Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by IanEye » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:24 pm
concession to the hoi polloi
came back at the Kerryites
successfully resisted constant calls for intervention
he’s given us an out, too
A President backed into a corner has returned this right to Congress – a post-Truman precedent we must fight to preserve.
by stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:27 pm
by justdrew » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:05 pm
by stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:32 pm
Iran Reaffirms Syria, Assad Alliance As Key To 'Resistance Front' Against Israel
AP | By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Posted: 01/26/2013 10:13 am EST
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran considers any attack against Syria an attack on itself, an advisor to the Islamic Republic's supreme leader was quoted as saying Saturday, the strongest warning to date by a top Iranian official that Tehran will use any available means to keep the regime of President Bashar Assad in power.
Ali Akbar Velayati, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Syria plays a major role in the "resistance front" of anti-Israel states and militant groups.
"Syria plays a very key role in supporting, or God forbid destabilizing, the resistance front. For this same reason, an attack on Syria is considered attack on Iran and Iran's allies," Velayati was quoted by the semiofficial Mehr news agency as saying.
The comments reflect Iran's commitment to prevent the possible collapse of Assad, who is fighting a bloody war with rebels. More than 60,000 people have been killed since the conflict began in March 2011, according to the U.N.
Velayati, Iran's former foreign minister, said the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas would had been defeated in wars with Israel without Syrian support.
"If Syria didn't provide logistical support to Hezbollah, Hezbollah and Hamas would have not achieved victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars (respectively)," he said.
He was referring to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War and Gaza War during the winter of 2008-2009. Both militant groups claimed victory although Israel has disputed this.
"Regional reactionary (regimes) and the West attacked the golden ring of resistance by targeting Syria," Mehr quoted him as saying, a reference to U.S. and Gulf Arab backing for the rebels.
Iran is Syria's most important ally in the Middle East. Tehran has provided Assad's government with military and political backing for years, and has kept up its strong support for the regime since the uprising began in March 2011.
Iran’s “Carrier Killer” Missile Improves Accuracy
By Zachary Keck
June 22, 2013
Iran has improved the accuracy of its supersonic anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), the Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf), considerably, an Iranian military official said earlier this week.
As previously reported, the Khalij-e Fars is a solid-fuel ASBM with a range of 300 km when carrying a 650-kg payload. Iranian officials have depicted it as a way to deny extra-regional navies—read the U.S. Navy— the ability to operate close to Iranian shores, including in the Strait of Hormuz.
In remarks to Iranian media outlets, Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) Aerospace Division, said that Iran’s “defense experts” had increased the precision of the Khalij-e Fars from 30 meters to 8.5 meters.
Hajizadeh claimed that the improvements had been made at the insistence of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Brigadier General said the IRGC had been thrilled when the second test of the missile hit a moving vessel with a 30 meter precision rate. However, Hajizadeh said, “When we explained the achievement to the Supreme Leader, His Excellency voiced pleasure in the increased precision of the missile, but demanded us to increase its precision capability to less than 10-15 meters [sic].”
"Less than 6 months later, our experts improved the precision capability of this missile to less than 8.5m.”
It was unclear on what basis Hajizadeh was making his assessment that the ASBM’s accuracy had improved. Iran first tested the Khalij-e Fars in 2011 and, according to Iranian media outlets, carried out the second test in July 2012. The 6-month timeframe suggests that the accomplishment was achieved in December or January of this year.
It was not clear from the news reports if another test had been carried out after improvements had been made. Iran has a history of declaring advances in its military systems, which are usually difficult to verify or proven to be fabrications.
That being said, according to a new report on Iran’s naval capabilities by the Institute for the Study of War’s Christopher Harmer, Iran carried out five naval drills in December 2012 and January 2013. Additionally, in April 2013 Iran’s deputy defense minister said Iran had tested a new anti-ship ballistic missile without giving details on the missile or timing of the test.
In an interview with The Diplomat, Christopher Harmer wrote by email, “We do not know, in open source, the exact performance specifications of Iranian missiles. This applies equally to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and anti-ship missiles, of both the ballistic and cruise missile varieties.”
However, Harmer added that, “We have seen a steady increase in the size, payload, range, and accuracy of their missiles. An easy verification of this is the type and range of rockets that Hamas and Hezbollah have been firing at Israel for the last 10 – 15 years.” He also noted that Iran’s ability to domestically produce these missiles had improved greatly in recent years.
Although his claims about accuracy cannot be verified, Brigadier General Hajizadeh did provide a number of interesting details about the ASBM. For example, he told reporters that Major General Hassan Tehrani Moqaddam had been heavily involved in designing and producing the ASBM. IRGC officials have called Moqaddam the pioneer of Iran’s ballistic missile program and some analysts believe he received training for this work in China or North Korea. He was killed in a suspicious blast at an IRGC missile depot in 2011. Iran denied the explosion was the work of external sabotage but other sources reported Israel had orchestrated the attack.
The Fars News Agency report announcing the improved accuracy of Iran’s “carrier killer” also explained the missile in greater detail than many previous reports on it:
“The distinctive feature of the missile lies in its supersonic speed and trajectory. While other missiles mostly traverse at subsonic speeds and in cruise style, the Persian Gulf moves vertically after launch, traverses at supersonic speeds, finds the target through a smart program, locks on the target and hit it. The range of the solid-fuel missile is 300km and it can be fired from triple launchers. The missile could successfully hit a mobile target one-tenth of an aircraft carrier in its early tests.”
In line with previous statements on the Khalij-e Fars, Hajizadeh emphasized its mission of denying extra-regional powers the ability to operate close to Iranian waters.
“And when the Persian Gulf missile came into operation in the IRGC Navy, the countdown started for the trans-regional countries to end the mission of their warships,” Fars News quoted the Hajizadeh as saying.
by Ben D » Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:21 pm
3 more Russian warships cross Bosphorus, en route to Syria
Russian warships cross Bosphorus, en route to Syria
1 hour ago
Three Russian warships crossed Turkey's Bosphorus Strait Thursday en route to the eastern Mediterranean, near the Syrian coast, amid concern in the region over potential US-led strikes in response to the Damascus regime's alleged use of chemical weapons.
The SSV-201 intelligence ship Priazovye, accompanied by the two landing ships Minsk and Novocherkassk passed through the Bosphorus known as the Istanbul strait that separates Asia from Europe, an AFP photographer reported.
The Priazovye on Sunday started its voyage from its home port of Sevastopol in Ukraine "to the appointed region of military service in the eastern Mediterranean", a military official told the Interfax news agency.
Russia, a key ally of Damascus, has kept a constant presence of around four warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the Syrian crisis, rotating them every few months.
It also has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus whose origins date back to Moscow's close relationship with Damascus under the Soviet Union.
Moscow vehemently opposes the US-led plans for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to the chemical attack outside Damascus last month.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Wednesday that any US Congress approval for a military strike against Syria without UN consensus would represent an "aggression".
by seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:26 pm
Pentagon Says 75,000 Troops Might Be Needed to Seize Syria Chemical Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: November 15, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.
The estimated size of the potential effort, provided to the White House by the military’s Central Command and Joint Staff, called into question whether the United States would have the resources to act quickly if it detected the movement of chemical weapons and forced President Obama, as he said in August, to “change my calculus” about inserting American forces into Syria. So far Mr. Obama has avoided direct intervention into the most brutal civil conflict to emerge from the Arab Spring uprisings, and the Pentagon assessment was seen as likely to reinforce that reluctance.
The White House on Thursday declined to comment on the Defense Department’s assessment.
The Pentagon has not yet been directed to draft detailed plans of how it could carry out such a mission, according to military officials. There are also contingency plans, officials say, for securing a more limited number of the Syrian chemical weapons depots, requiring fewer troops.
The discovery that Hezbollah has set up camps close to some of the depots, however, has renewed concern that as the chaos in Syria deepens, the country’s huge chemical weapons stockpiles could fall into the wrong hands. Hezbollah fighters have been training at “a limited number of these sites,” said one senior American official who has been briefed on the intelligence reports and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But the fear these weapons could fall into the wrong hands is our greatest concern.”
So far, there is no evidence that Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon but has become increasingly active in protecting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, is making any effort to gain control over the chemical weapons. Its decision to train fighters close to the major chemical sites, some officials speculate, could be rooted in a bet that their camps will not be bombed if the West believes there is a risk of hitting the stockpiles.
Mr. Assad has openly threatened to retaliate beyond his country’s borders if outside forces try to break the current stalemate to unseat him, and there is renewed concern about whether he or his proxies might use the chemical weapons as their last shield. Officials say that attacks along the borders with Turkey and Israel have forced the administration to consider the risks of Syria’s troubles spreading in the region.
Mr. Obama has been clear for more than a year that he would resist direct American intervention, but in August he said one circumstance would cause him to revisit that position. “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” he said at a news conference. “That would change my calculus.”
Mr. Obama brought those concerns up again in a news conference on Wednesday, saying that the United States was in close contact with Turkey and Jordan “and obviously Israel, which is having already grave concerns as we do about, for example, movements of chemical weapons that might occur in such a chaotic atmosphere and that could have an impact not just within Syria but on the region as a whole.”
The American concerns have been heightened by another sign that Mr. Assad may be arming himself to strike out — Syria’s continued imports of missile technology, even at a time when the Assad government is reeling under sanctions.
Syria already has a vast arsenal of missiles able to reach Turkey or strike Israel, and in the past it has provided Hezbollah with missiles. But American officials voice concern over even modest improvements in Syria’s missile stockpiles.
American intelligence and security officials, in interviews in recent days, said that the United States had picked up evidence that North Korea had resumed providing Syria with some missile technology, including assistance with Scud missiles.
A shipment of graphite cylinders that could be used in missiles and are suspected to have come from North Korea were found in May aboard a Chinese ship en route to Syria, Reuters reported Wednesday. North Korean technicians and engineers stationed in Syria have recently increased their efforts on a joint program to improve the Scud D missile’s accuracy and the warhead’s ability to defeat interceptors, IHS Jane’s International Defense Review reported in June.
Given the chaos in Syria, and Mr. Assad’s daily effort to survive, it is not clear what condition the Syrian missile program is in. The Turkish military has expressed worry about Syria’s ballistic missiles and its chemical weapons stocks. Concerned about this potential threat, Turkey and NATO nations have informally been discussing the possibility that some of the alliance’s Patriot antimissile system could be sent to Turkey, which has no Patriot batteries of its own.
Independent analysts expressed concern that if Mr. Assad is backed into a corner, he could use or threaten to use missiles tipped with chemical weapons against the rebels, despite the threat of Western intervention if he did.
“There is credible information that the Assad regime has been upgrading and expanding its chemical weapons arsenal, which needs to be maintained,” said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “A credible delivery capability is also needed, hence the North Korean angle.”
The estimation that it would take 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons grew out of what Mr. Obama, in his August news conference, referred to as extensive contingency planning for how the United States would respond if the chemical weapons were on the move or appeared vulnerable.
“The problem is that you can’t just pick this stuff up and ship it out of the country,” said one senior military official who has studied the problem. The chances of contamination of nearby Syrian towns, and of attacks on the effort to move the weapons, were simply too high. Because many of the containers holding the material are old, or of unknown reliability, the risk of leakage is high.
As a result, the official said, much of the chemical stockpiles might have to be destroyed in place. That is a lengthy, dangerous job, and would require enormous force protection around the sites. When the United States went through similar efforts to destroy its own stockpiles — under strict environmental regulations that would likely not apply in Syria — the process took years.
A second official familiar with the plans disputed the idea that all of the stockpiles would have to be destroyed in place. Some, he suggested, could be airlifted out for destruction elsewhere or burial at sea. “There are several options,” he said, “but all carry varying degrees of risk.”
That official said that rebel groups receiving nonlethal help from the United States have been asked to mark and secure any chemical weapons sites they come across.
The United States has varying estimates of how many sites exist, with the C.I.A. estimating about three dozen and the military using figures in the high 40s.
Officials said that the United States military had quietly sent a task force of more than 150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed forces there, among other things, to prepare for the possibility that Syria will lose control of its chemical weapons.
Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael R. Gordon contributed reporting.
by seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:52 pm
Bush-Era War Criminals Should "Shut the F**k Up"
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
When he started singing "Shut the F**k Up" upon his return to The Daily Show on Tuesday night, with pictures of Donald Rumsfeld, L. Paul Bremer, and William Kristol prominently displayed in the background, it was clear that it didn't take long for Jon Stewart to be back in mid-season form. Stewart, who spent the summer in Jordan directing his first feature film called Rosewater, composed his "Shut the F**k Up" one-line song/chant (which he repeated several times) for a segment titled "Uncle Jonny Stew's Good Time Syria Jamboree."
"Shut the F**k Up" was surgically focused on the pack of neoconservatives -- former George W. Bush Administration officials and apologists -- that have managed to insert themselves into the debate over how to respond to the situation in Syria.
As Buzzfeed reported, "After running through the similarities between the arguments made to justify striking in Syria and Iraq, Stewart compared our foreign policy to seventh-grade bullying; then he eviscerated cable networks for having "The Idiot Parade" — Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, and L. Paul Bremer — discussing the conflict on TV."
Watching the likes of former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Bremer, the director of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in post-invasion Iraq, Kristol, founder and editor of the The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel -- men who have absolutely no credibility -- and others of the George W. Bush era commenting during this national debate on how to deal with Syria makes one remember the misinformation and disinformation that was handed out on a daily basis, and the blood of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that was spilled over a massive lie.
On Wednesday evening CNN's Anderson Cooper gave Paul Wolfowitz, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration, an unfettered platform. The smug Wolfowitz basically settled on two talking points: more military muscle should be used when dealing with Syria; and, the Obama Administration has been woefully inadequate in its response to the Syrian civil war.
Asking for opinions from a group of what Stewart characterized as "idiots" known on cable TV as "experts," is tantamount to asking Michael "Heck of a job Brownie" Brown advice on hurricane preparation.
Seeing this gang of gasbags, liars and war criminals on television opine about possible military action in Syria serves only to further convince one that President Obama is on the wrong course.
In response to a Facebook friend's advocacy, albeit reluctantly, of striking Syria, I recently wrote:
Like many others, I too have been wrestling over whether to intervene in Syria, At this time, I believe that the potential consequences -- no real end plan, the potential for numerous civilian casualties, Assad still in power, greater distrust on the Arab street -- far outweighs whatever might be achieved. And, at this point, the Obama Administration has been very unclear about what actually might result from so-called surgical strikes. Mr. Kerry's [recent] remarks were all too reminiscent of Colin Powell's "we know for sure" remarks at the U.N. in 2003, when arguing that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that the invasion of Iraq was justifiable.
It goes without saying that we all should be revolted by the use of chemical weapons by any government or insurgency, and by the resultant horrific number of casualties. However, before we get overly self-righteous, we should remember that Saddam Hussein's government used chemical weapons on the Iranians with the tacit support of the U.S.
I would counsel being very careful about what you ask for as the consequences may be far more unsettling than the government might be prepared for or even be willing to acknowledge.
Referring to the horde of neocons now polluting the debate over Syria, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pointed out on her program Wednesday evening that although she was "heartened" by the public debate, "The Bush White House made a case for war that was not true... they lied our country into war," she said.
Maddow added: "If you're an architect or a conspirator or one of the primary actors in the Iraq War – in arguably the grandest and most craven foreign policy disaster in American history, your opinion is no longer required on matters of war and peace. Please enjoy painting portraits of dogs or something. Painting portraits of yourself in the bathroom, trying to get clean. Please enjoy the loving comfort of your family and loved ones, and your god. But we as a country never ever need to hear from you about war, ever again. You can go now."
by seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:03 pm
On Syria: The U.S. Is No Lone Ranger and Should Put That Six Shooter Away
Posted on Sep 2, 2013
By Juan Cole
The odd discourse in Washington around President Barack Obama’s determination to bomb Syria over the country’s use of chemical weapons assumes a moral superiority on the part of the United States and its allies on this issue that can only astonish anyone who knows the history. At the same time, the most propagandistic allegations are being made about Iran. The creation of a fetish around some sorts of weapons (i.e., chemical ones) takes the focus off others that are just as deadly to innocents. The U.S. has had a checkered history in the use of unconventional arms, and is still among the most dedicated to retaining the ability to make, stockpile and use weapons that indiscriminately kill innocent noncombatants.
The British government as recently as 2012 licensed its firms to sell chemical agents that can be used as poison gas precursors to the Baath government of Syria. Although critics of Prime Minister David Cameron used phrases such as “astonishingly lax” to describe British government policy in this regard, it seems clear that Western governments value profits over morality when it comes to providing such material to seedy dictatorships. Most of Syria’s chemical weapons production technology came from “large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany,” according to security information provider GlobalSecurity.org. Russia may have played a later role, though I find Western charges of Iranian involvement unlikely for reasons I’ll get to later.
Nor are U.S. hands clean with regard to chemical weapons use by allies. In the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988, the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein deployed chemical weapons against Iranian troops at the front. Iran had a three-to-one manpower advantage over Iraq, and Hussein sought to level the playing field with gas. Notoriously, his regime also deployed poison gas against separatist Iraqi Kurds, whom he accused of allying with the enemy, Iran, during wartime. As I showed in the early days of Truthdig, the Reagan administration knew about the chemical weapons use. It nevertheless sought an alliance with the Iraqi government via Donald Rumsfeld, then-Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East. High administration officials deflected Iran’s complaint against Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. The United States did not just ignore Iraqi use of gas. It actively protected Baghdad from international sanctions for it. At the same time, the Reagan administration licensed U.S. firms to provide deadly agents such as anthrax to Saddam Hussein. At the very least, President Obama should acknowledge the Reagan administration’s actions and apologize for them to the people of Iran (where many veterans still suffer from burned lungs) before he strikes an outraged pose toward Syria and Russia. The U.S. has committed to destroying its own once-extensive arsenal of chemical weapons, but 10 percent remain and their final disposal keeps slipping into the next decade.
That Iran suffered so badly from U.S.-backed Iraqi chemical weapons use makes it especially weird that American pundits and politicians should be citing a need to deter Iran by bombing Syria. The Iranian political elite refused to deploy chemical weapons against Iraq, and its religious leader, Ali Khamenei, has condemned making, stockpiling and using weapons that kill innocent noncombatants, including nuclear arms. The U.S. and Israeli case that Iran has a militarized nuclear weapons program that seeks a warhead has never been backed by any convincing proof, and so far resembles their similar case against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was groundless. That both countries have big nuclear weapons stockpiles of their own also makes their demand that Iran be sanctioned hypocritical at the least.
Although he later had to walk it back, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani deplored the Syrian government’s use of gas against its own people, and Tehran-watchers are convinced that the Baath army’s action has provoked a heated debate within the closed Iranian elite.
Current Iranian President Hasan Rouhani has condemned all chemical weapons use. Because Tehran backs the Syrian Baath government, it has publicly taken the same position as Russia, that the rebels gassed themselves. That allegation is not plausible, and it is clear that even some high ranking Iranian political figures have difficulty saying it with a straight face.
Short of weapons of mass destruction, the United States has a rather sick attachment to land mines and cluster munitions. Washington used land mines in World War II, and for decades after civilians in countries such as Tunisia were still being killed by them on occasion. In Cambodia and Laos, bomb disposal teams continue the tedious and deadly work of removing munitions dropped during the Vietnam War some 40 years prior. The United States placed tens of thousands of land mines between North and South Korea, though control of them has now been given to Seoul. U.S. allies in Afghanistan also laid thousands of land mines, and years later Afghans were still losing their feet to them. The 2001 Iranian film “Kandahar” showed a gaggle of Afghans hopping on one foot. The U.S. has refused to sign the international convention against land mines, and insists that it now has “non-persistent” land mines that can be deployed and then remotely destroyed. This theory of civilian-safe land mines remains untested and seems implausible on the face of it.
The U.S. makes, stockpiles and sells cluster munitions, which deploy thousands of “bomblets.” These weapons sometimes do not explode, and form a persistent danger to civilian populations in the aftermath. They are inevitably indiscriminate in their impact on noncombatants and have no place in contemporary warfare. Often children will pick them up and play with them, with fatal results. Some 83 countries have banned them, and 31 are currently suffering from the aftereffects of their use. As the 2006 Lebanon War was winding down, the Israeli military used American-supplied cluster munitions on southern Lebanon, dropping an estimated 4 million bomblets. This action was certainly a war crime, since the U.N. Security Council had already called for a cease-fire, which everyone knew would end the war shortly. The bombs had no conceivable military use. They were intended to make it dangerous for Shiite farmers to return to their homes just north of Israel. That is, they were aimed at the civilian population. Some 40 percent of the bomblets failed to explode immediately.
In the year after the war ended, some 200 Lebanese noncombatants were killed by Israeli cluster bombs in south Lebanon. The United States imposed no penalties on Israel for this action, despite its own laws that forbid indiscriminate use of U.S.-supplied cluster bombs. Just this summer, the U.S. announced the sale of $630 million worth of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. That country and Israel are among the most vigorous proponents of an attack on Syria because of its deployment of a weapon that indiscriminately killed noncombatants. They have also condemned Damascus for using cluster munitions.
I am not arguing that because the United States and its allies have indiscriminately killed large numbers of innocent noncombatants in the past, the Syrian government should be held harmless for its own gas attack at Ghouta, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Two wrongs never make a right. I am arguing that the United States is in no moral or legal position to play the Lone Ranger here. The first steps Washington should take are to acknowledge its own implication in such atrocities and to finish destroying its chemical stockpiles and join the ban on land mines and cluster bombs.
Now that we’re in the 21st century, moreover, it is time to cease using the supposedly macho language of violence in response to political challenges. Tossing a couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles on a few government facilities in Damascus is not going to deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, and it will not affect the course of the war. Sonni Efron, a former State Department official and now a senior government fellow at Human Rights First, has argued that the United States and Europe could have a much more effective impact by announcing that in response to the Baath provocation they were going to close the loopholes that allow Syrian banks to continue to interface with world financial institutions. This strategy would involve threatening third-party sanctions on Russian banks that provide Damascus with a financial backdoor. A united U.S.-EU push on this front would be far more consequential for the Syrian government than a limited military strike.
Indeed, the Syrian regime will almost certainly welcome the cruise missiles. In the aftermath, Syria can portray itself as a hero of Arab nationalism, standing up to a bullying, imperialist West. Pro-regime demonstrations are already being planned in Iraq, Egypt and Tunisia. Domestically, President Bashar al-Assad portrays his foes as al-Qaida cadres trained and paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States. (Although there are al-Qaida affiliates among the rebels, the vast majority of the demonstrators and rebels are ordinary Syrians tired of the regime’s tyranny and economic stagnation). Assad will be in a better position to make this argument after the Tomahawks land, and some Syrians who have been on the fence may well declare for the regime for nationalist reasons. In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles at the Sudan of President Omar al-Bashir. If you don’t know, do a quick Google search for whom the sitting president of the Sudan is now. Bombs are seldom the answer to geopolitical problems
by justdrew » Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:04 am
Syrian woman PLEADS to McCain: ‘I beg you’ not to attack
By Arturo Garcia | Thursday, September 5, 2013 23:57 EDT
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) encountered a moment of heartfelt opposition to an American attack on Syria during a town hall Thursday, as a constituent who said she could trace her family history to the pre-Christian days of the region laid into him rejecting the idea of another military engagement in the Middle East.
“We cannot afford to turn Syria into another Iraq, or Afghanistan,” the woman, who identified herself as “Jumana,” told McCain as the crowd applauded. “I beg you. My family is there. There’s so many good Syrians. The majority of the Syrian people want to save their country. And you need to also listen to the majority of the American people, who do not want you to go there.”
The woman also told McCain that her 18-year-old cousin who lived in the country was recently killed by forces opposing President Bashar al-Assad.
“To listen to you say there is no good option in Syria, I refuse to believe that,” the woman told McCain. “The good option right now is to take Saudi Arabia and Iran and force them to stop supporting the two sides in Syria. And you could do it. You can do it by diplomacy, not bombs, Senator McCain. We cannot afford to shed more Syrian blood.”
In response, McCain cited his own trips to the region as proof of his familiarity with the conflict.
“I’ve met them, I know them, and I know who they are,” McCain said of the opposition forces. “And I know Syria well enough to know that it is a moderate nation. It is not a nation that will embrace these foreign fighters. But to say that Bashar Assad is anything but a merciless butcher, then we have a strong disagreement.”
by Ben D » Fri Sep 06, 2013 6:46 am
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2013/09/06/Russia-sends-warship-with-special-cargo-towards-Syria.html
Russia sends warship with ‘special cargo’ towards Syria
Friday, 6 September 2013
AFP, Moscow A Russian warship carrying “special cargo” will be dispatched toward Syria, a navy source said on Friday, as the Kremlin beefs up its presence in the region ahead of possible U.S. strikes against the Damascus regime.
The large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov will on Friday leave the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it will head to Syria’s coast, the Interfax news agency quoted a source from the Saint Petersburg-based central naval command as saying.
“The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.
The source did not specify the nature of the cargo.
Russia has kept a constant presence in the eastern Mediterranean during the Syrian crisis.
In recent days Russia has made steps to beef up its naval grouping in the region.
The Russian destroyer Smetlivy will soon join the group in the region as well as the destroyer Nastoichivy, Interfax has said.
The anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev has already entered its zone of operation as the flagship of the current rotation of the Mediterranean grouping, a military source has told the news agency.
Already in place in the eastern Mediterranean is the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.
They are expected to be joined by the large landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk and the missile cruiser Moskva. The reconnaissance ship Priazovye is also on its way to join the group.
The U.S. already has a strong naval presence in the region and any U.S. military action against Syria is widely expected to be launched from the sea.
by coffin_dodger » Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:01 am
Russia sends warship with ‘special cargo’ towards Syria
by coffin_dodger » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:44 pm
US: The indispensable (bombing) nation
By Pepe Escobar
Yes We Scan. Yes We Drone. And Yes We Bomb. The White House's propaganda blitzkrieg to sell the Tomahawking of Syria to the US Congress is already reaching pre-bombing maximum spin - gleefully reproduced by US corporate media.
And yes, all parallels to Iraq 2.0 duly came to fruition when US Secretary of State John Kerry pontificated that Bashar al-Assad "now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein" as an evil monster. Why is Cambodia's Pol Pot never mentioned? Oh yes, because the US supported him.
Every single tumbleweed in the Nevada desert knows who's itching for war on Syria; vast sectors of the industrial-military complex; Israel; the House of Saud; the "socialist" Francois Hollande in France, who has wet dreams with Sykes-Picot. Virtually nobody is lobbying Congress NOT to go to war.
And all the frantic war lobbying may even be superfluous; Nobel Peace Prize winner and prospective bomber Barack Obama has already implied - via hardcore hedging of the "I have decided that the United States should take military action" kind - that he's bent on attacking Syria no matter what Congress says.
Obama's self-inflicted "red line" is a mutant virus; from "a shot across the bow" it morphed into a "slap on the wrist" and now seems to be "I'm the Bomb Decider". Speculation about his real motives is idle. His Hail Mary pass of resorting to an extremely unpopular Congress packed with certified morons may be a cry for help (save me from my stupid "red line"); or - considering the humanitarian imperialists of the Susan Rice kind who surround him - he's hell bent on entering another war for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the House of Saud lobby under the cover of "moral high ground". Part of the spin is that "Israel must be protected". But the fact is Israel is already over-protected by an AIPAC remote-controlled United States Congress. [1]
What about the evidence?
The former "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" are doing their part, enthusiastically supporting the White House "evidence" with a dodgy report of their own, largely based on YouTube intel. [2]
Even Fox News admitted that the US electronic intel essentially came from the 8200 unit of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) - their version of the NSA. [3] Here, former UK ambassador Craig Murray convincingly debunks the Israeli intercepted intel scam.
The most startling counterpunch to the White House spin remains the Mint Press News report by AP correspondent Dale Gavlak on the spot, in Ghouta, Damascus, with anti-Assad residents stressing that "certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack''.
I had a jolt when I first read it - as I have been stressing the role of Bandar Bush as the dark arts mastermind behind the new Syria war strategy (See Bandar Bush, 'liberator' of Syria, Asia Times Online, August 13, 2013).
Then there's the fact that Syrian Army commandos, on August 24, raiding "rebel" tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar, seized a warehouse crammed with chemicals required for mixing "kitchen sarin". The commando was hit by some form of nerve agent and sent samples for analysis in Russia. This evidence certainly is part of President Vladimir Putin's assessment of the White House claims as totally unconvincing.
On August 27, Saleh Muslim, head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), told Reuters the attack was "aimed at framing Assad''. And in case the UN inspectors found the "rebels" did it, "everybody would forget it". The clincher; "Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdogan of Turkey?"
So, in a nutshell, no matter how it happened, the locals in Ghouta said Jabhat al-Nusra did it; and Syrian Kurds believe this was a false flag to frame Damascus.
By now, any decent lawyer would be asking cui bono? What would be Assad's motive - to cross the "red line" and launch a chemical weapons attack on the day UN inspectors arrive in Damascus, just 15 kilometers away from their hotel?
This is the same US government who sold the world the narrative of a bunch of unskilled Arabs armed with box cutters hijacking passenger jets and turning them into missiles smack in the middle of the most protected airspace on the planet, on behalf of an evil transnational organization.
So now this same evil organization is incapable of launching a rudimentary chemical weapons attack with DIY rockets - a scenario I first outlined even before Gavlak's report. [4] Here is a good round-up of the "rebels" dabbling with chemical weapons. Additionally, in late May, Turkish security forces had already found sarin gas held by hardcore Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis.
So why not ask Bandar Bush?
We need to keep coming back over and over again to that fateful meeting in Moscow barely four weeks ago between Putin and Bandar Bush. [5]
Bandar was brazen enough to tell Putin he would "protect" the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. He was brazen enough to say he controls all Chechens jihadis from the Caucasus to Syria. All they needed was a Saudi green light to go crazy in Russia's underbelly.
He even telegraphed his next move; "There is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation."
That's a monster understatement - because the Saudis never wanted Geneva II in the first place. Under the House of Saud's ultra-sectarian agenda of fomenting the Sunni-Shi'ite divide everywhere, the only thing that matters is to break the alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah by all means necessary.
The House of Saud's spin du jour is that the world must "prevent aggression against the Syrian people". But if "the Syrian people" agrees to be bombed by the US, the House of Saud also agrees. [6]
Compared to this absurdity, Muqtada al-Sadr's reaction in Iraq stands as the voice of reason. Muqtada supports the "rebels" in Syria - unlike most Shi'ites in Iraq; in fact he supports the non-armed opposition, stressing the best solution is free and fair elections. He rejects sectarianism - as fomented by the House of Saud. And as he knows what an American military occupation is all about, he also totally rejects any US bombing.
The Bandar Bush-AIPAC strategic alliance will take no prisoners to get its war. In Israel, Obama is predictably being scorned for his "betrayal and cowardice" in the face of "evil". The Israeli PR avalanche on congress centers on the threat of a unilateral strike on Iran if the US government does not attack Syria. As a matter of fact congress would gleefully vote for both. Their collective IQ may be sub-moronic, but some may be led to conclude that the only way to "punish" the Assad government is to have the US doing the heavy work as the Air Force for the myriad "rebels" and of course jihadis - in the way the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Kurdish peshmerga in Iraq and the anti-Gaddafi mercenaries in Libya duly profited.
So here, in a nutshell, we have the indispensable nation that drenched North Vietnam with napalm and agent orange, showered Fallujah with white phosphorus and large swathes of Iraq with depleted uranium getting ready to unleash a "limited", "kinetic" whatever against a country that has not attacked it, or any US allies, and everything based on extremely dodgy evidence and taking the "moral high-ground".
Anyone who believes the White House spin that this will be just about a few Tomahawks landing on some deserted military barracks should rent a condo in Alice in Wonderland. The draft already circulating in Capitol Hill is positively scary. [7]
And even if this turns out to be a "limited", "kinetic" whatever, it will only perpetuate the chaos. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has referred to it as "controlled chaos". Not really; the Empire of Chaos is now totally out of control.
1. White House to Congress: Help protect Israel, Politico, September 2, 2013.
2. Le document des services de renseignement sur l'attaque chimique syrienne, Liberation, September 2, 2013.
3. Israeli intelligence first confirmed Assad regime behind alleged chemical attack, Fox News, August 28, 2013.
4. 'War on chemical weapons': Obama traps himself into Syrian combat, Russia Today, August 28, 2013.
5. Russian President, Saudi Spy Chief Discussed Syria, Egypt, Al Monitor, August 21, 2013.
6. Arab states urge action against Syrian government, Reuters, September 2, 2013.
7. President Obama's draft legislation regarding the Syrian conflict, Washington Post, September 1, 2013
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_Eas ... 30913.html
by seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:49 pm
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 5h
Would a House vote against a Syria strike be AIPAC's biggest defeat in Congress in at least a decade?
by stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:50 pm
seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:49 am wrote:Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 5h
Would a House vote against a Syria strike be AIPAC's biggest defeat in Congress in at least a decade?
by stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:22 pm
Guest Post: 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks The U.S. Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/05/2013 22:34 -0400
Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
A couple of weeks ago I highlighted the fact that declassified documents analyzed by Foreign Policy proved that the U.S. government knew about Saddam Hussein’s egregious use of chemical weapons and in fact we helped him be more effective in their deployment. Well unfortunately that’s just the tip of the American chemical weapons iceberg.
From white phosphorus and depleted uranium (DU) usage in Iraq, to secret radioactive tests in poor black neighborhoods within the U.S. itself (something I previously covered here), the list is pretty horrific. While you might be able to say that this is the reality of war, then what the heck are we doing entering a civil war in a country where chemical weapons are being used that poses no threat to us? Absolutely insane and criminal.
I summarized the Top 10 list here, but I highly suggest also checking out the entire post with pictures from PolicyMic. Summary below:
Washington doesn’t merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We’re talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.
1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971
Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses.
2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009
White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.
In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons.
The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.
3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004
In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon.
4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988
CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks.
5. The Army Tested Chemicals on Residents of Poor, Black St. Louis Neighborhoods in The 1950s
In the early 1950s, the Army set up motorized blowers on top of residential high-rises in low-income, mostly black St. Louis neighborhoods, including areas where as much as 70% of the residents were children under 12. The government told residents that it was experimenting with a smokescreen to protect the city from Russian attacks, but it was actually pumping the air full of hundreds of pounds of finely powdered zinc cadmium sulfide.
6. Police Fired Tear Gas at Occupy Protesters in 2011
The savage violence of the police against Occupy protesters in 2011 was well documented, andincluded the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants. Tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy soldiers in battle by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
7. The FBI Attacked Men, Women, and Children With Tear Gas in Waco in 1993
At the infamous Waco siege of a peaceful community of Seventh Day Adventists, the FBI pumped tear gas into buildings knowing that women, children, and babies were inside. The tear gas was highly flammable and ignited, engulfing the buildings in flames and killing 49 men and women, and 27 children, including babies and toddlers.
8. The U.S. Military Littered Iraq with Toxic Depleted Uranium in 2003
In Iraq, the U.S. military has littered the environment with thousands of tons of munitions made from depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive nuclear waste product. As a result, more than half of babies born in Fallujah from 2007 – 2010 were born with birth defects. Some of these defects have never been seen before outside of textbooks with photos of babies born near nuclear tests in the Pacific.
9. The U.S. Military Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Japanese Civilians with Napalm from 1944 – 1945
Napalm is a sticky and highly flammable gel which has been used as a weapon of terror by the U.S. military. In 1980, the UN declared the use of napalm on swaths of civilian population a war crime. That’s exactly what the U.S. military did in World War II, dropping enough napalm in one bombing raid on Tokyo to burn 100,000 people to death, injure a million more, and leave a million without homes in the single deadliest air raid of World War II.
10. The U.S. Government Dropped Nuclear Bombs on Two Japanese Cities in 1945
It seems odd that the only regime to ever use one of these weapons of terror on other human beings has busied itself with the pretense of keeping the world safe from dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous governments.
We have no moral authority. Period.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests
