Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say
<http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite>
"Doctors" Behind Syrian Chemical Weapons Claims are Aiding Terrorists
By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, August 25, 2013
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/doctors-behind-syrian-chemical-weapons-claims-are-aiding-terrorists/5346870>
--0--
<http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18416-war-on-syria-twenty-pounds-of-stupid-in-a-ten-pound-bag>
War on Syria: Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten-Pound Bag
Tuesday, 27 August 2013 09:16
By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed
I'm just going to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat
licks it up: instead of attacking Syria, how about we don't attack
Syria?
Crazy, I know; this is America, after all, and our presidents like
nothing more than to flip a few cruise missiles at other countries,
combined with a few bombing sorties for good measure, because it's a
hell of a lot easier than actual statecraft. Besides, it looks good
on television, and all those meanies in Congress can't accuse the
Commander in Chief of not doing anything. Oh, also, cruise missiles
and bombs cost a lot, so if we pull the trigger on Syria, someone
will get paid handsomely.
What ho, this we call "diplomacy," right? Flatten a few buildings,
blow some children sideways out of their kitchens during breakfast,
take a victory lap on the Sunday morning talk shows...what could
possibly go wrong?
Quite a bit, as it turns out.
Once again, it is weapons of mass destruction at the crux of the
matter. Unlike our Iraq debacle, however, there seems to be a fairly
impressive body of evidence to suggest that chemical weapons were
used in Syria. Doctors Without Borders seems pretty convinced it
happened, despite the fact that the use of such weapons by Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of
sense, given the fickle nature of chemical weapons and how closely
concentrated his own forces were near the area of the attack. A rogue
military commander, perhaps? The rebels themselves?
The answer to whether or not a chemical attack took place will soon
be forthcoming, as UN inspectors have arrived at the scene to
investigate after being greeted with sniper fire. If it is
established that the Syrian government did this, enormous pressure
will be brought to bear on President Obama to "punish" the Assad
regime with a military attack of some kind.
The short version of why such a course of action is an invitation to
catastrophe: Syria is no paper tiger, and is very much capable of
both defending itself as well as attacking American interests in the
region if provoked. Syria and Iran are strategic allies and are
pledged to each other's mutual defense, which means all the Iranian
missile sites in the mountains above the Persian Gulf coast could
launch their missiles in retaliation...and those Iranian missiles, by
the by, are advanced enough to spoof Aegis radar systems, which means
thousands of American service members currently manning our warships
in the Gulf could very quickly be delivered into a watery grave.
Russia is also a staunch ally of Syria, and could also be provoked
into getting involved by backing Assad even more forcefully than they
have to date.
In essence, any attack on Syria could quickly escalate into a
full-scale war that would further destabilize the region and quite
probably lead to the kind of conflagration found in the last chapter
of the Bible. Finally, and not for nothing, but if Mr. Obama and his
generals manage to come up with the perfect military plan and
successfully end the Assad regime, the folks who will take over Syria
in his absence are exactly the kind of people we started this whole
"War On Terror" to confront and destroy in the first place. Or so I
was told. The story seems to change so often, doesn't it?
An article published in Saturday's New York Times makes it very clear
the degree to which American military action against Syria is a
no-win scenario:
Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad's regime
were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and
restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money,
weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors
in the fighting, and Mr. Assad's triumph would dramatically affirm
the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its
Lebanon-based proxy - posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab
states and to Israel.
But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United
States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East.
That's because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have
become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel
groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a
government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not
expect tranquility on its northern border if the jihadis were to
triumph in Syria.
Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for
either side would be unacceptable for the United States. An
Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime would increase Iran's
power and status across the entire Middle East, while a victory by
the extremist-dominated rebels would inaugurate another wave of Al
Qaeda terrorism.
So there's all that, which is, in the end, a bunch of realpolitik
game-of-thrones crap. If you need a flesh-and-blood reason why
attacking Syria would be a tremendously stupid mistake, look no
further than the shattered nation of Iraq. On Sunday, 47 people were
killed there in a wave of car bombings and shootings. More than 1,000
people were killed in Iraq in July, as the sectarian tensions
unleashed by America's colossal military blunder there simmer close
to the boiling point.
Make no mistake: America did that. Every body that hits the ground as
a result of Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq is our fault. The uncounted
thousands upon thousands in Iraq who were slaughtered, maimed or
displaced in the first decade of this century are our fault. If we
attack Syria, Iraq will simply explode, and Syria could very easily
become another Iraq.
Say No to Attacking Syria here.
If it is established beyond doubt that chemical weapons were used in
Syria, either by the Assad regime or the rebels, a response of some
kind is both necessary and justified. But the military option must be
kept on the shelf, high out of reach. As deplorable as the use of
such weapons surely is, attempting to fix the situation with military
action will only deepen the problem, cause even more unnecessary
carnage, and will essentially destroy what it is we would be trying
to save.
It is also worthy of mentioning that some 60% of the American people
do not support military action against Syria, according to the most
recent poll. You can't get 60% of Americans to agree on what color
the sky is, but apparently, most of us have had quite enough of this
whole eternal war thing, thank you very much.
I think I read somewhere that Mr. Obama is a pretty smart guy. Now
would be a fantastic time for him to prove it by coming up with an
answer to this that does not involve cruise missiles, bombs and
mayhem.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel