advocacy groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq."

R. James Woolsey "Robert James Woolsey, Jr. (born September 21, 1941) is a foreign policy specialist and former Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Central Intelligence Agency (February 5, 1993–January 10, 1995)."

Khawla Yusuf Yusuf is a human-rights activist who fled Syria in 2005 with her husband Ammar Abdulhamid. They founded the Tharwa Project in 2003 in Syria and later added the Tharwa Foundation.

Dov S. Zakheim "Dov S. Zakheim is a former official of the United States government…He was part of the Project for the New American Century."

"Dov Zakheim's most recent book, A Vulcan's Tale: How the Bush Administration Mismanaged the Reconstruction of Afghanistan (Brookings Institution Press, 2011), discusses the Bush administration’s missed opportunities and struggles to manage two wars, particularly the seemingly endless conflict in Afghanistan."

"In October 2011 he was mentioned as adviser on the Middle East for Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney."

Robert Zarate "Prior to joining FPI [The Foreign Policy Initiative], Robert Zarate worked as a legislative assistant for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, focusing on foreign affairs, national security, homeland security and immigration, and appropriations issues (2009-2011), and earlier as a legislative fellow on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade (2009)."

Radwan Ziadeh "Radwan Ziadeh is a Senior Fellow at the U.S Institute of Peace in Washington D.C, and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) in Washington D.C."

Ziadeh belongs to the Syrian dissident/rebel group known as the Syrian National Council. He has previously supported a NATO-led intervention in Syria. Ziadeh is shown here (holding the white paper) on Hillary Clinton's left:

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby parel » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:54 am

The BBC: A Criminal Instrument in the War on Syria

Evidently, the BBC was not satisfied with the propaganda pieces I referred to in yesterday’s article, so it’s come out with another, equally audacious piece of fiction that reiterates, again without any proof, the same drivel it peddled to us yesterday (and the day before). But what ‘UN’s Angela Kane in Syria urges chemical weapons probe‘ (24/8/13) does is communicate a sense that it (the BBC’s) wishes might yet come true; that the Empire would once again unleash the dogs of war this time on poor, destroyed Syria.



The BBC really is a war junkie. What is really galling is that aside from a single reference to the Russian assertion (and itself a qualified reference), “Russia, Syria’s main ally, said earlier there was evidence rebels were behind Wednesday’s attack“, the views of scientists and experts assembled on WashingtonsBlog (‘Experts Doubt Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims‘) for example, are nowhere to be found. It’s one, big cry for war.



Yet assembling and deferring to informed and reliable opinion and analysis, instead of ‘belief’, is journalism one-o-one; talk to the experts, the media analysts, use some common sense for Christ’s sake! The BBC is always using ‘experts’ but can’t seem to find a single one when it comes to adding any fact to Hague’s ‘belief’.



Why would the Syrian government, on the very day the UN inspection team arrived, gas hundreds of people just a stone’s throw away from the location of the UN inspectors? Why doesn’t the BBC piece even entertain, in the words of William Hague, the “vanishingly small” chance that it would be ‘an own goal’ for the Syrian government to do something so stupid?



Instead the BBC again quoted Hague that the Assad regime was so brutal, and hence of course stupid–everyone knows that brutal and stupid go together–that it would do something like invite the Empire to finish off the job started by its proxies, by murdering hundreds of its own citizens and thus signing its own death sentence. It’s the Reichstag Fire all over again!



Again, I keep coming back to the point that the BBC’s ‘news’ coverage of events in Syria is in reality war propaganda for the government, a government that seems hellbent on killing some more ‘rag heads’, do a little more of the Western version of ‘civilising’ Syria, the cradle of civilisation. It really is disgusting. And to think we are all paying for it.



The US, meanwhile, is facing rising pressure to intervene.



Where is this ‘pressure to intervene’ coming from, aside from the BBC, that is? Well there’s France, just as gung ho to kill some more people of colour as the Brits are and of course, the usual assemblage of right-wing psychos and so-called liberals, and then there’s the BBC.



France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday that “all the information at our disposal converge to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the [regime of Bashar al-Assad] is responsible”.



Back in Mark Mardell’s piece of the 22 August, ‘Obama’s thick red line on Syria‘, Mardell lets the reader know that with his and his master’s help, he’ll get his way; war, war, war, not jaw, jaw, jaw:



There may be a tipping point when moral outrage grows too strong.



Whose ‘moral outrage’ is Mardell referring to? His own? The BBC’s? It’s outrageous but there’s worse. In the same piece, we get the ‘insider dope’ on the war to come (salivating, but spiked with a dollop of moral outrage):



I am certain there are plans for the discreet use of special forces to secure chemical weapons – but it is not clear what the trigger would be.



Ever so discreet is Mardell. Mardell writes as though it’s him that’s involved in planning the invasion (which in a perverted kind of way, he is) but he just hasn’t assembled all his resources yet. And once more, Obama is a dithering fool, who wants to go through the tedious and time-consuming process of making the destruction to come, ‘legal’ (he pants breathlessly):



In either case, Mr Obama is likely to insist on going the full UN route to gather the maximum possible support for any action – and that means waiting for the inspector’s report on earlier incidents at the very least.



Then, at almost the very end of today’s article on Kane’s UN visit, reluctantly included as it were, we read the following:



Russia’s foreign ministry said Moscow had urged President Assad to co-operate with UN inspectors, but questioned the opposition’s willingness to provide “secure, safe access of the [UN] mission to the location of the incident”.

It also said there was evidence that “this criminal act was clearly provocative”, referring to unsubstantiated internet reports that allegations were being made hours before the attack was supposed to have happened.



It’s interesting how the Internet reports are “unsubstantiated” as opposed the BBC’s elevation of “belief” to that of fact. But be sure, the BBC, with its billions, will not be investigating any such ‘unsubstantiated reports’ anytime soon.



Are we really going to let them get away with yet another war on the innocents made possible by the likes of Mark Mardell and his bloodthirsty crew? The fate of millions is effectively played out in the editorial rooms of the major media, and if they say yay, we wage war on the defenceless once again.
parel
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:10 am

The BBC is showing itself to be a joke on all us in the UK.

I don't normally frequent infowars, but this story was linked to on another blog I read ocassionally which demonstrates 'how to keep the lies going' is becoming increasingly difficult in a world where scrutiny of action is available for anyone keen enough to take notice.
It only takes an ocassional slip-up to change perceptions:

Video Footage of ‘Chemical Weapons Attack’ Uploaded Before it Happened? - Russia: Provocation was “pre-planned”

Hundreds of videos showing apparent victims of a chemical weapons attack in Syria were uploaded to YouTube on August 20, a day before media reports say the attack actually happened, prompting Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman to assert the incident was a “pre-planned” provocation staged by rebels.

As PBS reports, “At around 3 a.m. (on August 21st) , patients started streaming in from neighborhoods in suburban Damascus like Zamalka and Ain Terma,” following the alleged chemical weapons attack.

However, a playlist of videos entitled ‘Alleged Chemical Attack in Eastern Ghouta August 21st 2013‘ contains 159 videos – every one of which was uploaded to YouTube on August 20th.

While no one is denying that some kind of attack did indeed take place, the fact that hundreds of videos showing victims of the attack were uploaded to YouTube a day before the incident is supposed to have actually happened remains unexplained.

http://www.infowars.com/video-footage-o ... -happened/
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:08 am

U.S. Says It Believes Syria Used Chemical Weapons


By
ADAM ENTOUS
And
SAM DAGHER
CONNECT

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration said Sunday it believed Syria used chemical weapons in an offensive last week around Damascus and rebuffed the Assad regime's offer to provide U.N. inspectors access to the affected areas, saying the move came too late to be credible.

The comments by a senior administration official signaled that the White House wasn't backing away from a showdown despite apparent efforts by Damascus to ease tensions by allowing United Nations inspectors to visit the areas allegedly hit with chemical weapons.

"If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N. five days ago," a senior Obama administration official said.

"At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official added.

The official said that—based on the reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured and other information—"there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident."

The official said President Barack Obama is still assessing how to respond to "this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons."

The Pentagon has prepared military options for the White House that include cruise missile strikes on regime targets, officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies are still investigating last week's incident, and could present a final assessment to Mr. Obama within days.

Earlier the U.N. said its inspection team was preparing to start its fact-finding mission on Monday after Syria said it would allow U.N. inspectors currently in Damascus immediate access to areas around the capital where the opposition accused the regime of using chemical weapons against fighters and civilians five days ago.

A presenter on Syrian state television, reading a statement attributed to an unnamed official at the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said agreement was reached following a meeting between Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and Angela Kane, the U.N. disarmament chief, who arrived in Damascus on Saturday.

The Syrian statement said the timing of the visit would be coordinated between the U.N. team led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom and the Syrian government.

"The foreign minister affirmed Syria's desire to cooperate with the team of inspectors to unmask the falsehood of the allegations by terrorist groups that Syrian forces used chemical weapons in the eastern Ghouta," it added, referring to the eastern suburbs of Damascus and using the government's term for the rebels battling the regime.

Hundreds of people died in last Wednesday's attack, and human-rights groups say victims bear the hallmarks of sarin nerve gas.


Poised to Attack, US Moves Naval Forces Near Syria

Obama 'Considering Options' on Attack
by Jason Ditz, August 24, 2013

The US continues to move warships in the Mediterranean into the area around Syria, with indications that an attack could be imminent. Officials say that President Obama is still “considering options” on exactly how to attack.

But Pentagon officials discussing the situation yesterday say that they have cruise missiles ready to go, just waiting for the president’s say-so, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed that the call to prepare the missiles came on orders from Obama.

Missile strikes would get the president out of having to put US warplanes at risk of being shot down by Syria’s air defenses, and with President Obama looking to sell his intervention plans as reluctant, are likely to be spun as a compromise “limited” action, even if they quickly escalate out of control.

Though officials continue to say President Obama is waiting to get a more clear account of what happened, there is little indication that it means waiting on actual proof of the Syrian government’s responsibility, as officials have already insisted they are “convinced” of that despite no real evidence to that effect.

The big question is whether clearer heads can still prevail in the face of another round of calls for attack from NATO members like France and Turkey, or more precisely whether Obama thinks he can get enough international support to get away with launching such a war even though he’ll clearly be doing it without UN authorization.

If an attack does happen, expect the US to attempt to keep it pretty limited at first, both for the sake of not fueling public opposition, and to avoid a quick regime change that puts the al-Qaeda-backed rebels in power, since this appears to be simultaneously the worst-case scenario and the one the US attack will be pushing the nation toward.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:06 pm

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

INSIGHT - military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces

Email-ID 1671459
Date 2011-12-07 00:49:18
From bhalla@stratfor.com
To secure@stratfor.com

A few points I wanted to highlight from meetings today --

I spent most of the afternoon at the Pentagon with the USAF strategic
studies group - guys who spend their time trying to understand and explain
to the USAF chief the big picture in areas where they're operating in. It
was just myself and four other guys at the Lieutenant Colonel level,
including one French and one British representative who are liaising with
the US currently out of DC.

They wanted to grill me on the strategic picture on Syria, so after that I
got to grill them on the military picture. There is still a very low level
of understanding of what is actually at stake in Syria, what's the
strategic interest there, the Turkish role, the Iranian role, etc. After a
couple hours of talking, they said without saying that SOF teams
(presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground
focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force
intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian
Army to train right now anyway, but all the operations being done now are
being done out of 'prudence.' The way it was put to me was, 'look at this
way - the level of information known on Syrian OrBat this month is the
best it's been since 2001.' They have been told to prepare contingencies
and be ready to act within 2-3 months, but they still stress that this is
all being done as contingency planning, not as a move toward escalation.

I kept pressing on the question of what these SOF teams would be working
toward, and whether this would lead to an eventual air camapign to give a
Syrian rebel group cover. They pretty quickly distanced themselves from
that idea, saying that the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla
attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite
forces, elicit collapse from within. There wouldn't be a need for air
cover, and they wouldn't expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in
columns anyway.

They emphasized how the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a
piece of cake. Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much
denser, esp around Damascus and on the borders with Israel, Turkey. THey
are most worried about mobile air defenses, particularly the SA-17s that
they've been getting recently. It's still a doable mission, it's just not
an easy one.

The main base they would use is Cyprus, hands down. Brits and FRench would
fly out of there. They kept stressing how much is stored at Cyprus and how
much recce comes out of there. The group was split on whether Turkey would
be involved, but said Turkey would be pretty critical to the mission to
base stuff out of there. EVen if Turkey had a poltiical problem with
Cyprus, they said there is no way the Brits and the FRench wouldn't use
Cyprus as their main air force base. Air Force Intel guy seems pretty
convinced that the Turks won't participate (he seemed pretty pissed at
them.)

There still seems to be a lot of confusion over what a military
intervention involving an air campaign would be designed to achieve. It
isn't clear cut for them geographically like in Libya, and you can't just
create an NFZ over Homs, Hama region. This would entail a countrywide SEAD
campaign lasting the duration of the war. They dont believe air
intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a
massacre
, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would
have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very
public stage. Theyre also questiioning the skills of the Syrian forces
that are operating the country's air defenses currently and how
signfiicant the Iranian presence is there. Air Force Intel guy is most
obsessed with the challenge of taking out Syria's ballistic missile
capabilities and chem weapons. With Israel rgiht there and the regime
facing an existential crisis, he sees that as a major complication to any
military intervention.

The post 2011 SOFA with Iraq is still being negotiated. These guys were
hoping that during Biden's visit that he would announce a deal with
Maliki, but no such luck. They are gambling ont he idea that the Iraqis
remember the iran-iraq war and that maliki is not going to want to face
the threat of Iranian jets entering Iraqi air space. THey say that most
US fighter jets are already out of Iraq and transferred to Kuwait. They
explained that's the beauty of the air force, the base in Kuwait is just a
hop, skip and jump away from their bases in Europe, ie. very easy to
rapidly build up when they need to. They don't seem concerned about the
US ability to restructure its forces to send a message to Iran. They gave
the example of the USS Enterprise that was supposed to be out of
commission already and got extended another couple years to send to the
gulf. WHen the US withdraws, we'll have at least 2 carriers in the gulf
out of centcom and one carrier in the Med out of EuCom. I asked if the
build-up in Kuwait and the carrier deployments are going to be enough to
send a message to Iran that the US isn't going anywhere. They responded
that Iran will get the message if they read the Centcom Web Site. STarting
Jan. 1 expect them to be publishing all over the place where the US is
building up.

Another concern they have about an operation in Syria is whether Iran
could impede operations out of Balad air force base in Iraq.

The French representative was of hte opinion that Syria won't be a
libya-type situation in that France would be gung-ho about going in. Not
in an election year. The UK rep also emphasized UK reluctance but said
that the renegotiation of the EU treaty undermines the UK role and that UK
would be looking for ways to reassert itself on the continent ( i dont
really think a syria campaign is the way to do that.) UK guy mentioned as
an aside that the air force base commander at Cyprus got switched out from
a maintenance guy to a guy that flew Raptors, ie someone that understands
what it means to start dropping bombs. He joked that it was probably a
coincidence.

Prior to that, I had a meeting with an incoming Kuwaiti diplomat (will be
coded as KU301.) His father was high up in the regime, always by the
CP's/PM's side. The diplo himself still seems to be getting his feet wet
in DC (the new team just arrived less than 2 weeks ago,) but he made
pretty clear that Kuwait was opening the door to allowing US to build up
forces as needed. THey already have a significant presence there, and a
lot of them will be on 90-day rotations. He also said that the SOFA that
the US signs with Baghdad at the last minute will be worded in such a way
that even allowing one trainer in the country can be construed to mean
what the US wants in terms of keeping forces in Iraq. Overall, I didnt get
the impression from him that Kuwait is freaked out about the US leaving.
Everyhting is just getting rearranged. The Kuwaitis used to be much
better at managing their relations with Iran, but ever since that spy ring
story came out a year ago, it's been bad. He doesn't think Iran has
significant covert capabililiteis in the GCC states, though they are
trying. Iranian activity is mostly propaganda focused. He said that while
KSA and Bahrain they can deal with it as needed and black out the media,
Kuwait is a lot more open and thus provides Iran with more oppotunity to
shape perceptions (he used to work in inforamtion unit in Kuwait.) He says
there is a sig number of kuwaitis that listen to Iranian media like Al
Alam especially.

On the Kuwaiti political scene - the government is having a harder time
dealing with a more emboldened opposition, but the opposition is still
extremely divided, esp among the Islamists. The MPs now all have to go
back to their tribes to rally support for the elections to take place in
Feb. Oftentimes an MP in Kuwait city will find out that he has lost
support back home with the tribe, and so a lot of moeny is handed out.The
govt is hoping that witha clean slate they can quiet the opposition down.
A good way of managing the opposition he said is to refer cases to the
courts, where they can linger forever. good way for the govt to buy time.
He doesnt believe the Arab League will take significant action against
Syria - no one is interested in military intervention. they just say it to
threaten it.

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1671 ... rawal.html

User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby conniption » Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:49 pm

Land Destroyer - embedded links at source.

"Doctors" Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists

August 25, 2013 - (Tony Cartalucci) The "evidence" upon which the West is propping up its narrative of the Syrian government using chemical weapons against large numbers of civilians hinges so far entirely on claims made by "Doctors Without Borders." In the New York Times article, "Signs of Chemical Attack Detailed by Aid Group," it is reported:

An international aid group said Saturday that medical centers it supported near the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus received more than 3,000 patients showing symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic nerve agents on the morning of the reported attack.

Of those, 355 died, said the group, Doctors Without Borders.

The statement is the first issued by an international organization working in Syria about the attack on Wednesday in the suburbs northeast of Damascus, the capital.


While it is often described by the Western media as "independent," nothing could be further from the truth.

To begin with, Doctors Without Borders is fully funded by the very same corporate financier interests behind Wall Street and London's collective foreign policy, including regime change in Syria and neighboring Iran. Doctors Without Borders' own annual report (2010 report can be accessed here), includes as financial donors, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Google, Microsoft, Bloomberg, Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, and a myriad of other corporate-financier interests. Doctors Without Borders also features bankers upon its Board of Advisers including Elizabeth Beshel Robinson of Goldman Sachs.

Complicating further Doctors Without Borders so-called "independ" and "aid" claims is the fact that their medical facilities are set up in terrorist held regions of Syria, especially along Syria's northern border with NATO-member Turkey. In an interview with NPR, Doctors Without Borders' Stephen Cornish revealed the nature of his organization's involvement in the Syrian conflict, where he explains that aid is being sent to regions outside of the Syrian government's control, and that his organization is in fact setting up facilities in these areas. Cornish admits [emphasis added]:

Over the past months, we've had a surgery that was opened inside a cave. We've had another that was opened in a chicken farm, a third one in a house. And these structures, we've tried to outfit them as best as we can with enough modern technology and with full medical teams. They originally were dealing mainly with combatant injuries and people who were - civilians who were directly affected by the conflict.


In other words, the Wall Street-funded organization is providing support for militants armed and funded by the West and its regional allies, most of whom are revealed to be foreign fighters, affiliated with or directly belonging to Al Qaeda and its defacto political wing, the Muslim Brotherhood. This so-called "international aid" organization is in actuality yet another cog in the covert military machine being turned against Syria and serves the role as a medical battalion.

The "hospitals" in Damascus being supported by Doctors Without Borders are in areas now under threat of being retaken by government forces, and it's these facilities that the Western media is drawing on for "evidence" that first, a chemical attack took place, and second, that it was the government who carried it out. What the Western media is not telling their audiences, is that even Doctors Without Borders admits their own team members are not present at these medical facilities and have only been sending supplies to them - in other words, this evidence is hearsay emanating from terrorist held areas, merely dressed up and spun as actual evidence from a so-called "reputable" international organization.

In Doctors Without Borders' own official statement, it was reported that:
Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.


It was further explained that:

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens.


It is most likely hoped that the vast majority of those reading their news simply take the compromised Western media for their word and never bother to read what Doctors Without Borders actually is doing in Syria or what they even really said regarding the most recent incident. A similar routine was used in Libya where Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International spent their legitimacy attempting to create a pretext for Western military intervention there.


*

Syria 360°

URGENT: FACTS ABOUT THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK IN DAMASCUS

Posted on August 21, 2013 by Alexandra Valiente
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby KeenInsight » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:08 pm

Image

Image
User avatar
KeenInsight
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:54 pm

Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria
Talk Nation Radio: Jean Bricmont: Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria

By davidswanson - Posted on 25 August 2013


Jean Bricmont is the author of Humanitarian Imperialism, and of a recent article on CounterPunch called "The Wishful Thinking Left." Bricmont is a member of the Division of Sciences of the Royal Academy for Sciences, Letters and Arts of Belgium.

You can say no to attacking Syria here: http://bit.ly/LWd85d

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download or get embed code from Archive or AudioPort or LetsTryDemocracy.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://davidswanson.org/talknationradio


Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying
By David Swanson

Source: Warisacrime.org
Sunday, August 25, 2013


"U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria," announces a Los Angeles Times headline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so.

Quoth the article:

"the president made no decisions, but the high-level talks came as the Pentagon acknowledged it was moving U.S. forces into position in the region."

Forgive me, but who the SNAFU made that decision? Does the commander in chief have any say in this? Does he get to make speeches explaining how wrong it would be to attack Syria, meet with top military officials who leave the meeting to prepare for attacks on Syria, and go down in history as having been uninvolved in, if not opposed to, his own policies?

Threatening to attack Syria, and moving ships into position to do it, are significant, and illegal, and immoral actions. The president can claim not to have decided to push the button, but he can't pretend that all the preparations to do so just happen like the weather. Or he couldn't if newspapers reported news.

(Yes, illegal. Read the U.N. Charter:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.")

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies," said the so-called Defense Secretary, but do any of the contingencies involve defending the United States? Do any of them involve peace-making? If not, is it really accurate to talk about "all" contingencies?

In fact, Chuck Hagel only has that "responsibility" because Obama instructed him to provide, not all options, but all military options.

Syrian rebels understand that under all possible U.S. policies, faking chemical weapons attacks can get them guns, while shifting to nonviolent resistance can only get them as ignored as Bahrain. (Ba-who?)

"Obama also called British Prime Minister David Cameron," says the LA Times, "to talk over the developments in Syria. The two are 'united' in their opposition to the use of chemical weapons, the White House said in a statement issued after the call." Well, except for white phosphorus and napalm. Those are good chemical weapons, and the United States government is against bad chemical weapons, so really your newspaper isn't lying to you at all.

What did Obama say to CNN on Thursday?

"[T]he notion that the U.S. can somehow solve what is a sectarian, complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated"

Ya think?

CNN's Chris Cuomo (son of Mario) pushed for war:

"But delay can be deadly, right, Mr. President?"

Obama replied that he was still verifying the latest chemical weapons horseshit. Cuomo brushed that aside:

"There's strong proof they used them already, though, in the past."

Obama didn't reply to that lie, but spouted some vacuous rhetoric.

Cuomo, his thirst for dead Syrian flesh perhaps getting a bit frustrated, reached for the standard John McCainism. Senator McCain, Cuomo said, thinks U.S. "credibility" is lost if Syria is not attacked. (And if the U.S. government were to suddenly claim not to be an institution of mass-murder, and to act on that -- then how would its credibility be?)

Obama, undeterred, went right on preaching against what he was about to do. "Sometimes," Obama said, "what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."

But you promised, whined Cuomo, that chemical weapons use would be the crossing of a Red Line!

Obama replied that international law should be complied with. (For the uninitiated, international law actually forbids attacking and overturning other nations' governments -- even Libya's.) And, Obama pointed out, there are options other than the military.

There are?!

I've found that when Obama starts talking sense like this, he's actually moving rapidly in the opposite direction. The more he explains why it would be wrong and illegal and stupid and immoral to attack Syria, the more you can be sure he's about to do just that.

Here are my, previously published, top 10 reasons not to attack Syria, even if the latest chemical weapons lies were true:

1. War is not made legal by such an excuse. It can't be found in the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United Nations Charter, or the U.S. Constitution. It can, however, be found in U.S. war propaganda of the 2002 vintage. (Who says our government doesn't promote recycling?)

2. The United States itself possesses and uses internationally condemned weapons, including white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium. Whether you praise these actions, avoid thinking about them, or join me in condemning them, they are not a legal or moral justification for any foreign nation to bomb us, or to bomb some other nation where the U.S. military is operating. Killing people to prevent their being killed with the wrong kind of weapons is a policy that must come out of some sort of sickness. Call it Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

3. An expanded war in Syria could become regional or global with uncontrollable consequences. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, China, the United States, the Gulf states, the NATO states . . . does this sound like the sort of conflict we want? Does it sound like a conflict anyone will survive? Why in the world risk such a thing?

4. Just creating a "no fly zone" would involve bombing urban areas and unavoidably killing large numbers of people. This happened in Libya and we looked away. But it would happen on a much larger scale in Syria, given the locations of the sites to be bombed. Creating a "no fly zone" is not a matter of making an announcement, but of dropping bombs.

5. Both sides in Syria have used horrible weapons and committed horrible atrocities. Surely even those who imagine people should be killed to prevent their being killed with different weapons can see the insanity of arming both sides to protect each other side. Why is it not, then, just as insane to arm one side in a conflict that involves similar abuses by both?

6. With the United States on the side of the opposition in Syria, the United States will be blamed for the opposition's crimes. Most people in Western Asia hate al Qaeda and other terrorists. They are also coming to hate the United States and its drones, missiles, bases, night raids, lies, and hypocrisy. Imagine the levels of hatred that will be reached when al Qaeda and the United States team up to overthrow the government of Syria and create an Iraq-like hell in its place.

7. An unpopular rebellion put into power by outside force does not usually result in a stable government. In fact there is not yet on record a case of U.S. humanitarian war benefitting humanity or of nation-building actually building a nation. Why would Syria, which looks even less auspicious than most potential targets, be the exception to the rule?

8. This opposition is not interested in creating a democracy, or -- for that matter -- in taking instructions from the U.S. government. On the contrary, blowback from these allies is likely. Just as we should have learned the lesson of lies about weapons by now, our government should have learned the lesson of arming the enemy of the enemy long before this moment.

9. The precedent of another lawless act by the United States, whether arming proxies or engaging directly, sets a dangerous example to the world and to those in Washington for whom Iran is next on the list.

10. A strong majority of Americans, despite all the media's efforts thus far, opposes arming the rebels or engaging directly. Instead, a plurality supports providing humanitarian aid.

In sum, making the Syrian people worse off is not a way to help them.

But -- guess what? -- the evidence suggests strongly that the latest chemical weapons claims are as phony as all the previous ones.

Who would have ever predicted?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby parel » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:29 am

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

cont. at link.....
parel
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:47 am

Wow. Fucking CFR is saying the US helped Saddam gas all those people? Good christ...

we jumped the shark and it flew into a building
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:02 am

US, Britain and France Agree to Attack Syria Within Two Weeks
Initially Limited Strikes Aim to Avoid Serious War Debate
by Jason Ditz, August 25, 2013

Discussing the matter in a 40 minute phone call on Saturday night, President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed in principle to start attacking Syria within the next two weeks. France, long calling for such a war, is also reportedly in on the idea.

British officials familiar with the situation say that they didn’t rule out seeking UN support for the war, but also don’t expect to actually get that support, and are prepared to ignore the UN and attack anyhow.

The initial attacks are expected to center almost entirely around missile strikes on “command and control” areas, from the US warships which have been moved into the area in the past few days.

Britain is said to be particularly eager to get the attacks going quickly to avoid having to deal with the prospect of parliament voting on the war, and possibly preemptively rejecting the attack. They are also hoping to keep the first strikes very limited to justify not consulting parliament ahead of time.

Limited strikes seem to be the preference of US officials as well, as many are reluctant to see Syria’s rebels actually swept into power by the attacks, even though they seem entirely comfortable to commit themselves to protracted military involvement in the nation.

The question of war debate in the US seems to be entirely beside the point, after President Obama managed to get the US into a Libyan War without even the obligatory after-the-fact Congressional authorization. The polls show the American public still opposed to war as well, but that clearly doesn’t matter to the administration.



Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus
By JPOST.COM STAFF08/23/2013 10:17

Le Figaro reports rebel soldiers trained by US, Jordan, Israel crossed border to Syria on Aug 17.
Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade fighters in Mleha suburb of Damascus, January 26, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic
Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

Related:
Israeli defense experts doubt US will intervene in Syria
Clock ticks while experts kept away from Syria gassing site
The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

The paper quoted a researcher at the French Institute for Strategic Analysis as saying the trained rebels group was passing through Ghouta, on their way to Damascus.

In June, the Los Angeles Times reported that CIA operatives and American special operations units have been training Free Syrian Army soldiers with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late 2012.

The newspaper reported that the training took place at covert bases in Jordan and Turkey.

So far, the Obama administration has been hesitant to sanction large-scale military aid to the rebels for fear that the arms could end up in the hands of radical Islamists currently fighting in the Assad regime.

Washington has been urged by lawmakers at home and critics abroad to increase involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands in the last two years.

The United States has left about 700 combat-equipped troops in Jordan after a training exercise there, at the request of the Jordanian government, US President Barack Obama said on Friday.

"This detachment that participated in the exercise and remained in Jordan includes Patriot missile systems, fighter aircraft, and related support, command, control, and communications personnel and systems," Obama said.

A team of United Nations chemical weapons experts arrived in Damascus on Sunday to investigate the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

President Bashar Assad's government and the rebels fighting him have accused each other of using chemical weapons, a step which the United States had said would cross a "red line" in a conflict which has killed 100,000 people.

The UN team, including weapons experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, will try to establish only whether chemical weapons including sarin and other toxic nerve agents were used, not who used them.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:55 pm

CBS/AP/ August 26, 2013, 12:18 PM
Fearing a U.S. strike, Syria warns of global "chaos"

DAMASCUS, Syria A senior Syrian official said Monday that his country will defend itself against any international attack and will not be an easy target as the U.S. and other countries ramp up rhetoric in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack last week on a rebel-held neighborhood of the Syrian capital.

In an interview with The Associated Press in Damascus, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad said airstrikes or other action against Syria would also trigger "chaos" and threaten worldwide peace and security.

He spoke Monday as support for an international response was mounting if it is confirmed that President Bashar Assad's troops were responsible for the Aug. 21 attack, which activists say killed hundreds.

The Obama administration is now talking behind the scenes as if there is almost no doubt about Assad's use of chemical weapons, CBS News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett reported on "CBS This Morning."

President Obama is moving toward a military strike against Syria. Any final decisions haven't been made, but senior administration officials talk of Syria now as a place where the U.S. and its allies must exact a military price for heavy use of chemical weapons. There is no longer serious debate within the administration if the Assad regime used chemical weapons last week.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also appearing on "CBS This Morning," confirmed Garrett's assessment, adding: "There's no question the administration is building support with our NATO allies."

There are currently high-level conversations between the Obama administration and the British, French and German governments -- part of an intense effort to build a broad coalition outside the United Nations.

The U.N. weapons inspector team currently in Syria is not going to assign blame for any potential chemical weapons attack -- instead just investigate whether one occurred -- making any chance the Security Council will back international action in the two-year-old civil war even less likely. Russia has long been a firm backer of the Assad regime, and on Sunday warned the U.S. to not turn Syria into another Iraq. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday any intervention in Syria without a Security Council resolution would be a grave violation of international law, according to Reuters.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday the Obama administration is "considering all different options."

Speaking with reporters after meeting with his Indonesian counterpart, Hagel said, "If there is any action taken it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of a legal justification."

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also said that in the event the chemical attack was confirmed, "The only option that I can't imagine would be to do nothing."

The Syrian foreign minister, however, warned Syria was ready to respond.

"There will be no international military intervention," Mikdad said in the interview at his office. "If individual countries want to pursue aggressive and adventurous policies, the natural answer ... would be that Syria, which has been fighting against terrorism for almost three years, will also defend itself against any international attack."

"They will bear the responsibility for such an attack, which will result in killing thousands of innocent people, as happened in Libya, and committing criminal actions against a sovereign country," Mikdad added. "Syria will not be an easy target."

Mikdad did not elaborate on how Syria might defend itself, but he said such an attack would trigger "chaos in the entire world."

On Syria intervention, lawmakers find strange bedfellows
U.N. inspectors shot at in Syria on way to visit site of alleged chemical attack
U.S. official claims "very little doubt" Syria used chemical weapons

The kind of international response that might occur is still being debated, but some senior U.S. lawmakers have called for actions similar to the ones NATO and other allies undertook in Libya in 2011: Enforcing a no-fly zone as well as the possibility of missile strikes.

Syria, aleppo, bomb

In this citizen journalism image provided by Aleppo Media Center AMC, which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, Syrians inspect the rubble of damaged buildings due to heavy shelling by Syrian government forces in Aleppo, Syria, Monday, Aug. 26, 2013.
/ AP Photo/Aleppo Media Center AMC

Sen. Corker on "CBS This Morning" called for "surgical, proportional" strikes that "lets the regime know we're not gonna put up these kind of activities."

Top U.S. administration officials do not described their efforts as an attempt to topple the Assad government, but to penalize the widespread use of chemical weapons and deter their future use and proliferation.

Play Video
Syria conflict: U.N. investigators under sniper fire

Play Video
Experts on U.S. options in Syria

The Syrian deputy foreign minister said the U.N. should be given a chance to investigate before any judgment is made, "not strike and then start judging."

"The team is going to do its work. It is not the business of the United States to judge because the final judgment will be that of the team. The team knows what to do," he said.

Mikdad spoke shortly after the U.N. said unidentified snipers opened fire at one of the U.N. vehicles carrying a team investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons. The Syrian government accused the rebels of firing at the team, while activists and the main Syrian opposition group in exile said a pro-government militia was behind the attack.

The foreign minister also said the position of the French government is "shameful and full of lies and irresponsible" and said the same applies to the position of the U.K. and other European countries "which have become promoters of terrorism."

Mikdad said he is "100 percent confident" that neither the Syrian army nor anyone who is part of the Syrian government used chemical weapons, adding the Syrian regime "will never use them against its own people, if it has them."

"If such a thing has happened, then it is the armed groups," he said.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:42 pm

U.N. Pushes Back at U.S. Calls to Abort Syria Inspection Mission
Syrian President Says Accusations of Chemical Attacks Are Politically Motivated



United Nations weapons inspectors arrived at one of the sites of last week's presumed chemical-weapons attacks outside Damascus, spurning U.S. calls for the team to stop their mission as American officials said they are inching closer to a decision for a military strike.
U.N. Inspectors in Syria


U.S. officials told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that it was no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless, said a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Ban "stood firm on principle," ordering his team to continue their work establishing whether chemical weapons or toxins were responsible for the estimated hundreds of deaths of Syrian civilians.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby justdrew » Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:49 pm

fuck it, we might as well have elected mccain.

All holds are removed. Time to politically destroy this president.

He clearly wants to do Iraq all over again. No Clue appears present.

Either he's totally controlled, or totally useless.

Either way, it's over.

high time to start talking Impeachment if even one bomb is launched at Syria.

Call your congresscreatures

Introduce legislation specifically banning any attack.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

Postby jingofever » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:36 pm

A Something-IPSOS poll has support for blowing things up in Syria at 9%, 60% against, at least until America starts kicking some butt in the Middle East again and we get to watch it on TV. Obama said he would let Congress have some role in any decision but with so little public support I don't see them voting for it unless there is an amendment to defund Obamacare, and I'm sure somebody would try that. But it may never get to that point as the White House has only said they would "consult" with Congress, no promise of a vote. Boehner is demanding that Obama "consult" with Congress, still no vote. That is what Congress is there for after all, advise and consult.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests