U.S. Nearer To War On Syria
The Obama administration seems to be slowly moving to McCain's position on Syria. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran Syria.
Panetta Says U.S. Weighs Military Action on Syria
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. is reviewing potential military action to ease the crisis in Syria even as he cautioned that the opposition and international support aren’t unified enough to intervene now.
We see dumb arguments like A Post-Assad Syria Might Not Be as Bad as We Think. The same was of course said of Iraq without Saddam and Libya without Gaddafi. Both are still in bloody civil wars, often with more dead per day than on any recent day in Syria.
A recent AFP report finds Jihadi fighters from Libya, Lebanon, Iraq and Pakistan on the side of the Syrian rebels. Some demonstrators in Syria are using the AlQaeda flag.
With that and the mix of various religious sects in Syria the result of a war on Syria is sure to be worse than any supporter of such a war might think.
Posted by b on March 7, 2012 at 15:39 UTC | Permalink
next page »Do you really think that the Syrian people are in the thoughts of the monsters?(Other than propaganda?)
Posted by: dahoit | Mar 7 2012 16:53 utc | 2
No shock there. As I pointed out a week ago, the war in Syria is not ending unless the outside powers want it to end, and they don't. They intend to mop up Assad in order to isolate Iran. I doubt it will be nearly as easy as they believe, but they believe they can bring down Assad within just a few months.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 7 2012 16:55 utc | 3
are you trying to raise the oil price B. :-))
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/07/gouged-at-the-pump-2/
actually Ralph Nader's argument is silly, surely oil speculation is global - nothing the US can regulate away (buy the stuff, store it (not necessary, buy futures, if you do not trust financial markets, store it nevertheless), because sure, the price is going to rise). but that he tries to jump on it shows what an issue this is going to be ...
Hey, if I was Iranian, I would store the stuff ...
Posted by: somebody | Mar 7 2012 16:58 utc | 4
The view from Moscow: The Battle for Homs
The fact that the army could win in Homs became clear after the hysterical reaction of the Western media, which has exaggerated by threefold the actual number of requests to provide humanitarian corridors and stop the violence. During the siege of the city, Damascus never forbade civilians to leave it. Moreover, the military operation did not even cover the whole of Homs – only three neighborhoods, where there was a significant number of armed militants, were shelled, the most significant of which was Baba Amr. Thus, the demand that the Syrian army provide some special corridors through its positions would have meant the escape of armed opposition groups from Homs. If these groups had been let out of the trap, they could have gained a foothold somewhere else and created a new center of tension.The fighting in Homs raised the question: who is opposing the government forces in Syria? It is very difficult to believe that ordinary city residents, armed with who knows what, stubbornly held back the onslaught of the elite Syrian Republican Guard and 4th Armored Division for a month. It is clear to any sane observer that the government forces faced off against well-armed and trained professionals. Therefore, it is important not to dismiss allegations that foreign mercenaries receiving weapons from abroad are operating on Syrian soil.
...
You used to love "jihadists" in Iraq and Pashtun Taliban. Now, you hate religious zanies. What's up, b?
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2012 17:31 utc | 6
You can see the thinking that is going on over this. NATO preferred to sit on the sidelines and hope Saudi Arabia would do all the hard work for them. But when it became clear that Assad had the rebels on the run, they realised they will have to do the work themselves. Also Putin gets sworn-in in 2 months time, Sarkozy will also be going in a few months. NATO must be aware that there is a definate window that is closing fast.
Friday Lunch Club's blog linked to this piece, where the London think-tank IISS (International Institute for Security Studies) has said the "armed opposition is an irritant to Assad" and "not a direct threat to the regime".
Source from FLC: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-07/syria-armed-opposition-an-irritation-not-a-threat-says-iiss.html
Also on Libya, I'm sure the humanitarian interventionists are rejoicing at the news that tribal leaders have declared a semiautonomus new state called "Barqa" in the oil rich east. The meeting where this was approved was attended by "thousands of tribal leaders, military commanders and politicians". The new state of Barqa will span from Central Libya all the way to the Egyptian border and down to the Chad and Sudan (basically the Eastern half of Libya).
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/libya-benghazi-state-of-barqa?newsfeed=true
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Mar 7 2012 17:48 utc | 7
"You used to love "jihadists" in Iraq and Pashtun Taliban. Now, you hate religious zanies. What's up, b?"
b can speak for himself. My policy is to support groups trying to resist foreign invaders. When such resistance is smeared, by the invaders themselves, as being motivated by religious bigotry I tend to discount such obvious propaganda.
In Syria, as in Libya, we see armed gangs attacking troops and terrorising communities of which they disapprove (Alawites, Christians, Druze, Sufi and secular citizens). Far from resisting foreign invaders these people are clearly closely allied with imperialist agents and almost certainly include key special forces and engineering military from cess pools like France and Britain. As such they are not, in the muslim sense, jihadis because their cause is impious and evil.
Posted by: bevin | Mar 7 2012 18:02 utc | 8
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/53658516-68/military-syria-mattis-iran.html.csp
Posted by: m_s | Mar 7 2012 19:14 utc | 9
oh, I see. lunatic religious nuts and assorted terroristic illiterati are heroes when they oppose USuk. but these same insurgents are "impious (sic) and evil" when they take up arms against pro-Russian dictators.
Gotcha.
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2012 19:20 utc | 10
Angry Arab:
The danger of what the Syrian regime did in Baba Amr The danger is that the Syrian regime may be able to restore and instill fear in the mind of the Syrian public, after the Syrian uprising did a great job to undermine that fear. Whenever I see footage from Homs where interviews with people are aired on Syrian regime TV, I detect the classic Syrian public fear. That is the danger.
One must also necessarily a amend this comment to clarify, MoA style, that all the citizens in Homs who oppose the regime are "salafists" and "terrorists."
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2012 19:26 utc | 11
Hi b,
IMHO the US (+its puppets) won't attack Syria because they will face there a much stronger enemy than the regime: the Russians. Remember, Russia has already military presence there. Whatever the Russians are bullshiting about Syria at the moment, when it comes to the crunch they will angrily reject any intervention, and their words will be backed up with military hardware. (Ok, I may underestimate the "adventurism" of the "West" and you may be right but usually the "West" comes to its mind when it faces a strong fist).
The Russians have every reason to get tough on Syria, furthermore they (and the Chinese) were fucked up in Libya in a similar situation. They very hesitantly agreed to the "no fly" bullshit (it was a very-very silly move, I could've told them the outcome), and they were watching how the "West" shocked and awed that country into "western" submission. Perhaps they thought this "no fly" stuff is harmless since Kadhafi HADN'T used his air force (which was a well known fact :) ). Now they are very-very sorry and feel fooled.
Posted by: balu | Mar 7 2012 19:40 utc | 12
I disagree with this from #5 above. I disagree because I was paying attention and I saw no onslaught:
The fighting in Homs raised the question: who is opposing the government forces in Syria? It is very difficult to believe that ordinary city residents, armed with who knows what, stubbornly held back the onslaught of the elite Syrian Republican Guard and 4th Armored Division for a month. It is clear to any sane observer that the government forces faced off against well-armed and trained professionals.
Au contraire it is clear to many sane observers that the government forces for the most part did not engage the enemy. A lot of pro-Assad commentators on the internet were seeing and saying that the army was not being brought to bear aggressively enough or fully enough against the rebels last month. Syria's Foreign Minister was asked about it by a journalist on 28 feb 2012 and he replied “I know one thing — that the military operation was delayed because there are civilians in this part of Homs which the army does not want to harm.” -- http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229016.html . When armed rebels took over other localities early last summer -- Jisr Al-Shughour, Hama City -- the Syrian army was deployed to the outskirts but not deployed to fight. Instead, the army stood on the outskirts saber rattling, and after a while they were able to move in with very little or no fighting. One difference with Bab Amr was that they had to wait for a lot longer. Another difference is that the Syrian army did do some actual fighting in the first half of February in Homs. Here's the Syrian security forces recent casualty figures.
7 mar 2012. 14 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/07/404761.htm
6 mar 2012 2 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/06/404597.htm
5 mar 2012. 12 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/05/404221.htm
4 mar 2012. 16 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/04/404024.htm
3 mar 2012. 21 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/03/403856.htm
2 mar 2012 (Friday). No record.
1 mar 2012. 9 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/03/01/403606.htm
29 feb 2012. 12 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/29/403340.htm
28 feb 2012. 7 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/28/403119.htm
27 feb 2012. 16 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/27/402971.htm
26 feb 2012. 7 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/26/402735.htm
25 feb 2012. 18 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/25/402556.htm
24 feb 2012 (Friday). 3 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/24/402464.htm
23 feb 2012. 16 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/23/402224.htm
22 feb 2012. 5 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/22/402002.htm
21 feb 2012. 3 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/21/2012/02/21/401740.htm
20 feb 2012. 12 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/20/401613.htm
19 feb 2012. 12 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/19/401399.htm
18 feb 2012. 10 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/18/401209.htm
17 feb 2012 (Friday). 6 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/17/401113.htm
16 feb 2012. 30 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/16/400951.htm
15 feb 2012. 3 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/15/400678.htm
14 feb 2012. 13 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/14/400407.htm
13 feb 2012. 19 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/13/400190.htm
12 feb 2012. 22 dead soliders and police men were buried (killed in Rif Damascus, Homs and Darra, not Aleppo) sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/12/400047.htm
Additionally 12 Feb 2012 about 30 were buried who were killed in two terrorist car bombing attacks in Aleppo. sana.sy/eng/21/2012/02/12/399952.htm
11 feb 2012. 38 dead soliders and police men were buried (killed in Homs and Rif Damascus, not Aleppo). sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/11/399781.htm
10 feb 2012 (Friday). No record.
9 feb 2012. 8 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/09/399441.htm
8 feb 2012. 13 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/08/399246.htm
7 feb 2012. 30 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/07/399070.htm
6 feb 2012. 14 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/06/398839.htm
5 feb 2012. 3 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/21/2012/02/05/398527.htm
4 feb 2012. 22 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/04/398394.htm
3 feb 2012 (Friday). 1 dead solider or police man was buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/03/398247.htm
2 feb 2012. 19 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/02/398119.htm
1 feb 2012. 8 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/02/01/397853.htm
31 jan 2012. 16 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/01/31/397649.htm
30 jan 2012. 22 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/01/30/397448.htm
29 jan 2012. 23 dead soliders and police men were buried.
sana.sy/eng/337/2012/01/29/397263.htm
I disagree with this from #5 above. I disagree because I was paying attention and I saw no onslaught:
The fighting in Homs raised the question: who is opposing the government forces in Syria? It is very difficult to believe that ordinary city residents, armed with who knows what, stubbornly held back the onslaught of the elite Syrian Republican Guard and 4th Armored Division for a month. It is clear to any sane observer that the government forces faced off against well-armed and trained professionals.
Au contraire it is clear to many sane observers that the government forces for the most part did not engage the enemy. A lot of pro-Assad commentators on the internet were seeing and saying that the army was not being brought to bear aggressively enough or fully enough against the rebels last month. Syria's Foreign Minister was asked about it by a journalist on 28 feb 2012 and he said “I know one thing — that the military operation was delayed because there are civilians in this part of Homs which the army does not want to harm.” -- http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229016.html . When armed rebels took over other localities early last summer -- Jisr Al-Shughour, Hama City -- the Syrian army was deployed to the outskirts but not deployed to fight. Instead, the army stood on the outskirts saber rattling, and after a while they were able to move in with very little or no fighting. One difference with Bab Amr was that they had to wait for a lot longer. Another difference is that the Syrian army did do some actual fighting in the first half of February in Homs.
'As all my articles were published without controversy in the period prior to AOL’s purchase of the Huffington Post in early 2011, I can only surmise that AOL has established a new “editorial policy.” In lieu of feedback from my editors as to why these articles remain unpublished, it isn’t hard to conclude that the new company has altered course, and is more comfortable only nipping at the edges of the more irreverent blogosphere.'
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/syria-censorship-aol-huffington-post
Posted by: brian | Mar 7 2012 20:49 utc | 15
You used to love "jihadists" in Iraq and Pashtun Taliban. Now, you hate religious zanies. What's up, b?
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7, 2012 12:31:13 PM | 6
==========================
You used to hate "jihadists" in Iraq and Pashtun Taliban. Now, you love religious zanies. What's up, slops?
Posted by: brian | Mar 7 2012 20:51 utc | 16
'You can see the thinking that is going on over this. NATO preferred to sit on the sidelines and hope Saudi Arabia would do all the hard work for them'
well the idea is to let arabs fight arabs...and the more it looks like a civil war the better for the US/NATO to fooll the credulous public. That muslims let themselves be used by Great Satan in the hope they can seve their own ends is enlightening.
Arab stupidity and perfidy is proving the zionists right!
Posted by: brian | Mar 7 2012 20:55 utc | 17
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is bringing up legislation "authorizing use of force" against Iran. An election year ploy, but also another step to getting the US to attack Iran. There was such a move concerning Iraq. It was "non-binding," as is this new ploy by McConnell. But it is designed to force the executive closer and closer to military action.
I guess aggressive preventive wars are cool for the hegemon, but illegal for the losers of such actions if they're not hegemonic enough. Hitler, bad; Bush?Cheney/Obama good.
This is making me sick to my stomach. And writing letters, making calls, telling our Dear Leaders you do not do this "in my name" does not absolve me of guilt. This nation needs an intervention, and if we the people don't do it, who will? Who can control the biggest baddest junk yard dog?
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 7 2012 20:56 utc | 18
I'm not a hypocrite, unlike b. among the many reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq was that the historical impulse to sectarianism there would result in civil war, and probably partition. I don't think this is the case for Egypt, though religious fanaticism is always a threat to destabilize. I think everything should be done to support Iranians who want to overthrow their nutty religious despots.
There is no proof that one can generalize that the Syrian opposition is dominated by "salafists." b is only parroting angry arab's usually annoying gnomic diatribes completely uncited and unsupported by evidence.
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2012 21:34 utc | 19
Off we go, into the wild blue yonder, Syria first, then into Iran--gotta free all that American oil, as long as we're doing God's work. Might makes right! I can see the outlines of two new billion dollar American embassies in Damascus and Teheran.
Moscow and Beijing (the bad guys) have connected the imperial dots: Iraq (WMD/OIL), Egypt (STRATEGIC), Libya (OIL), Syria (STRATEGIC), Iran (WMD/OIL)? Of course Russia and China vetoed the resolutions because they hate freedom and enjoy human suffering. What a wonderfully simple and predictable thread for the mainstream media to spew on cue.
H/T:R/T
Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 7 2012 21:51 utc | 20
Valerie Amos who was meeting the foreign minister, has been quite soft-spoken on Syrian-critique. Think she might cool things off, maybe even telling Kofi Anan what is up.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 7 2012 22:02 utc | 21
slothrop
you fatigue me as you must fatigue others.
your pompous attacks on b are infantile. worse than infantile, given the fact that they are backed up by nothing at all. which is not surprising - the fact that you know almost fuck all about everything, you are the eternal sophomore who imagines himself the smartest in the class but is in fact little more than an idiot with a nice haircut
once many many years ago you had something to say even if i did not agree with them but for a very long time you say nothing, nothing at all; i am sure sure you bore yourself
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 7 2012 22:46 utc | 22
A jihad, in Christian terms, is a "just war". That is why the war against imperialist invaders, raping, killing civilians, pissing on corpses burning books is a jihad.
And a campaign against a dictator who has aroused the ire of the imperialists, already cited; a campaign paid for by the US Congress and the most tyrannical exploiters on earth (the Gulf Emirs and the Saud family kleptocracy)is not a jihad because it is a war in support of aggression.
It is important to understand that the fighting in Syria is not between indigenous parties but between a dictatorship (in a country in which representative democracy is almost impossible because there is so much foreign interference- the US having been involved in backing puppets there since the 40s) and the agents of an empire seeking world dominance.
This last fact, which is of no small importance, is one constantly disregarded by people like slothrop. But it is rarely denied.
This is no place to analyse the history of international relations since 1945, but it is impossible to understand what Syria is about without understanding why the United States spends more on the military than the rest of the world put together, why it has 800 bases abroad and why it has carried out at least a hundred coups d'etat of which that in Libya and the current attempt in Syria are topical examples. It is not just to keep military contractors busy, nor is it to defend Israel from danger or promote democratic values (which the US government is hastily disavowing.)
Posted by: bevin | Mar 7 2012 23:12 utc | 23
"and the agents of an empire seeking world dominance."
completely unsupported opinion.
Posted by: slothrop | Mar 7 2012 23:17 utc | 25
@ Bevin
Agree with you on supporting groups that resist foreign invasion wherever they may be. It's a position even included in the UN charter that says people have the right to armed struggle under an occupation. The problem, which you point out, is when it moves from resistance against the foreign military to civil war, as in Iraqi 2005-2007, Syria 2011. The Iraqi even began calling these groups that incite civil war Takfiris. Takfiri being a form of excommunication (ie thinking that all Shias are apostates to Islam and so not "real" Muslims, or that fellow Sunni's who don't fight are not "real" muslims). In Iraq it was Zarqawi and AQI that led this strand, killing way more Shias then military forces. Again you can see the Free Syrian Army adopting similar Anti-Shia rheotric.
@ Bevin Again
You shouldn't even bother replying to Slothrop. You give a well reasoned 5 paragraph argument in reply to him and he counters by asking if you shoot heroin. Says it all really.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Mar 7 2012 23:47 utc | 26
"and the agents of an empire seeking world dominance."
completely unsupported opinion.
finally some humor on this thread
the Pentagon: the world's busiest tourist agency
FMI and WB: Robin Hood enterprises that take capital from the world's richest countries and hand it out to the poorest
aggression on Libya and Syria: the absolute monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar spreading democracy in North Africa and the Middle East
... etc
somehow, these actors never appear in the analysis of those who side with western intervention in the name of the Supreme Values of Liberty, Democracy, Human Rights, etc; it's always only the Holy Ghost guiding the NATO bombs
r'giap, maybe we should exercise more at detecting the hidden irony of our resident provocateur
Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 1:10 utc | 27
@22 "in a country in which representative democracy is almost impossible because there is so much foreign interference"
Good point. When you own a great swath of Terra Moderato with oceans east and west and nobodies for neighbours, all got for next to nothing, you can play at having elections.
Posted by: yes_but | Mar 8 2012 1:18 utc | 28
the statements by Panetta and Dempsey in b's first link sound pretty tame to me; they seem intent on "damage control"
I think Russia is the deciding factor here
Russia has provided higher-level weapons systems, including air defenses, [Dempsey] said.
Then, Nato might be trapped in Afghanistan, without Russia's goodwill
Plus, there is Iran which Russia hasn't steadily supported till now
(limiting ourselves to matters that filtered down to us mere mortals)
Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 1:20 utc | 29
r’giap #31
once many many years ago you had something to say...
Kind of raises in my mind alexno’s conjecture from the other day that maybe the new slothrop isn’t the same as the old slothrop who did have something to say. I used to appreciate the old one’s obliquely arcane vocabulary which kept me busy running to the dictionary. But as you say r’giap it/he/she totally bores and fatigues me. Of course we have to give credit where credit is due. That’s it’s sole purpose and function here.
I wish we could all step back and never feed that troll and then maybe it would just fade away.
Posted by: juannie | Mar 8 2012 1:48 utc | 30
juannie, I think the purpose of the new slothrop is to leave "traces" on the blog just to throw casual readers off-track; he always accuses b, without ever citing a single relevant post, of being a crypto-Russian supporter, and the posters of being hard-core conspiracists; I feel some short responses that set the record straight are useful; of course, the danger of being distracted from more important issues is always present; maybe a standardized, polite form of FY could be found, at least until b decides to ban him
Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 1:58 utc | 31
juannie - note also how the new slothrop is always among the first to post on new threads - a behavior consistent with my suspicion
Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 2:06 utc | 33
CTuttle @ 31
“The intelligence was half the battle in convincing the world,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry official told McClatchy, speaking anonymously
Hell yeah!
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 8 2012 2:20 utc | 34
"13 policemen have been killed in three days of fierce fighting with militants on the border of the Russian southern republics of Dagestan and Chechnya. This comes as a Turkish terrorist has reportedly become the new head of the Dagestani fighters."
http://rt.com/news/dagestan-chechnya-operation-terrorism-557/
more reason why Russia will not allow Turkey and Saudi backed salafists and muslim brotherhood to triumph in Syria.
Posted by: nikon | Mar 8 2012 3:35 utc | 35
nikon@34 Proof positive that we're at the same 1914 precipice...! 8-(
Colm I don't think it was me who was being asked about heroin, a suggestion, incidentally, which bears all the marks of psychological projection.
As to "feeding the troll":
" U.S. special operations forces are engaged in “more than 100 countries worldwide,” said Adm. William H. McRaven, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday.
“In significant ways, our forces are creating visible and dramatic effects of the greatest magnitude across the globe,” Adm. McRaven said in the 2012 US SOCOM posture statement.
“The decade of war after 9/11 has proffered many lessons; among them, specific to SOF, is the complementary nature of our direct and indirect approaches and how these SOF approaches are aligned to this changing strategic environment,” Adm. McRaven said."
Has any other nation in history come close to this public boasting that its armed agents are at work in so many places? It is incredible that people like slothrop can entertain such knowledge at the same time that they deny that the United States is not only acting imperially but attempting to dominate the planet.
Posted by: bevin | Mar 8 2012 3:47 utc | 37
"Has any other nation in history come close to this public boasting that its armed agents are at work in so many places? It is incredible that people like slothrop can entertain such knowledge at the same time that they deny that the United States is not only acting imperially but attempting to dominate the planet."..bevin@36
So true bevin. The US and its minions has become the REAL "Axis of Evil" at this time in history. Also, ignoring reality for money has become very fashionable around the globe. Someone might query slothrop about that.
Posted by: ben | Mar 8 2012 5:23 utc | 39
There is some interesting commentary by Sami Moubayed on
www.atimes.com and if US is accomodating a compromise may
result.
Putin offers threadbare blanket for Syria
By Sami Moubayed
Whenever the world seemed to start caving in around them, Syrian politicians have leaned on the Russians for support. Moscow, both now and during the Soviet era, has always been Syria's "security blanket". Syrian leaders, however, have almost equally misjudged how far Russia was willing to go to help them.
[...]
And finally came a statement in The Moscow Times saying: "Russia has made it clear that it will not be able to stop other countries from launching a military intervention if they try to do it without UN approval." Despite a routine translation of the Russian press in several Syrian state-run dailies, apparently nobody picked that up, perhaps on purpose. That statement seemed to be telling the Syrians that there were limits to how far Russian could go. If a "surgical strike" were to happen, Russia was helpless at stopping it.
The Syrian-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, signed between then-president Hafez al-Assad and the USSR in October 1980, does not include a clause for mutual defense. It specifies regular consultations on bilateral and multilateral issues, coordination of policies, and military cooperation - but it does not oblige Moscow to take military action to defend Syria. That means the limit of how far the Russians can go, given current circumstances, is the recent veto at the UN. It cannot do more to help the Syrians.
Nobody realizes that better than Putin himself, who needs a success story "the day after" he returns to power in Moscow. It needs to make him and his country feel relevant, strong, democratic, and accepted within the international community. That success story can be Syria.
Posted by: kodlu | Mar 8 2012 7:13 utc | 40
#39
that's quite interesting. On the other hand, I can't figure how a military engagement would look like. NATO would surely concentrate on airstrike or air support and that seems difficult given the poor number of insurgents and probably urban combat. I also think, that massive bombing of syrian cities would incite much more public opposition, even in western media, because syria is not as remote as libya is.
NATO's aim for the moment seems to be to just cause as much hatred and de-stabilization as possible within syria, trying to get the sunni majority to see their future as turkish/muslim-brotherhood like state, then being able to "do business" with the west without sanctions and restrictions.
Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 8 2012 8:23 utc | 41
I think slothrop is an automated program, with about 30 randomised responses to words which trigger it. If anything, it creates such an inane context that one gasps with admiration at b's acumen, in much the same way as Marina's virtue shines through the gloom of the brothel scene in Shakespeare's "Pericles".
On a lighter note, David Camoron is going bananas. One day, he's threatening all sorts of legal retribution against Assad for going after al-Qa'eda in his own country. The next, he declares that the fight in Afghanistan, hundreds of miles away, is vital to his nation's security, as al-Qa'eda may yet gain a foothold (having given them Libya, and helped them move on to Syria, not to mention the fact that they were only in Afghanistan because MI6 built them a compound after they were kicked out of the Sudan). And this man's only proper job was as a publicist.
Posted by: Bob Jackson | Mar 8 2012 8:23 utc | 42
FOr those who think the syrian govt is out to kil syrian civlians:
Syrian army delays its operation in Homs to avoid civilian casualties
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem says the Syrian army has delayed its military operation against armed groups in some parts of the besieged city of Homs in order to avoid civilian casualties.
“I know one thing -- that the military operation was delayed because there are civilians in this part of Homs which the army does not want to harm,” Muallem told Turkish journalists.
Four Western journalists are also trapped in the Baba Amro district of Homs, two of them wounded.
Muallem said the Syrian government was doing its best to rescue the journalists.
etc.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/229016.html
Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 8:28 utc | 43
'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is bringing up legislation "authorizing use of force" against Iran. An election year ploy, but also another step to getting the US to attack Iran'
imagine the uproar if: 'iranian defence minister is bringing up legislation "authorizing use of force" against US. An election year ploy, but also another step to getting the Iran to attack US...
Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 8:30 utc | 44
OMG! Youse guys are back on line! I lot track of you ages ago. When did you come back?
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 8 2012 11:47 utc | 46
A new article by Alastair Crooke on atimes.com - he quotes b's piece re: AVAAZ - well done b!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC09Ak03.html
Posted by: Irshad | Mar 8 2012 12:05 utc | 47
i think slothrop is b, or he works for b. it would explain why b would ban others but not slothrop when slops is as guilty as others of trolling.
Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 12:13 utc | 48
Irshad @ 46
That's a good one by Alastair Crooke, definitely one to read. You can hear he's really pissed off. :-)
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 8 2012 12:35 utc | 49
#39
Russia is the card of interest here. They too are controlled by the zionist NWO'ers. Has anybody witnessed the "people power" protests they are deploying against the Putin elections? With such a large undefended land mass, there is not limit to how the NATO zionist infiltrators could wreak havoc. No country will risk their own existance for the sake of another, smaller ally where no commeasurate gain it to be gotten. EXCEPT of course in the case of Occupied America, who are whipped around at whim by their Israeli masters.
No this is NOT about oil. Syria's oil is neglibile and nearly gone and the other ME nations, including Iraq were willing to cede full control to the Majors in return for staying in power.
Posted by: Mercs for Hire | Mar 8 2012 12:44 utc | 50
@brian - no slothrop is not me and doesn't work for me either. I don't know who he is. He was banned for a while but some commentators asked to let him back because, back then, he once a while had to say something sensible.
Now he is just the resident troll. A fly to be swapped away once a while.
b,
I withdraw my request that you keep him/her/it. I know there were a few others that joined me in having some rational for keeping it around but we were in the minority and it has grown so very old and distracting that I recant.
To others who have had to suffer it's outrages for so long, I humbly apologize.
Posted by: juannie | Mar 8 2012 14:29 utc | 52
that Crooke piece @47 is great, thanks. I'm going to use it for a post in the seemingly futile attempt to diffuse the irrational emotional investment too many US "liberals" seem to have for "humanitarian" intervention.
I'v been trying to come up with an analogy that could get people to see what's happening in Syria from a different perspective. for example, since I live in Montana, I could ask how folks would feel if the Chinese were funding the local sovereign citizen movement---a bunch of right wing extremists who see our president as an illegitimate Muslim non-citizen. I could ask what if these sovereign citizens engaged in armed rebellion against government forces, killing cops or elected officials. I could further ask what if the Chinese were saying they were doing this to help all Montanans, but secretly they were just after our vast coal reserves.
it's not a perfect analogy, but it might make a few people who read the blog I contribute to think a bit before uncritically supporting a military intervention in Syria.
Posted by: lizard | Mar 8 2012 14:50 utc | 54
@lizard #64
I'v been trying to come up with an analogy that could get people to see what's happening in Syria from a different perspective
It is not the weasel Medvedev or the two faced Putin. The man who is forcing Russian support is Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
Kirill visited Syria in November last year, ostensibly to renew contact with the Syriac Orthodox Church and its leader, Ignatius IV, Patriarch of the Great Antioch and All the East.
There is an important historical context for this visit. Russia's connections with Syria run deeper than mere contemporary strategic interest. Russian interest in Syria and in the broader Middle East stems also from Russia's historical conception of itself as the protector of eastern Christians.
And so, with this history not entirely forgotten, Kirill to Damascus. Kirill praised the relationship between the Syrian regime and the Syriac Orthodox Church and expressed anxiety about the implications of the 'crisis' in the Middle East for minority communities, particularly Christians.
Posted by: hans | Mar 8 2012 15:24 utc | 55
"brian" @53
¿How many palestinian kids have your G-d ordered that you kill today?
Go fuck yourself with a Cactus or something
Posted by: C.A. | Mar 8 2012 15:28 utc | 56
Always invert. At what point do the Iranians and Syrians have a right to preemptively strike their enemies?
Posted by: Matthew | Mar 8 2012 15:56 utc | 57
Kofi has warned the wingnuts against military intervention in Syria, claiming to speak for the international community and cautioning that such an intervention will make matters worse, adding that "the medicine would be worse than the disease."
If Syria is attacked by the Coalition of Liars I expect China to threaten direct military action against the perps and Russia to endorse the move and offer support, "if necessary."
Both Russia and China need to demonstrate to the world that the Paper Tiger is just a Paper Tiger.
The spectre of WWIII is all it will take to get the Coalition to sober up.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 8 2012 16:04 utc | 58
brian/slothrop @ 53
I'm with C.A. @ 56 on that one.
You trolls continue to shock, it's that kind of stuff motivating censorship and nazi rules. Go intercourse yourself, and then swirl yourself to cool off.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 8 2012 16:12 utc | 60
deleted and banned - same IP address as "brian" above
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 8 2012 16:19 utc | 61
CIA Asset Susan Lindauer.. Can Now Speaks 10 years after 2001-9-11
Some may find this interesting... She connects many dots. I'd suggest watching the RT vid first.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 8 2012 16:20 utc | 62
I'm still ROFLMAO over Syria's Deputy Oil Minister resigning via YouTube. If any Syrian was ripe for selling out to the West the DOM would be a, if not THE, prime candidate.
I wonder how much his 'dual loyalty' cost Big Oil and where his family was when he made his declaration?
Talk about meaningless tokenism...
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 8 2012 16:21 utc | 63
China and Russia know that any crisis the Middle East is a way to further weaken the West, which they see as benefitting them. That gives them absolutely no motvation to intervene in any positive way.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 8 2012 16:24 utc | 64
judah @ 59.
It's not that simple.
An attack won't happen without warning. Even without a US-NATO attack, sanctions will start to bite in Syria. Russia and China will then have a good excuse to engage in a bit of humanitarian sanction-busting with no fear of reprisals from the CoL.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 8 2012 16:47 utc | 65
Aha come on brian, even sloth advocated being kind to the brain damaged. I’ll cop to that but numb nut? Not even sloth went that far.
@ C.A, and Alexander,
I think brian was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by: juannie | Mar 8 2012 16:52 utc | 66
@64 - Actually I think China will like to see/would not stop if the US/EU get sucked in to Syria militarily as it will not be an easy ride ala-Libya - it will take time and material to destroy the existing political order in Syria - i.e. planes and troops and on top of that it needs to be paid for by a bankrupt US/EU - unless the Qataris and Saudis directly pay for it. And then there will be the subsequent guerilla warfare that will take place against the occuppying powers.
This means that the US/EU will be further stuck in the quicksands of the Middle East specially at a time when the US wants to re-focus on the Pacific and be the "pivot" there for all those countries worried about the rise of China (think Vietnam, Japan, S.Korea, Australia - and India even though its not in the Pacific).
The plans for the Pacific will be delayed giving time for the Chinese to prepare for whatever the US may have in plans for them - notices how they recently announced that defence spenditure will be icnreased by 11.2%?
Posted by: Irshad | Mar 8 2012 16:54 utc | 67
Irshad,
China hides its military expenditures in other budget positions the same way that banks hide their bad debts.
In the USA it is the opposite: our defense contractors hide civilian project expenses in military budgets.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 8 2012 16:58 utc | 68
@49 and 54 - yes I have found Alastair's writings -along with Robert Fisk- to be the most sober, fact based writings (apart from b of course!) on the Syrian crisis.
Check out his website - which also has articles by other writes - www.conflictsforum.org
In regards to Russia and Syria - what Hans said is very interesting - its good to see that a major Christian leader is standing up for his flock in the M.E. unlike some other leaders.
Apart from this angle, Putin has written the following on his site:
"The Russian Navy has resumed patrols of the strategic areas of the world's oceans, including the Mediterranean. We will continue with these displays of the Russian flag."
and
"We aim to restore a blue-water (in the full sense of the word) navy, primarily in Russia’s North and Far East. The activities of the world’s leading military powers in and around the Arctic are forcing Russia to defend its own interests in the region."
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18185/
Tartous in Syria will play a vital role in the establishment of this blue water navy in displaying the flag and protecting Russia's interests (and its Orthodox Christians!).
Posted by: Irshad | Mar 8 2012 17:04 utc | 69
No wonder the Liberals and certain Western countries are doubting Putin's re-election!
Posted by: Irshad | Mar 8 2012 17:05 utc | 70
In Putin's case it was not the election itself that was the outrage, the entire political system and climate he created and maintains was the true scandal.
Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 8 2012 17:17 utc | 71
@61 (slothrop I suppose?)
Stupid impersonation? It's the best you got? really?
Diagnosis: I.Q. 75, maybe lower.
Posted by: C.A. | Mar 8 2012 17:31 utc | 72
Al Jazeera reporter resigns over "biased" Syria coverage
Al Jazeera Arabic's Beirut correspondent, Ali Hashem, resigned on Tuesday after leaked emails revealed his frustrations over the news channel's coverage of Syria, according to a source within the television network.Hashem's resignation comes weeks after pro-Assad hackers leaked emails that revealed the dismay among Al Jazeera's staff over its “biased and unprofessional” coverage of the Syrian uprising.
“Hashem's misgivings are clear and well-known, and are no longer a secret to anyone," the source, wishing to remain anonymous, said.
...
@74
Confirmed, stupid impersonations are all that you got. No surprises here. Although I now believe the I.Q. in the order of 65 and falling... fast.
This is my last response, I have spend two minutes into this, and this is like 115 seconds more than you're worth, slothurd.
C.A., For Real.
Posted by: C.A. | Mar 8 2012 18:07 utc | 75
From penny on the latest supposed defection by the Syrian "Oil Minister".
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ben | Mar 8 2012 18:58 utc | 76
"China hides its military expenditures in other budget positions the same way that banks hide their bad debts."
In the USA it is the opposite: our defense contractors hide civilian project expenses in military budgets." Ralphieboy 68
This is not altogether true. No doubt China does "hide" some military costs in other budget items, that the USA does so is notorious.
The Pentagon budget, for example does not include nuclear weapon costs, the costs of CIA paramilitaries, the costs of drone operations, the costs of wars, which are subject, unless I am mistaken, to separate annual appropriations. And much more. My guess is that the Pentagon budget of $500 billion odd, is less than half of the real military budget.
But there is much more: leaving aside the US satraps, who supply auxiliary armies for a variety of reasons, ranging from false consciousness to traitors in high places (Blair,and almost all British Premiers since 1951 being examples), there are also mercenary forces controlled, in the last analysis, by the US State, employed by "allies" such as Qatar and Oman, and large numbers of other governmental employees on contract such as the thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A state obsessed with hegemony, domination, expansion, is like a married man addicted to sex. Not only is everything in his life subordinated to his lust, but he soon becomes prey to pimps and prostitutes of every sort.
Which is how US Foreign Policy comes to be shaped not only by Israeli fascists (relics of the realpolitiks of the 1930s) but by wahabi kleptocrats and other pickpockets with nothing in common except the understanding that Uncle Sam has lost his marbles, will do anything to get laid and has sacrificed every shred of principle, dignity (bye bye Magna Carta), decency and civilised behaviour that he ever affected.
To drop the metaphor and get back to the original point: so much does the US state spend on "security and defence' that it can only hope to sustain such expenditure by cashing in on some real plunder from wars which cost so much and yield nothing. It looks increasingly clear that the primary victim it has in mind is "its own people," the 99% whose living standards have been falling for years and are going to plummet in the years to come. It is called "making America competitive."
Posted by: bevin | Mar 8 2012 19:19 utc | 77
From the neoconned Institute for the Study of War: (pdf)
-- American objectives in Syria are to hasten the fall of the Assad regime; to contain the regional spillover generated by the ongoing conflict; and to gain influence over the state and armed forces that emerge in Assad’s wake.As if that hasn't happened yet ...-- Therefore, the United States must consider developing relations with critical elements of Syria’s armed
opposition movement in order to achieve shared objectives, and to manage the consequences should the
Assad regime fall or the conflict protract.
From the video of the whole broadcast (for some reason I couldn't find the lead story broken out as separate video segment), beginning about 1:00, the government spokespeople have their say about beginning plans for an military incursion, along with a bit of the downside (like massively bigger undertaking than Libya), then Panetta, followed at about 4:04 the video from a secret recording about Homs hospital personnel torturing their patients.
In this segment a doctor who served in a field hospital in Baba Amr appears, a patient in a Lebanese hospital, but with a scarf over his face below the eyes. I'm not sure if he's the same doctor seen in earlier videos -- and I am not good at facial recognition.
Can anyone recognize the doctor/patient? I'm totally not sure if he's appeared earlier.
BTW, absolutely zero mention of the outtakes and prep videos found by the Syria government forces after the activists/rebels left Baba Amr. Nothing which might cast doubt on the veracity of the activist/rebel videos.
We know that members of the the Al Jazeera staff complained internally about the falsehoods and misleading reports. Do none of the the US journalists show any doubts? Ask any question? Try to demand the facts of fully known?
.... Yeah, crickets. Too dangerous to lose a job and medical coverage in the US....
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 8 2012 19:44 utc | 79
@b #78
typical irresponsible, destructive, wishful thinking of "the crazies" ... masqueraded as "strategy"
Posted by: claudio | Mar 8 2012 20:10 utc | 80
b,
thank you; i have always understood that brian etc were really aspects of slothrop's troubled psyche
i think you have every right to exclude those who add nothing to the meditation you offer us, i have personally never believed in ultra democracy & i can only imagine the effort you put into this work
you have always accepted difference of opinion when it was substantive & offered an elaboration, i see no necessity in you or the community having to put up, with what is essentially, nonsense
i apologize that i have not been able to offer as much as i would like to since your return but i have felt the need to express my loyalty to your considerable work here
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 8 2012 20:16 utc | 81
The conspiracy turns out to be true, again. Stratfor, yes that Stratfor, is the outsourced propaganda manager, with full clearance. Check out their glossary if you haven't already.
http://rt.com/news/stratfor-syria-secret-wikileaks-989/
Undercover NATO troops are already in Syria despite denials from their parent governments, according to a leaked brief from a highly-placed analyst.The information comes from a hacked email from leading private US intelligence agency Stratfor, whose correspondence has been released by Wikileaks since February 27. The email appears to be written from the address of Reva Bhalla ([email protected]), the company's director of analysis, for internal use, and details a confidential Pentagon meeting in December. The consultation is alleged to have been attended by senior analysts from the US Air Force, and representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom.
Western powers have categorically denied military involvement in Syria's internal conflict, for which they have no international mandate. But if the information contained in the letter is reliable, a radically different picture of Western activity in Syria emerges.
The author of the letter claims that US officials "said without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces." A little later the US army experts expand on the role of the undercover commandos: "the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within."
But get this...Reva Bhalla was on CNN a few hours ago chatting up war on Iran, for all of the fake reasons of the day.
This is the best they can get and they're being charged, arbitrarily, for it. That's fail. Unless of course they just DGAF anymore.
Posted by: Laura J | Mar 8 2012 20:28 utc | 82
OK folks 48 and 53 written by someone named 'brian' are not by me...
SO who is using my name? some other 'brian'? or someone like slops, intent on making me say what i never said???
Is this acceptable behavior? because it isnt elsewhere on the internet
Posted by: brian | Mar 8 2012 20:45 utc | 83
Text of the hacked Stratfor director Reva Bhalla's email :http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html
Posted by: Laura J | Mar 8 2012 21:00 utc | 84
there seems to be increasing evidence of western presence in syria - it is fucking madness
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 8 2012 21:02 utc | 85
I don't think, myself, that the US is close to intervening militarily. In spite of all the pro-opposition propaganda, there's a lot of hesitation, like of Panetta and Dempsey in Senate Committee.
There's only one thing the US can do, and that is bomb without limit. The Syrian air defence won't last long, whatever their equipment is. The crews are not determined to go to the last. Then what does the US bomb? The only thing they can do is destroy the country.
If nothing else, Syria is full of ancient archaeology. Lovely Roman columns in Palmyra, and many other places. Destroy those, even as collateral damage, and you have a horde of heritage protection specialists complaining loudly on the internet for decades in the future. (OK, I declare special interest, I'm an archaeologist of the Near East, I know them).
Air attack alone alone doesn't achieve the result. Ground intervention? Not the US. Turks or Jordanians. Jordanians won't do it, as it would destabilise their own country. The Turks also fear the effects on their own country. Psychologically that that could work for an intervention, but it should not be forgotten that the Turks already stole a province of Syria in 1939, that of Hatay around Antakya. True that a waiter from Antakya in my local Turkish restaurant tells me that his relatives back home have no desire to be rejoined to Syria. But the powers in Ankara won't have confidence in that, and the truth is that if Turkey intervenes militarily, all the frontier will be thrown in question. Any Turkish government would shrink from that.
In short, an active US military intervention would provoke problems that the US doesn't want at the moment.
Supplying arms to the opposition, I could imagine. After all, the aim of the US, as servant of Israel, must be to reduce Syria to chaos.
The interest of Israel is that Syria should be in confusion. For Israel, Asad is OK, but a strong Islamist regime could be disastrous. The Saladin moment. Israel prefers either Asad or confusion.
I should say that I find Israeli policy quite mad, and unhinged with regard to their own future, but that is not the question here. The issue here is that they have the policies that they have.
In the present situation, confusion is what is in prospect (not American intervention).
Posted by: alexno | Mar 8 2012 21:36 utc | 86
#86
I agree with most of this, too.
It might be an aim for "the west" to foster pro-turkish tendencies among syria's sunni majority. Erdogan himself has declared (in a (maybe not so) surprisingly neglected footnote right at the beginning of the "uprisings" (i.e. maybe may/june/july) that they consider everything that happens in syria as an "internal affair". Also, Syria has been an ottoman province, so these countries are intertwined anyway. Turkish military seems to be strong and I remember that around the time of erdogans statement they replaced several top general of their army, announced in our western media as a major victory of erdogans political power over the more secular power of the army.
This gives me the impression that they've already been preparing for military intervention (with the right personell to lead the army). If they're taking the biggest part of ground intervention, they'll probably want something in return and that might be massive influence in the next government.
So I think the overall strategy is: bleed the country out as good as you can with sanctions, make syrian elites long for more wealth and business, build up interconfessional frontiers and let the sunni folks have a perspective of prosperity and wealth by close cooperation with their turkish "brothers". So far, the syrian elite, as far as I've come to know about it, is confessionally quite heterogenous and they still seem to make their living. But with sanctions on economy and financial sector, maybe they'll be dissatisfied soon. Having a part of the elite profit of a future turkish influence might help to have them join or at least not turn against the qatari/saudi/libyan/western terror gangs.
Anyway, as of today the one point that I believe NATO rhetorics is that they'd like to manage this without the use of any regular national army.
Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 8 2012 23:27 utc | 88
By the way, just to show where we are in the Syrian revolt, in the video of the (fake) wounded child, the woman who tends the child, one supposes the mother, is veiled up to the eyes. That's not normal in Syria, but common for Sunni extremists. That's the foundation of the revolt.
Posted by: alexno | Mar 9 2012 0:02 utc | 89
Danny Adbul Dayem, of the infamous "Can you cue the gunfire sounds?", is on NewsHour right now on PBS, being interviewed as a serious and truthful, albeit activist, observer of the Syrian situation. As a voice worth listening to in order to understand the Syrian situation.
Also, on with him is Robert Malley, who usually is rational, but apparently it completely unaware --or does not dare to rock the US/Western media boat by mentioning Danny's "set up" for his foreign press interview-- of Danny's "outtakes.". Malley urges diplomacy.
Danny, unsurprisingly, says diplomacy will never work. People are being killed! Women are being raped! By the army!
This is painful to watch. I know that NewsHour tends to protect the US goverment line of propaganda, but this is horribly embarrassing.
Malley being asked how come we can't take Syria apart as we took apart Libya. He notes the stronger air defense, no areas controlled by oppostion, and in Syria there is a strong army.
Danny asked if intervention will light a fire in the entire neighborhood. Danny says Iran is helping regime, also Hezbollah killing "us." War going on right now -- so let's get a bigger war on. Says Idlib can be a free zone for the opposition. 600 troops are waiting in Turkey to get back to Syria (with arms? or waiting for the West to arm them?).
Malley says, essentially, remember Iraq.
WOW. I've had respect for Ray Suarez, the NewsHour interviewer, as a journalist, but I fear he's fallen into the rut of most Western journos: They have to toe certain lines to keep their jobs, and any attempts to broaden the information presented to the public must be done exceedingly carefully.
I'm not sure when the video will be up, but it and the transcript will be up tomorrow.
But, Danny? On NewsHour?
Reeeaaally?
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 9 2012 0:27 utc | 90
Re: the pseudo Brian, I'm assuming Bernhard is getting too much attention, especially about Western propaganda. So they've sent in the clowns to drag down the comment threads.
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 9 2012 0:30 utc | 91
jawbone, Anderson Cooper had him on again yesterday to "debunk" these "rumors". Worth a watch for its snivelling emptiness alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4YfKIPDS8E
Posted by: Laura J | Mar 9 2012 1:39 utc | 92
Lucy Lips at Harry's Place isn't a fan of Alastair. I'm not too familiar with either.
Posted by: lizard | Mar 9 2012 4:27 utc | 93
@jawbone 79 The guy in bed at 4.50 in the CBS video has a beard a bit like Paul Conroy's...
Posted by: felix | Mar 9 2012 7:21 utc | 94
There are no checks and balances... Amrica is dead. Everyone needs to see this.
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria
WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 9 2012 8:08 utc | 95
So they can "legally" wage war anywhere anytime.. damn, hes actually saying it out loud.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 9 2012 9:21 utc | 96
That's what happened after 9/11, they diluted the legal bases for defending the country, to mean that they can define intervening in another country as defending the USA. Sounds as if the rest of the whole world has been defined as other US colonies/states.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 9 2012 9:32 utc | 97
If somebody doesn't set this administration straight, I'm genuinely worried that they might inadvertently, or if we get a republican president, intentionally set off world war three.
Going after terrorists abroad is one thing, believing they can legally kill them in any country, and defining whoever they want as a terrorist without due process. That is clearly not considered legal in any other country than the USA.
But now to try to justify that a international coalision or internationl approval (UN) as not required, but only desireable, before they can go to war. That is terribly wrong. The president can't himself go to war on another country, and then define that as defending the country, under the constitution. That's not what the constitution says. Defending the USA if attacked I can understand.
But going after another country that has some kind of uproar, is not defending the country.
Although this administration is a loose cannon, I can't imagine how bad it could get if we have one of the republican candidates as president with the current legal interpretation.
What is needed is a arab union push for a UN resolution to curb the wild rouge practise of the US. Both under the Bush, and the Obama administration, there have been acts of crimes against humanity, with the invasion of Iraq and Obamas drone assasinations of civilians or even combatants that are not in a imminent combat situation.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 9 2012 11:22 utc | 98
@Alexander
What is needed is a arab union push for a UN resolution to curb the wild rouge practise of the US. Both under the Bush, and the Obama administration,
What Arab Union?
Posted by: hans | Mar 9 2012 13:15 utc | 99
History of US military actions. Handy reference.
I'd forgotten how long the US military was involved in Bosnia and Yugoslavia during Clinton's administrations*. I do clearly recall how Christiane Amanpour called Bill Clinton (at a presidential news conference, iirc) out for not taking action to protect the Bosnians.
Which he eventually did under cover of fulfilling NATO obligations to protect the member nations by keeping the peace in the former Yugoslavia.
I also remember the huge media coverage and anti-Serb aspect of that. I gather that in Milwaukee, WI, Serb Hall, famous for its Friday fish fries and presidential candidate visits, lost a lot of its clientele due to the bad feelings toward Serbia.
*Most Americans are barely aware of most of our nation's military excursions, and today it's nearly impossible to keep up with covert, admitted, and actually overt actions.
Posted by: jawbone | Mar 9 2012 14:51 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Given, the theme has been quite dramatic, with talks of military strikes and regime change, but the general direction seems quite clear in the direction of diplomatic talks.
Syria has allowed red crescent into Baba Amr now, so it looks as if the UNs security envoy Kofi Anan will have time to cool things off, even though he has the most hardline rethoric of the three.
The Russian view will probably be setting the direction ahead.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 7 2012 16:23 utc | 1