Kerry is a scumbag and I can't believe I voted for this fraud. All anti-war throwing his medals over the White House fence and now he wants war! What a fucker!
War is a bad thing, but when its the only option then you have to go with it. It's good when people go against the political philosophy of their party. More politicians should do it.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
More western intelligence pointing fingers at the government NATO wants gone. Are you supporting military action against Assad? Why not wait for an impartial investigation? There are reports of rebel forces admitting to the attacks. Reports that rebels received chemical weapons from Saudi intelligence. Reports from multiple doctors and health agencies that sarin gas was not the nerve agent used. Mulitple reports of hollywood-style stagings of chemical weapon victims. Huge discrepancies in the number of victims between aid orgs and western govt sources (obviously being politicized). This is far from cut and dried.
In your posts on this topic, you have acknowledged the geopolitical aspects of Western involvement in this conflict. You realize the benefits to western powers of controlling the outcome, so you know there are other, largely unspoken motives. Youre surely also aware of the recent precedent for intelligence falsification and media complicity in Iraq. So it seems you realize military intervention wouldn't be a humanitarian effort. Yet it appears you are supporting military action as a means to an end. With the end being expansion of hegemony in the region. You also spoke of a power vacuum if the US doesn't act. I have to assume this means you view military intervention as a necessary evil, because US hegemony has a stabilizing effect. Am I right?
If so, that is a really depressing kind of cynisism. I disagree about the stabilizing affect, I think you give US hegemony way too much credit there, and would argue that the US has a net negative affect on world peace, esp in the middle east. Read the RAND report on Syria from a few years back, it is the blueprint being used by the US, and it speaks to playing up religious and ethnic divides to destabilize Syria. I think there are ways this could be resolved using international (not just NATO) forces and negotiations if outside players stood down. But an equitable solution, in the best interests of the Syrian people is not the goal. Unfortunately, by overstepping their mandate in Libya after Russia and China abstained on that resolutionvote, NATO has affectively tied the hands of the UN from a peacekeeping point of view. Russia and China will use their vetos on this for many reasons, but mostly because they won't trust that this will end at humanitarian intervention - they agreed to enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya, and NATO immediately made it about regime change.
More western intelligence pointing fingers at the government NATO wants gone. Are you supporting military action against Assad? Why not wait for an impartial investigation? There are reports of rebel forces admitting to the attacks. Reports that rebels received chemical weapons from Saudi intelligence. Reports from multiple doctors and health agencies that sarin gas was not the nerve agent used. Mulitple reports of hollywood-style stagings of chemical weapon victims. Huge discrepancies in the number of victims between aid orgs and western govt sources (obviously being politicized). This is far from cut and dried.
In your posts on this topic, you have acknowledged the geopolitical aspects of Western involvement in this conflict. You realize the benefits to western powers of controlling the outcome, so you know there are other, largely unspoken motives. Youre surely also aware of the recent precedent for intelligence falsification and media complicity in Iraq. So it seems you realize military intervention wouldn't be a humanitarian effort. Yet it appears you are supporting military action as a means to an end. With the end being expansion of hegemony in the region. You also spoke of a power vacuum if the US doesn't act. I have to assume this means you view military intervention as a necessary evil, because US hegemony has a stabilizing effect. Am I right?
If so, that is a really depressing kind of cynisism. I disagree about the stabilizing affect, I think you give US hegemony way too much credit there, and would argue that the US has a net negative affect on world peace, esp in the middle east. Read the RAND report on Syria from a few years back, it is the blueprint being used by the US, and it speaks to playing up religious and ethnic divides to destabilize Syria. I think there are ways this could be resolved using international (not just NATO) forces and negotiations if outside players stood down. But an equitable solution, in the best interests of the Syrian people is not the goal. Unfortunately, by overstepping their mandate in Libya after Russia and China abstained on that resolutionvote, NATO has affectively tied the hands of the UN from a peacekeeping point of view. Russia and China will use their vetos on this for many reasons, but mostly because they won't trust that this will end at humanitarian intervention - they agreed to enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya, and NATO immediately made it about regime change.
some good points here.
the bolded is a good description of how i see it yeah.It may be cynical but it does have strong explanatory power in relation to international relations
I'm going to have to get back to you on the rand report, haven't read it before.
and im not actually totally in favour of intervention, i just felt that the valid arguements for intervention where being ignored here and that someone should air them.
More western intelligence pointing fingers at the government NATO wants gone. Are you supporting military action against Assad? Why not wait for an impartial investigation? There are reports of rebel forces admitting to the attacks. Reports that rebels received chemical weapons from Saudi intelligence. Reports from multiple doctors and health agencies that sarin gas was not the nerve agent used. Mulitple reports of hollywood-style stagings of chemical weapon victims. Huge discrepancies in the number of victims between aid orgs and western govt sources (obviously being politicized). This is far from cut and dried.
In your posts on this topic, you have acknowledged the geopolitical aspects of Western involvement in this conflict. You realize the benefits to western powers of controlling the outcome, so you know there are other, largely unspoken motives. Youre surely also aware of the recent precedent for intelligence falsification and media complicity in Iraq. So it seems you realize military intervention wouldn't be a humanitarian effort. Yet it appears you are supporting military action as a means to an end. With the end being expansion of hegemony in the region. You also spoke of a power vacuum if the US doesn't act. I have to assume this means you view military intervention as a necessary evil, because US hegemony has a stabilizing effect. Am I right?
If so, that is a really depressing kind of cynisism. I disagree about the stabilizing affect, I think you give US hegemony way too much credit there, and would argue that the US has a net negative affect on world peace, esp in the middle east. Read the RAND report on Syria from a few years back, it is the blueprint being used by the US, and it speaks to playing up religious and ethnic divides to destabilize Syria. I think there are ways this could be resolved using international (not just NATO) forces and negotiations if outside players stood down. But an equitable solution, in the best interests of the Syrian people is not the goal. Unfortunately, by overstepping their mandate in Libya after Russia and China abstained on that resolutionvote, NATO has affectively tied the hands of the UN from a peacekeeping point of view. Russia and China will use their vetos on this for many reasons, but mostly because they won't trust that this will end at humanitarian intervention - they agreed to enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya, and NATO immediately made it about regime change.
also some interesting readings on intelligence agencies and iraq here
the bolded is a good description of how i see it yeah.It may be cynical but it does have strong explanatory power in relation to international relations
I'm going to have to get back to you on the rand report, haven't read it before.
and im not actually totally in favour of intervention, i just felt that the valid arguements for intervention where being ignored here and that someone should air them.
the final bolded section i would also agree with.
Thanks for the links, I'll try to check them out tonight.
I understand your cynicism...probably realistic, but tough to swallow for an idealist. You're right to be floating those scenarios as reasons for intervention, cause they're much more accurate than the humanitarian story being played up in the press (tho it would be nice to see you also play devil"s advocate for those scenarios as well ). Even with the humanitarian narrative, public support for intervention is astonishingly low. Democracy? Ya right....
Here is a mondoweiss article with a decent summary of the RAND document on the "long war", as it applies to Syria. If you follow the link to mondoweiss, there is a link to the entire 200+ page RAND pdf.
The long war: Syria is at the crux of ‘pipeline geopolitics’
Posted by Philip Weiss
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/the-long- ... itics.html
A number of folks have sent me this, so I pass it along. Nafeez Ahmed argues in the Guardian that “Syrian intervention plans fuelled by oil interest, not chemical weapons concerns”. And it is falling out according to grand plans, including a Rand report on the “long war” to embroil jihadists in internal strife so that we don’t lose Gulf oil. Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in the UK:
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces [began in] 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”
So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.
Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that “the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource.” As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has “motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states”:
“The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized… For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources… The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”
In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:
“Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces… the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace… US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”
Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate “on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.” Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:
“One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations.”
The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US’s key allies and enemies – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran – to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a ‘youth bulge’, internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.
The report noted especially that Syria is among several “downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow”, increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an ‘Arab Spring’, it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region’s growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
also, we have to recognize that syria is one of the largest buyers of chemical weapons ... largely from north korea ...
and, Saddam Hussein got the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds and Iranians from the US.
and, no media attention, no Congressional calls to withdraw aid to Israel, no talk of a UN resolution or or air strikes against Israel when they openingly use cluster bombs and phosphorus shells in the Gaza Strip and, in Lebanon.
One minute we’re sad for these people and the next minute we’re reminded they’re Arabs and its back to f-ck em!
You know what; we survived our years of a civil war; brother against brother, families destroyed, homes and towns burned to the ground, horrors of war that left thousands upon thousands of people dead, and, yes, many, many were children. Maybe this is what they have to go through to get it right, in order to save their country for their future generations.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
also, we have to recognize that syria is one of the largest buyers of chemical weapons ... largely from north korea ...
and, Saddam Hussein got the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds and Iranians from the US.
and, no media attention, no Congressional calls to withdraw aid to Israel, no talk of a UN resolution or or air strikes against Israel when they openingly use cluster bombs and phosphorus shells in the Gaza Strip and, in Lebanon.
One minute we’re sad for these people and the next minute we’re reminded they’re Arabs and its back to f-ck em!
You know what; we survived our years of a civil war; brother against brother, families destroyed, homes and towns burned to the ground, horrors of war that left thousands upon thousands of people dead, and, yes, many, many were children. Maybe this is what they have to go through to get it right, in order to save their country for their future generations.
I am going to keep your last paragraph an use it?
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
NEWS • Syria • News • ISSUE 49•36 • Sep 5, 2013
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
You know what; we survived our years of a civil war; brother against brother, families destroyed, homes and towns burned to the ground, horrors of war that left thousands upon thousands of people dead, and, yes, many, many were children. Maybe this is what they have to go through to get it right, in order to save their country for their future generations.
I partly agree, but then again we didn't have the weapons that are currently being used in Syria. It was pretty even in our civil war when it came to weaponry.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
and, Saddam Hussein got the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds and Iranians from the US.
and, no media attention, no Congressional calls to withdraw aid to Israel, no talk of a UN resolution or or air strikes against Israel when they openingly use cluster bombs and phosphorus shells in the Gaza Strip and, in Lebanon.
One minute we’re sad for these people and the next minute we’re reminded they’re Arabs and its back to f-ck em!
You know what; we survived our years of a civil war; brother against brother, families destroyed, homes and towns burned to the ground, horrors of war that left thousands upon thousands of people dead, and, yes, many, many were children. Maybe this is what they have to go through to get it right, in order to save their country for their future generations.
i'm still not convinced that the kurds were gassed by saddam ... either way - i support the sentiment of your post ... except for the last point ...
the big difference in comparing to the US civil war is that in Syria - it is the influence of foreign entities on both sides ...
The US has little credibility left: Syria won't change that
Obama's argument for intervention is a hollow one: America's use of chemical weapons in Falluja makes that clear
Gary Younge
The Guardian, Sunday 8 September 2013
'...The roots of this conflict are deep, entangled and poisoned. Arguments against the Syrian regime and the use of chemical weapons are not the same as arguments for bombing. And arguments against bombing are not the same as arguments to do nothing. That is why most remain unconvinced by the case for military intervention. It carries little chance of deterring the Syrian regime and great risk of inflaming an already volatile situation. Intensifying diplomatic pressure, allowing the UN inspectors to produce their report while laying the groundwork for a political settlement between the rival factions, remains the best hope from a slender range of poor options.
The problem for America in all of this is that its capacity to impact diplomatic negotiations is limited by the fact that its record of asserting its military power stands squarely at odds with its pretensions of moral authority. For all America's condemnations of chemical weapons, the people of Falluja in Iraq are experiencing the birth defects and deformities in children and increases in early-life cancer that may be linked to the use of depleted uranium during the US bombardment of the town. It also used white phosphorus against combatants in Falluja.
Its chief ally in the region, Israel, holds the record for ignoring UN resolutions, and the US is not a participant in the international criminal court – which is charged with bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice – because it refuses to allow its own citizens to be charged. On the very day Obama lectured the world on international norms he launched a drone strike in Yemen that killed six people.
Obama appealing for the Syrian regime to be brought to heel under international law is a bit like Tony Soprano asking the courts for a restraining order against one of his mob rivals – it cannot be taken seriously because the very laws he is invoking are laws he openly flouts.
So his concerns about the US losing credibility over Syria are ill-founded because it has precious little credibility left. The call to bomb an Arab country without UN authority or widespread international support, on the basis of partial evidence before UN inspectors have had a chance to report their findings, sounds too familiar both at home and abroad. The claim that he should fight this war, not the last one, is undermined by the fact that the US is still fighting one of the last ones. And with a military solution proving elusive in Afghanistan, the US is trying to come to a political settlement with the Taliban before leaving.
Obama would enhance US credibility not by drawing lines for others to adhere to, but by drawing a line under the past and championing a foreign policy that bolstered international law and acted with the rest of the world rather than ignoring it. "The noble art of losing face," Hans Blix told me shortly after the Iraq war started, "will one day save the human race."
The US has little credibility left: Syria won't change that
Obama's argument for intervention is a hollow one: America's use of chemical weapons in Falluja makes that clear
Gary Younge
The Guardian, Sunday 8 September 2013
'...The roots of this conflict are deep, entangled and poisoned. Arguments against the Syrian regime and the use of chemical weapons are not the same as arguments for bombing. And arguments against bombing are not the same as arguments to do nothing. That is why most remain unconvinced by the case for military intervention. It carries little chance of deterring the Syrian regime and great risk of inflaming an already volatile situation. Intensifying diplomatic pressure, allowing the UN inspectors to produce their report while laying the groundwork for a political settlement between the rival factions, remains the best hope from a slender range of poor options.
The problem for America in all of this is that its capacity to impact diplomatic negotiations is limited by the fact that its record of asserting its military power stands squarely at odds with its pretensions of moral authority. For all America's condemnations of chemical weapons, the people of Falluja in Iraq are experiencing the birth defects and deformities in children and increases in early-life cancer that may be linked to the use of depleted uranium during the US bombardment of the town. It also used white phosphorus against combatants in Falluja.
Its chief ally in the region, Israel, holds the record for ignoring UN resolutions, and the US is not a participant in the international criminal court – which is charged with bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice – because it refuses to allow its own citizens to be charged. On the very day Obama lectured the world on international norms he launched a drone strike in Yemen that killed six people.
Obama appealing for the Syrian regime to be brought to heel under international law is a bit like Tony Soprano asking the courts for a restraining order against one of his mob rivals – it cannot be taken seriously because the very laws he is invoking are laws he openly flouts.
So his concerns about the US losing credibility over Syria are ill-founded because it has precious little credibility left. The call to bomb an Arab country without UN authority or widespread international support, on the basis of partial evidence before UN inspectors have had a chance to report their findings, sounds too familiar both at home and abroad. The claim that he should fight this war, not the last one, is undermined by the fact that the US is still fighting one of the last ones. And with a military solution proving elusive in Afghanistan, the US is trying to come to a political settlement with the Taliban before leaving.
Obama would enhance US credibility not by drawing lines for others to adhere to, but by drawing a line under the past and championing a foreign policy that bolstered international law and acted with the rest of the world rather than ignoring it. "The noble art of losing face," Hans Blix told me shortly after the Iraq war started, "will one day save the human race."
Very deep quote by mr blix at the end there steve. I have my own theory as to what he was "saying". I'm afraid those MEN are gone....that's my quote. :thumbdown:
Involving us in Syria is the worst decision the Obama administration has made since taking office in January of 2009.
i agree..
i dont see any point in the whole..and the worst of all is that seems obama is in a hurry to start the war..
its really fishy this thing...like have a deadline to catch up..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
NEWS • Syria • News • ISSUE 49•36 • Sep 5, 2013
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
for the most part its about freedom and democracy ...
i didnt heard-read a good joke lately..that was a good one!!
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Comments
Oh, that's just John Kerry having dinner with his friend and their wives a couple of years ago. Move along, nothing to see here.
War is a bad thing, but when its the only option then you have to go with it. It's good when people go against the political philosophy of their party. More politicians should do it.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
How soon it's forgotten.
Probably discussing what lies ahead for them in the next few years. No doubt they're talking about the game that's coming.
Wow, and watch everyone get fooled again. And again, and again and again
http://rt.com/news/germany-syria-sarin- ... gence-326/
In your posts on this topic, you have acknowledged the geopolitical aspects of Western involvement in this conflict. You realize the benefits to western powers of controlling the outcome, so you know there are other, largely unspoken motives. Youre surely also aware of the recent precedent for intelligence falsification and media complicity in Iraq. So it seems you realize military intervention wouldn't be a humanitarian effort. Yet it appears you are supporting military action as a means to an end. With the end being expansion of hegemony in the region. You also spoke of a power vacuum if the US doesn't act. I have to assume this means you view military intervention as a necessary evil, because US hegemony has a stabilizing effect. Am I right?
If so, that is a really depressing kind of cynisism. I disagree about the stabilizing affect, I think you give US hegemony way too much credit there, and would argue that the US has a net negative affect on world peace, esp in the middle east. Read the RAND report on Syria from a few years back, it is the blueprint being used by the US, and it speaks to playing up religious and ethnic divides to destabilize Syria. I think there are ways this could be resolved using international (not just NATO) forces and negotiations if outside players stood down. But an equitable solution, in the best interests of the Syrian people is not the goal. Unfortunately, by overstepping their mandate in Libya after Russia and China abstained on that resolutionvote, NATO has affectively tied the hands of the UN from a peacekeeping point of view. Russia and China will use their vetos on this for many reasons, but mostly because they won't trust that this will end at humanitarian intervention - they agreed to enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya, and NATO immediately made it about regime change.
some good points here.
the bolded is a good description of how i see it yeah.It may be cynical but it does have strong explanatory power in relation to international relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_ ... ite_note-3
I'm going to have to get back to you on the rand report, haven't read it before.
and im not actually totally in favour of intervention, i just felt that the valid arguements for intervention where being ignored here and that someone should air them.
the final bolded section i would also agree with.
also some interesting readings on intelligence agencies and iraq here
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/pillar.htm
http://www.hoover.org/publications/poli ... ticle/7107
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/is ... ollack.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/bargain.pdf
I understand your cynicism...probably realistic, but tough to swallow for an idealist. You're right to be floating those scenarios as reasons for intervention, cause they're much more accurate than the humanitarian story being played up in the press (tho it would be nice to see you also play devil"s advocate for those scenarios as well
Here is a mondoweiss article with a decent summary of the RAND document on the "long war", as it applies to Syria. If you follow the link to mondoweiss, there is a link to the entire 200+ page RAND pdf.
The long war: Syria is at the crux of ‘pipeline geopolitics’
Posted by Philip Weiss
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/the-long- ... itics.html
A number of folks have sent me this, so I pass it along. Nafeez Ahmed argues in the Guardian that “Syrian intervention plans fuelled by oil interest, not chemical weapons concerns”. And it is falling out according to grand plans, including a Rand report on the “long war” to embroil jihadists in internal strife so that we don’t lose Gulf oil. Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in the UK:
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces [began in] 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”
So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to “attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years”, starting with Iraq and moving on to “Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.
Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that “the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource.” As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has “motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states”:
“The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized… For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources… The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”
In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:
“Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces… the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace… US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”
Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate “on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.” Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:
“One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations.”
The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US’s key allies and enemies – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran – to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a ‘youth bulge’, internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.
The report noted especially that Syria is among several “downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow”, increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an ‘Arab Spring’, it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region’s growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”
Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.
They are all buddies.
Saying what each other has agreed to be said.
And i would deduce the weapons used were owned by saddam.
http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http://ww ... oBQ&wsc=bf
I respect Putin.
The weakest bone in Putins body...is stronger than the strongest muscle in obamas body
That report was submitted way back in july. if they believed it they wouldn't be saying this today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... roves.html
also, we have to recognize that syria is one of the largest buyers of chemical weapons ... largely from north korea ...
I just read it...i may stand corrected, by gov't standards.
...but i do stand by my comment, based on the fact if Putin and bho were in the ring.
and, Saddam Hussein got the chemical weapons that he used on the Kurds and Iranians from the US.
and, no media attention, no Congressional calls to withdraw aid to Israel, no talk of a UN resolution or or air strikes against Israel when they openingly use cluster bombs and phosphorus shells in the Gaza Strip and, in Lebanon.
One minute we’re sad for these people and the next minute we’re reminded they’re Arabs and its back to f-ck em!
You know what; we survived our years of a civil war; brother against brother, families destroyed, homes and towns burned to the ground, horrors of war that left thousands upon thousands of people dead, and, yes, many, many were children. Maybe this is what they have to go through to get it right, in order to save their country for their future generations.
I am going to keep your last paragraph an use it?
NEWS • Syria • News • ISSUE 49•36 • Sep 5, 2013
A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.
WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.
The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.
When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”
“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-m ... ong,33752/
I partly agree, but then again we didn't have the weapons that are currently being used in Syria. It was pretty even in our civil war when it came to weaponry.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
i'm still not convinced that the kurds were gassed by saddam ... either way - i support the sentiment of your post ... except for the last point ...
the big difference in comparing to the US civil war is that in Syria - it is the influence of foreign entities on both sides ...
The US has little credibility left: Syria won't change that
Obama's argument for intervention is a hollow one: America's use of chemical weapons in Falluja makes that clear
Gary Younge
The Guardian, Sunday 8 September 2013
'...The roots of this conflict are deep, entangled and poisoned. Arguments against the Syrian regime and the use of chemical weapons are not the same as arguments for bombing. And arguments against bombing are not the same as arguments to do nothing. That is why most remain unconvinced by the case for military intervention. It carries little chance of deterring the Syrian regime and great risk of inflaming an already volatile situation. Intensifying diplomatic pressure, allowing the UN inspectors to produce their report while laying the groundwork for a political settlement between the rival factions, remains the best hope from a slender range of poor options.
The problem for America in all of this is that its capacity to impact diplomatic negotiations is limited by the fact that its record of asserting its military power stands squarely at odds with its pretensions of moral authority. For all America's condemnations of chemical weapons, the people of Falluja in Iraq are experiencing the birth defects and deformities in children and increases in early-life cancer that may be linked to the use of depleted uranium during the US bombardment of the town. It also used white phosphorus against combatants in Falluja.
Its chief ally in the region, Israel, holds the record for ignoring UN resolutions, and the US is not a participant in the international criminal court – which is charged with bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice – because it refuses to allow its own citizens to be charged. On the very day Obama lectured the world on international norms he launched a drone strike in Yemen that killed six people.
Obama appealing for the Syrian regime to be brought to heel under international law is a bit like Tony Soprano asking the courts for a restraining order against one of his mob rivals – it cannot be taken seriously because the very laws he is invoking are laws he openly flouts.
So his concerns about the US losing credibility over Syria are ill-founded because it has precious little credibility left. The call to bomb an Arab country without UN authority or widespread international support, on the basis of partial evidence before UN inspectors have had a chance to report their findings, sounds too familiar both at home and abroad. The claim that he should fight this war, not the last one, is undermined by the fact that the US is still fighting one of the last ones. And with a military solution proving elusive in Afghanistan, the US is trying to come to a political settlement with the Taliban before leaving.
Obama would enhance US credibility not by drawing lines for others to adhere to, but by drawing a line under the past and championing a foreign policy that bolstered international law and acted with the rest of the world rather than ignoring it. "The noble art of losing face," Hans Blix told me shortly after the Iraq war started, "will one day save the human race."
Very deep quote by mr blix at the end there steve. I have my own theory as to what he was "saying". I'm afraid those MEN are gone....that's my quote. :thumbdown:
The largest number since 92.
i dont see any point in the whole..and the worst of all is that seems obama is in a hurry to start the war..
its really fishy this thing...like have a deadline to catch up..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
to most of the world maybe but to americans - they still think for the most part its about freedom and democracy so, ultimately that's who matters ...
YES YES YES!!!!!!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
would be funny if it wasn't true ...
:(