that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

deepinthajeep said:
Exactly.

If the intel is there and the UN acknowledges their findings point to the Syrian regime being behind these attacks, we have to. The President has already drawn the line in the sand. I certainly wouldn't go as far to say that it's "Reminiscent of Iraq" because that was a war, not a military strike.
Click to expand...

What exactly did the UN inspectors find while they were under sniper fire. Did they go back?
 
Last edited:
I read that this is a UN thing being pushed by Europeans? If true I understand we have to jump into but shouldnt be VERY Minimal and let the Europeans take charge
 
We don't intervene "oh its because there's no interest in that country and the US isn't getting anything out of it. Only seeking benefits Out of every war."
We do intervene
"The US is always sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. "
Sooooo....? Which one is it? .
 
[h1]http://news.yahoo.com/u-allies-prepare-probable-military-strike-syria-000900545.html[/h1][h1]U.S., allies prepare for probable military strike on Syria[/h1]
The United States and its allies geared up for a probable military strike against Syria that could come within days and would be the most aggressive action by Western powers in the Middle Eastern nation's two-and-a-half-year civil war.

Western envoys have told the Syrian opposition to expect a military response soon against President Bashar al-Assad's forces as punishment for a chemical weapons attack last week, according to sources who attended a meeting with the rebel Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.
 
Man, I know it's a touchy subject with multiple sides, but I don't feel the need to get involved in this war.

Lets keep this a Civil War and not a World War.

Of course the U.S will do whatever it needs to do in order to protect all of our interests. But after our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I really can't justify our Military getting involved. Also, what would it do to our economy? Total war such as WWII would be great and push our economy to amazing numbers, although that won't happen again. We get involved in this one, we will get involved in every other one.

Anybody know where our involvement in the Syrian Civil War puts us among Iran, Russia, etc?
 
War is not good for an economy. War can and does make money for certain people or sectors of the economy, if you make weapons and if you get the government contracts to feed, clothe and shelter thousand and even millions of men, you and your firm can make great deal of money doing so. (If you want to read about the US Economy and World War II, read my addendum below.)*

As far as Syria is concerned, a ground war there would still be too small to fundamentally change the Us Economy in the way that the Civil war and the World Wars did. We already have a large and powerful military, with those military assets combat ready and placed through out the globe so there would be no mass mobilization whereby millions of reserves have to be called up, assembled, equipped and transported before they can fight. The conventional war there would likely be very short. A prolonged occupation and national building in Syria would require a large amount of extra money being appropriated to the Military and extra national deficit and debt (or any sudden, special tax increases to finance the prolonged war and occupation and national building) would not be helpful for the US Economy.

Ground troops and military occupation seem extremely unlikely. What is very likely will be some sort of missile, drone and air strike. The result would probably a quick drop in US and European stock prices (Stock markets are always shocked by the out break of a war, no matter how limited) but stock prices, on their own, do not affect the real economy, this is particularly true when we are talking about the short run.

As far as the Economics of US action in Syria are concerned, there will be virtually no changes, for good or for, ill for 99% of Americans.


The Diplomacy of the Syrian situation is much more important and could have a far reaching implications. As remote as the chances are, Syria could start a major ground war and perhaps even a World War. The First World War was triggered over a small, Mediterranean Country and the fact that it worked as flash point, a small but tragically placed fulcrum that leveraged the great powers into open war with one another. The nightmare scenario is that Iran, Russia, Israel, The Arab World, perhaps Pakistan and India and China and the United States and NATO get pulled into the fight. (for another addendum about the diplomacy of World War One on how an assassination in Serbia escalated into a World War)**

A war involving US soldiers in Syria is very unlikely but it could become possible. If the Syrian government finds a US spy or they get very lucky and shoot down a plane and take some pilots hostage, Obama might elect to use a SEAL Team and maybe that SEAL Team encounters resistance, they are not captured but they are severely out numbered and engaged in fire fight where they are completely encircled. Do you risk the humiliation of having multiple Navy SEALs captured. If I were President at that point, I am sending in more SEAL teams and whatever Marines are in the area.

At that point we would have a few dozen spies and special forces liasons, maybe a hundred SEALs and over two thousand jarheads fighting within the borders of Syria. Even to get on a road and travel out of their by road, they may need the Army, the Army has the best mine and IED sweepers. We should take no chances, we might as well increase our use of air power, impose a naval blockade and have some Helicopters come and give further protections to our small ground forces. Now imagine that, Iranians attack this train of Marines and SEALs and Army Sappers, maybe they use nerve gas and take our people by surprise. We cannot order a disorderly retreat, a rout, so our guys fight and get reinforcements. That is why when you go to war, be willing to fight a conflict that is much greater than conventional wisdom initially suggests.

* In addition to private gains, the generally economy can seem more robust during a war. The prime example of that was the American Experience of World War II. Unemployment rates were low but three things cannot be forgotten. We had rationing and wage controls, people did not make very much money and their levels of consumption were being held down by fiat because resources had to go to the War Effort. Much of the fall in the unemployment rate was due to the fact that millions of young men and women, many of whom were unemployed before the war, we in uniform an were either counted as employed or not in the labor force, either of those definitions will reduce the unemployment rate. The US had to borrow a massive amount of money and the debt was paid through a combination of fairly high inflation after the war and repayment of the debt took money out of the economy for years after the war ended.

The US also had an almost perfect set of post-war circumstances which allowed us to pay off the war debt and integrate millions of returning veterans. Every other participant in the war, except for Canada, had all suffered serious attacks on their own soil so their infrastructure and capital stock were either damaged or completely wiped out. However, we knew that Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Japan would eventually rebuild and would be able to pay back long term loans. The result was that a thriving, untouched-by-the-war, manufacturing sector had a virtual monopoly on all manufactured goods within the US and among the entire non communist developed World. Japanese and Europeans bought our goods on credit, which was, medium and long term rock solid.

The fact that we were an exporter helped to increase demand for the dollar. More importantly, the Breton-Woods agreements between the US and the UK established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, supplanting the British pound. The US Dollar also became more in demand because our Arab and Persian allies in the Middle East agreed to use the Dollar for all international oil transactions. When a currency is in high demand, the nation that issues the currency can print large amounts of money and inflation is less severe than if that currency is not being widely used by foreigners.

We did eventually have inflation after the war but our massive export surplus and the Dollar's new found status as the default global currency gave the US government the purchasing power to build infrastructure, pay for education for returning GI's, help with home purchases and still keep tax rates low. The assistance with home buying was very important because it helped returning GI's to pick where they wanted to live and they often times resettled in places where the War's effects had transferred economic activity. In Seattle, Portland and up and down the California Coast, GI's could afford to live permanently and raise family in their own home, near the newly developed areas that created peacetime jobs. Highways combined with cheap energy, lower taxes, renewed confidence in property rights, an end to war time privations, a spirit of savings and thrift and top notch public education all combined to allow the US to avoid serious post war economic problems.

If we had a war even half or a quarter the cost of WW2, I am not sure if we could wage it without suffering from hyper inflation and post war recession or depression.










**

World War One and What it May Portend For Syria and the World in 2013


In addition to entangled alliances, great powers had a myriad of grievances with other powers and they saw tempting opportunities to aggrandize their nations while one of their rivals was fighting someone else. In World War One, Austria Declares War on Serbia, Serbia gets Russian Backing, which triggers Russian entry into the War, which makes Germany Duty Bound to back Russia. the UK tries to stay neutral but France wants to avenge its humiliating defeat at the hands of the Germans in 1876. The French go on to reason that once Germany is engaged with fighting in Eastern Europe, they can fight and defeat Germany, regain territories lost in the 1870's and extract a ransom from Germany.

The German High Command anticipated that the French had plans to attack Western Germany while they fight the Russians and Serbians. The Germans resolved to knock the French out of the war before they engage Russia (which was thought of as very slow to mobilize) but that plan involved a vast sweep through Belgium and Belgian Neutrality was assured by Great Britain. In the age of sail, as long as the British had Naval superiority, even the shortest Channel crossings by troop transports (ships that can carry large numbers of soldiers but have little or no room for naval weapons) would be stopped because the short trip from Dunkirk or Calais to Dover, would take at least a day under sail power and the British Royal Navy would be able to sink most of those troop transports.

Britain does not want war but it has insure that Belgium stays neutral and that the Germans do not occupy it, a vast land power like Germany could use Belgian points as a way of invading Britain. With high powered steamships, the run from Calais or Dunkirk could be very successful as long as the attacker had local and partial naval superiority. The Germans had built such a fleet to do such a thing.

The British drew a line in the sand and told the Germans that the two countries would be engaged in all out war if Belgium were to be attacked. The Germans, with no intention of invading Britain and the direct Franco-German border heavily fortified, a sweep through Belgium was the best option (the British army was fraction the size of the German army and red coat were far-flung in places like India and South Africa. Britain was in no position to be an imminent threat to Germany.

The British expeditionary forces, those reserve units that were positioned to fight in Europe were small in number. A reporter asked the Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Emperor of Germany, that in the event of a war with Britain and an attempted British invasion of Germany, His Majesty, the kaiser, would have the invaders "arrested." He was only half jokingly equating the British army's manpower for an invasion of Germany with a group of hooligans.

In 1915, Italy, a new nation trying to cement it's legitimacy at home and to project power and gain respect from abroad, enters the war against Austria and Germany. The Ottoman Empire wants to curtail British and French power in the Middle East. later on Japan joins the war as an Ally of Britain, it did so for the same reasons as Italy and Japan was looking to conquer the meager German colonies in the Pacific. Finally, the United States joins the War in 1917.

If Britain had not been in the War, the US would not have been recruited into the War by Britain. Britain should not have been in the War but France's aggression caused the Germans to engage a two front war and their strategy involved. France's aggression was caused by a past German humiliation and by Germany's willingness to attack Russia. Russia felt like it had to intervene by defending Serbia and attacking all who would attack it. Austria attacks Serbia because it feels that the Russians will not help Serbia and if they did, Germany would assist Austria. A Serbian nationalist assassinated an Austrian Prince, which is what started the fall of the diplomatic dominoes. World War One was years and decades in the making but it was not inevitable and an assassin's bullet in the Balkans caused a war to break out that would go on to kill more people, in combat, than the previous 500 years of European warfare.

Today we see China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey North Korea, South Korea, Japan, the United States and NATO powers all having serious historical grievances against at least one of the other aforementioned powers. Every power that was listed has a current diplomatic problem with at least one other country. We have non state actors, we have an Arab world in turmoil and we have Israel and Iran near Syria, with interests there and alliances among the larger World Powers. There is also the matter of Russia's geography, it is near or directly borders many countries. India, Iran and China also have borders that touch many foreign countries.

There is also the fact that a country like Turkey, China, Japan and France all want more respect globally and they may expand a Syrian war for that reason alone. Do not rule out the power of megalomania. If Iran raid Pakistan, Pakistan attacks India, China may attack India, Japan attacks Chinese possessions in the Pacific and North Korea sees this as a chance to attack Japan. Japan asks for help from the US, we send our Korean garrison and North Korea attacks South Korea, with Russian backing. The US is coaxed into war because The Iranian Mullahs, Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin acted in crazy fashion and it inflamed more established regional and strategic tension through our Asia.

This scenario is, thankfully, very remote but not completely implausible. Sadly, in 1913 in Europe, a World War that would involve Western Europeans also seemed quite unlikely at the time.
 
View media item 556993


Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence

of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used

chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/...pts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See alsohttp://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization.

In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with

bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rillo561 said:
WMD, chemical warfare, spreading democracy. You can pick and choose. There's no proof other than known liars spreading lies to get us in another endless war while America rots from the inside.
Click to expand...

hmmmm......I like how you think
 
All this talk of conspiracy, the lead up to WWIII is just very far fetched. The military option on the table will be Cruise Missiles fired from US ships positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean and from carrier strike group Truman. Doubtful that Obama would even used air strikes as Syria still has a Air Defense Network, and at this point he would be wise not to put US airmen in harms way.  

The US public will not stomach boots on the grounds or a no fly zone, so the best options is precision strikes against Command and Control, artillery, military units capable of chemical weapon delivery and other targets valuable to Assad's war efforts against the FSA. The precision strike will crater Syrian airfields and deny access to Russian and Iranian supplies that are flown in daily for the war effort. 

Providing arms covertly to the Southern Resistance would also be a viable option as they have mostly avoided cooperation with Muslim extremist elements, and their backing comes from Jordan and the Saudis. This would be a Sunni awakening that would be counter to Iranian Shia supported forces allied to Assad. 
 
rashi said:
View media item 556993


Washington and its British and French puppet governments are poised to yet again reveal their criminality. The image of the West as War Criminal is not a propaganda image created by the West’s enemies, but the portrait that the West has painted of itself.

The UK Independent reports that over this past week-end Obama, Cameron, and Hollande agreed to launch cruise missile attacks against the Syrian government within two weeks despite the lack of any authorization from the UN and despite the absence

of any evidence in behalf of Washington’s claim that the Syrian government has used

chemical weapons against the Washington-backed “rebels”, largely US supported external forces, seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Indeed, one reason for the rush to war is to prevent the UN inspection that Washington knows would disprove its claim and possibly implicate Washington in the false flag attack by the “rebels,” who assembled a large number of children into one area to be chemically murdered with the blame pinned by Washington on the Syrian government.

Another reason for the rush to war is that Cameron, the UK prime minister, wants to get the war going before the British parliament can block him for providing cover for Obama’s war crimes the way that Tony Blair provided cover for George W. Bush, for which Blair was duly rewarded. What does Cameron care about Syrian lives when he can leave office into the waiting arms of a $50 million fortune.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-to-enter-poison-gas-attack-site-8784435.html

The Syrian government, knowing that it is not responsible for the chemical weapons incident, has agreed for the UN to send in chemical inspectors to determine the substance used and the method of delivery. However, Washington has declared that it is “too late” for UN inspectors and that Washington accepts the self-serving claim of the al Qaeda affiliated “rebels” that the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/...pts-rebels-account-on-syria-prepares-for-war/ See alsohttp://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/25/syria-accepts-un-inspectors-us-spurns-call-as-too-late/

In an attempt to prevent the UN chemical inspectors who arrived on the scene from doing their work, the inspectors were fired upon by snipers in “rebel” held territory and forced off site, although a later report from RT says the inspectors have returned to the site to conduct their inspection. http://rt.com/news/un-chemical-oservers-shot-000/

The corrupt British government has declared that Syria can be attacked without UN authorization, just as Serbia and Libya were militarily attacked without UN authorization.

In other words, the Western democracies have already established precedents for violating international law. “International law? We don’t need no stinking international law!” The West knows only one rule: Might is Right. As long as the West has the Might, the West has the Right.

In a response to the news report that the US, UK, and France are preparing to attack Syria, the Russian Foreign Minister, Lavrov, said that such unilateral action is a “severe violation of international law,” and that the violation was not only a legal one but also an ethical and moral violation. Lavrov referred to the lies and deception used by the West to justify its grave violations of international law in military attacks on Serbia, Iraq, and Libya and how the US government used preemptive moves to undermine every hope for peaceful settlements in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Once again Washington has preempted any hope of peaceful settlement. By announcing the forthcoming attack, the US destroyed any incentive for the “rebels” to participate in the peace talks with the Syrian government. On the verge of these talks taking place, the “rebels” now have no incentive to participate as the West’s military is coming to their aid.

In his press conference Lavrov spoke of how the ruling parties in the US, UK, and France stir up emotions among poorly informed people that, once aroused, have to be satisfied by war. This, of course, is the way the US manipulated the public in order to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. But the American public is tired of the wars, the goal of which is never made clear, and has grown suspicious of the government’s justifications for more wars.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that “Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed.” http://news.yahoo.com/syria-war-escalates-americans-cool-u-intervention-reuters-003146054.html However, Obama could not care less that only 9 percent of the public supports his warmongering. As former president Jimmy Carter recently stated, “America has no functioning democracy.” http://rt.com/usa/carter-comment-nsa-snowden-261/ It has a police state in which the executive branch has placed itself above all law and the Constitution.

This police state is now going to commit yet another Nazi-style war crime of unprovoked aggression. At Nuremberg the Nazis were sentenced to death for precisely the identical actions being committed by Obama, Cameron, and Hollande. The West is banking on might, not right, to keep it out of the criminal dock.

The US, UK, and French governments have not explained why it matters whether people in the wars initiated by the West are killed by explosives made of depleted uranium or with chemical agents or any other weapon. It was obvious from the beginning that Obama was setting up the Syrian government for attack. Obama demonized chemical weapons–but not nuclear “bunker busters” that the US might use on Iran. Then Obama drew a red line, saying that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was such a great crime that the West would be obliged to attack Syria. Washington’s UK puppets, William Hague and Cameron, have just repeated this nonsensical claim. http://rt.com/news/uk-response-without-un-backing-979/ The final step in the frame-up was to orchestrate a chemical incident and blame the Syrian government.

What is the West’s real agenda? This is the unasked and unanswered question. Clearly, the US, UK, and French governments, which have displayed continuously their support for dictatorial regimes that serve their purposes, are not the least disturbed by dictatorships. They brand Assad a dictator as a means of demonizing him for the ill-informed Western masses. But Washington, UK, and France support any number of dictatorial regimes, such as the ones in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and now the military dictatorship in Egypt that is ruthlessly killing Egyptians without any Western government speaking of invading Egypt for “killing its own people.”

Clearly also, the forthcoming Western attack on Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with

bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria any more than freedom and democracy were reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, neither of which gained any “freedom and democracy.”

The Western attack on Syria is unrelated to human rights, justice or any of the high sounding causes with which the West cloaks its criminality.

The Western media, and least of all the American presstitutes, never ask Obama, Cameron, or Hollande what the real agenda is. It is difficult to believe than any reporter is sufficiently stupid or gullible to believe that the agenda is bringing “freedom and democracy” to Syria or punishing Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against murderous thugs trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

Of course, the question wouldn’t be answered if asked. But the act of asking it would help make the public aware that more is afoot than meets the eye. Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to jihad terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government. What is the agenda behind Washington’s support of terrorism?

Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China. Russia has large populations of Muslims and is bordered by Muslim countries. Even China has some Muslim population. As radicalization spreads strife into the only two countries capable of being an obstacle to Washington’s world hegemony, Western media propaganda and the large number of US financed NGOs, posing as “human rights” organizations, can be counted on by Washington to demonize the Russian and Chinese governments for harsh measures against “rebels.”

Another advantage of the radicalization of Muslims is that it leaves former Muslim countries in long-term turmoil or civil wars, as is currently the case in Iraq and Libya, thus removing any organized state power from obstructing Israeli purposes.

Secretary of State John Kerry is working the phones using bribes and threats to build acceptance, if not support, for Washington’s war crime-in-the-making against Syria.

Washington is driving the world closer to nuclear war than it ever was even in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War. When Washington finishes with Syria, the next target is Iran. Russia and China will no longer be able to fool themselves that there is any system of international law or restraint on Western criminality. Western aggression is already forcing both countries to develop their strategic nuclear forces and to curtail the Western-financed NGOs that pose as “human rights organizations,” but in reality comprise a fifth column that Washington can use to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Russia and China have been extremely careless in their dealings with the United States. Essentially, the Russian political opposition is financed by Washington. Even the Chinese government is being undermined. When a US corporation opens a company in China, it creates a Chinese board on which are put relatives of the local political authorities. These boards create a conduit for payments that influence the decisions and loyalties of local and regional party members. The US has penetrated Chinese universities and intellectual attitudes. The Rockefeller University is active in China as is Rockefeller philanthropy. Dissenting voices are being created that are arrayed against the Chinese government. Demands for “liberalization” can resurrect regional and ethnic differences and undermine the cohesiveness of the national government.

Once Russia and China realize that they are riven with American fifth columns, isolated diplomatically, and outgunned militarily, nuclear weapons become the only guarantor of their sovereignty. This suggests that nuclear war is likely to terminate humanity well before humanity succumbs to global warming or rising national debts.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
wow im kinda impressed if we really get down like that
seems like we playing chess while everyone else is playing tiddly winks
 
We've been "getting down" like this for decades, the military industrial complex is a real conspiracy not a conspiracy theory.
 
Wr said:
deepinthajeep said:
Exactly.

If the intel is there and the UN acknowledges their findings point to the Syrian regime being behind these attacks, we have to. The President has already drawn the line in the sand. I certainly wouldn't go as far to say that it's "Reminiscent of Iraq" because that was a war, not a military strike.
Click to expand...

What exactly did the UN inspectors find while they were under sniper fire. Did they go back?
Click to expand...

They're there now.

The U.N. Chief is saying they need four more days before making a ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/0...rs-need-anot?videoId=260652008&videoChannel=1
 
KingKoopa said:
What does this suppose to mean?
Click to expand...
not sure but it looks funny
laugh.gif
 
I feel like more Americans need to realize they're on the bus in "Speed".

Educate yourselves and think for yourselves and figure out for yourselves what the best solution is.

But you're just as blind if you think talking in circles about how criminal American foreign policy is is actually accomplishing anything.

The foreign policy of every nation on earth is considered criminal or barbaric except to those in charge of running that country.

That clipping on the tenuous alliances moving around is pretty good though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom