Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 31, 2013

Syria: Obama's Climb-down - Congress Vote On All Out War

We were Awaiting Obama's Climb-down. Obama just delivered it. As explained here:
Obama is now in a catch 22. The House Republicans demand answers to detailed questions about the war Obama wants to wage that he will not be able to give. 80% of U.S. citizens want Obama to go to Congress before waging war. But if he calls Congress back from vacations to vote on a war resolution he will risk, like Cameron, utter defeat. If he does not call back Congress and proceeds with a strike he may face impeachment. He can of course stand down on the issue but will then be damaged goods in international affairs and a lame duck at home.
So Obama has chosen the first path, to ask Congress for a vote. He did so with some more heart bleeding nonsensical rhetoric. If Congress rejects the war Obama will not be able to wage it as that would very likely lead to impeachment.

Obama may have done this climb-down with two silent hopes in his mind:

  • he either doesn't want war and hopes that Congress saves him from the stupid red-line trap that he set for himself and that led to the false-flag incident on a Damascus suburb - or
  • he wants war and hopes that AIPAC with its phenomenal lobbying power will bring Congress in line and make it consent to wage another war for the sole benefit of Zionism.

Here is my hope that the people of the United States, even though they mostly despise the current Congress, will do all they can to prevent another U.S. war in the Middle East. Please, starting today, bother your Congressmen and Senators every day over the next ten days and urgently press them to vote "No!" on the upcoming war resolution. Keep in mind that if Congress would vote "Yes!" the war will NOT be limited to few air strikes or cruise missile shots.

If Congress votes for the war, it will - no matter what they will tell you before - become an all out very deadly conflagration over all the Middle East including Iran. The resolution would just be interpreted to mean whatever the president wants it to mean. There would then be lots of U.S. boots on the ground and many more people would die than in the war the U.S. waged on Iraq.

Posted by b on August 31, 2013 at 18:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

Hagel was obviously on his way to a BBQ. Jeez you unpatriotic, middling twits. He looks a bit like the drunk uncle who still gets the ladies bc of his 'youthful' hairline.

Dashing, so dashing. Just like my prezidnut!

Rice, however, looks like a gym teacher with a grudge. That can never be good.

Posted by: L Bean | Aug 31 2013 23:40 utc | 101

@80,81,82

So tell me again pls, other than just to please you, don and hasbaraboy, exactly why "we must distinguish Us neocons and Israelis" on this?
so you want me not to distinguish, just to please you? I say what I think (and motivate it), you say what you think, and that's that.

The zio-nazis required no prodding at all to launch the massacres of lebanese
Quite obvious.

The only prodding that might have occured came when it was ckear that the zio-nazis, battlehardened by murdering unarmed women and kids, were making a complete ballsup of the whole thing (military-wise)
Ok, it took three posts but you are finally getting it - the term I used, "invasion", obviously referred to the land invasion as opposed to the air strikes.

But you don't remember well what happened. The Israeli didn't fuck up the invasion, they fucked up the bombing campaign, which they thought would take out all of Hezbollah's defenses and retaliation capabilities. Instead, Hezbollah was able to launch rockets every day in spite of bombings. When pressure was mounting in the international community for a stop to the air raids, Israel had to decide what to do. And that's where the Us neocons "friends" came in, prodding Israel in a disastrous invasion it had no appetite for ("the birth pangs of the new Middle East")

So I think we must distinguish between Us neocons and Israelis.

Posted by: claudio | Aug 31 2013 23:59 utc | 102

Obama explains why he will bomb Syria to a little girl: http://twitpic.com/dbbgds

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31 2013 23:59 utc | 103

Instead of stating "without looking too needy" I should have expressed it as "without exposing an Israeli agenda" or something to that effect. Cause Americans are okay with the Israeli "friendship" bit; but they'd be pretty pissed waking up to the fact that they were used to fight someone else's battles. That's why Israel always keeps a low profile on the onset of war and works behind the scenes after having heavily pushed the false narrative that American interests and Israeli interests are the same. And til now it's worked perfectly because the unwashed masses that are so obsessed with "twerking" never get that they're being played by their Zionist masters.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 1 2013 0:01 utc | 104

It is interesting, how everyone now agrees the FSA, Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, (and al-Qaeda) are all on the same side. A year ago this view was accepted by practically no one. It was SyrianGirl* who forcefully pushed this interpretation onto the agenda. See her video from November 2012 here:
Zionists Control the Syrian Opposition SyrianGirlpartisan, Nov 13, 2012

* Ohh, how I love SyrianGirl. I wish she would even live on the same continent – no, hemisphere. (So do 10,000 others of her followers.)

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Sep 1 2013 0:13 utc | 105

maybe this time it could be that Obama is asking the Lobby for a favour, instead of the other way round; Obama seems to be whining for his little war (hey, even Clinton had hers!), hiding behind Israel

Posted by: claudio | Sep 1 2013 0:28 utc | 106

I think it's a mistake to believe that Congress will not authorize attacks. The neo-cons & neo-wilsonians dominate both parties and there are enough warmongers who are on the ideological "payroll" of Israel & the Saudis.

Posted by: ab initio | Sep 1 2013 0:34 utc | 107

Claudio, your 1st paragraph is completely ridiculous nonsense.

No one demanded you do anything. You can distinguish all you want, but it was in fact you that was demanding that others do what you want. You are welcome to do what you like and its plainly dishonest of you to claim anyone was telling you what to do, especially when it was you demanding (we must) that others do as you say

Your 1st paragraph reply is seriously bizzare tbh

Btw imo it is you that has the memory wrong, the zio-nazi invasion was part of the original plan. The zionazis bombed the hell out of sth lebanon, hoping that the place would be empty of all but a few easy to pickoff hezb trops, when they moved in, , but unfortunately for them it wasn't and they got seriously bogged down in sth leb, and ran out of time and their whole gameplan went to pieces.

The US could only provide diplomatic cover for so long before the pressure got too much. Hencethe prodding, as you call it.

Rices prodding was to get the assholes to finish the job they started. That they were unable to achieve what they claimed they would achieve was no fault of Condy's

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 0:38 utc | 108

The US has determined that even though the Chemical Weapons Convention hasn't been ratified by Syria, it still applies to Syria. So does that same reasoning apply to the U.S.?

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES UNRATIFIED BY U.S.
----------------------------------
--ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE (ABM) TREATY
--COMPREHENSIVE TEST-BAN TREATY
--UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol
--CONVENTION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN (CEDAW)
--CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
--INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND
--CULTURAL RIGHTS (CESCR)
--BIOLOGICAL AND TOXIN WEAPONS CONVENTION (BWC)
--MINE BAN TREATY
--ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)
--UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=kurtz_28_3

This is a new concept, that unaccepted treaties apply anyhow. I doubt that the U.S. would stand for it. In fact, I'm sure it wouldn't. Like, it wouldn't stand for its war criminals being hauled off to The Hague to face the International Criminal Court.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 0:56 utc | 109

"we must" clearly indicated the direction of my thinking, it wasn't an order to anyone; the sense was obvious; you interpreted it in a ridiculous way just to use it for a cheap polemical retort

on Lebanon 2006:

"Rices prodding was to get the assholes to finish the job they started. That they were unable to achieve what they claimed they would achieve was no fault of Condy's"
Ok so you agree with me; Israelis where begging the Us to get them out of trouble calling for the interposition of the UN, and instead Rice prodded them to finish the job, waiting until the Israelis were totally humiliated; so it's correct to distinguish between Us neocons and Israelis, because they hold different viewpoints and ultimately different interests, after all

Posted by: claudio | Sep 1 2013 1:00 utc | 110

[the U$] public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships — 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf

Posted by: Caroll | Sep 1 2013 1:03 utc | 111

People who think that war is inevitable serve the powers that be to a tee.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:07 utc | 112

Well....according to the Symington (Sp???) Amendment, all the quadrillions we've pissed away to Israel were illegal anyway. But hey, like I said earlier, whats legality got to do with anything? Treaties are made to be broken, ignored, misrepresented, and politicized. They are NOT to be adhered to if you want to squat your lyin' treasonous ass in the Oval Office. Scum floats to the top.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 1:08 utc | 113

Syria has now rehearsed the defensive actions necessary if (as seems unlikely) the US publicly decides to attack:

The “limited and narrow” strikes proposed by Obama would, in any case, be unlikely to significantly change the military balance in the country, said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Throughout the week, the Syrian army has been relocating troops and hardware from military bases into civilian buildings and neighborhoods, witnesses say. In the major cities of Homs and Damascus, soldiers have been arriving by the busload at university dormitories, and residents said artillery and tanks had been moved into residential areas.

“The kind of strikes that the U.S. has telegraphed way too much in advance would not deal a significant military blow,” Hokayem said. “It’s given them so much time to hide that all they will do is destroy a few buildings.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-inspectors-leave-syria-as-us-pushes-forward-with-plans-for-military-action/2013/08/31/9d79d88a-121b-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:20 utc | 114

Don....this thread at Mondo should interest you. And, uh, maybe get you...uh...rethinking...

http://tinyurl.com/mvouyvt

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 1:22 utc | 115

Italy was perhaps the first country to declare its opposition to a military strike on Syria without UN backing

considering that the foreign minister, Ms Emma Bonino, is a war monger liberal interventionist and Israel lover, and that Italy hasn't expressed a single autonomous position in foreign policy for maybe the last twenty years, this has raised my deepest suspicions that the whole debate is just an act, or a demonstration of how far out of control the situation is

single politicians (Obama, Cameron, Holland) seem to take the stage for their moment of glory (through "easy wars", of course, because that's the only thing they have learned to do, and have been allowed to do, since Kosovo 1999)

but the PTB remain silent on the background, and people like Bonino can take a "pacifist" stand without fearing for their relations; Bonino's stand is perhaps the best proof that Israel and NATO aren't in favor of a strike against Syria, or that at a minimum they are deeply divided over this

and it also shows how Obama is surprisingly isolated in this phase (a colonized country like Italy wouldn't dare defy his wishes, otherwise), and therefore is calling for Israel to support his position; if Bonino changes her stand it will be a good indicator of an evolution of Israel's and NATO's positions

Posted by: claudio | Sep 1 2013 1:22 utc | 116

No "we must" is an order, not simply a misinterpretation.

Anyone reading what i wrote can clearly see i made no demands of anyone. I have no idea why you are choosing to misrepresent both what i said and what you said in reply.

If anyone is indulging in cheap polemical retorts here, claudio, it is you not I.


Ok so you agree with me;

Clearly I did no such thing. Bizzare that you would make such a claim tbh. You really have a strange interpretation if you think i was agreeing with you

The only slight difference between them is that the zio-nazis are getting a little worried now that the bloodshed they have long demanded might just have some negative repercussions for themselves.

In that they are no different than the ziocons.

Istill see little need to make any great distinction betwen the two though, both are arrogant bloodthirsty scum, both are coldblooded murderers, both are warmongers, both are selfish to the nth degree.

A match made in heaven as far as I can see,

If the zionazis suffer because of an atrack on Syria, well it will be no more than they richly deserve.

But otherwise both they and the zio-cons are prety much the same

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:22 utc | 117

Like i said, you can do all the distinguishing you want, but i have no intention of doing so just cos some guy on the net demanded it.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:24 utc | 118

@POA
I see agreement at Mondweiss

As President Barack Obama moves closer to calling for military action against Syria, a powerful ally that could help him win over skeptics is staying quiet.

The Israel lobby, including the high-profile American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish groups, isn’t pushing for intervention even as evidence emerged [sic] this week that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its citizens.

The silence could be a problem for Obama, since the Jewish groups are connected across the political spectrum, wielding influence from the far right to liberal Democrats on issues critical to the Middle East — especially when it comes to the use of military force.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:26 utc | 119

Surprising questions from... CBS?



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600624/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

No tangible evidence has been offered by either the U.S. or Britain to demonstrate what lead to the conclusion that Assad's forces must have been behind the previous suspected chemical attacks, and the U.N. inspection team -- which had its original plans derailed by the unexpected attacks in Ghouta -- has not reached any other sites. Much like the Ghouta attacks, the intelligence behind the accusations that Assad's regime was involved in previous chemical weapons incidents has remained secret.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 1:26 utc | 120

tweet this to @pontifex (popes twitter) if US wages war on syria Pope should excommunicate catholis who take part: violates catholic doctrine of just wars

Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 1:30 utc | 121

Why would AIPAC advocate an all out very deadly conflagration over all the Middle East, of course including Israel?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:30 utc | 122

Its the all new Moron Doll: the media pulls its string and it talks!

JDLAUGHEAD says:Assad and his family should be wiped off the surface of the earth and sent to Hell, for Gassing 416 poor defenseless Children to Death and they should suffer the pain those poor children suffer forever in HELL

From the CBS comments. I guess this is the best some people can do...

It's a rare one those. Most are against the strikes. The rest are faux-"serious people."

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 1:32 utc | 123

@17

You mean like all out conflaration they have been demanding or threatening for the past 20yrs regarding Iran?

I dunno, Could be cos they're a bunch of nazis?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:34 utc | 124

Should be @117

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:35 utc | 125

@hmm
You mean like all out conflaration they have been demanding or threatening for the past 20yrs regarding Iran?

No, I meant the conflagration over all the Middle East that b described in his opening remarks.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:38 utc | 126

Aipac is NOT the totality of the israel lobby, don

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:39 utc | 127

@Mr. Pragma #55

"OK, OK, not 2 days and not 300 cruise missiles. Got that. How about 6 hours and 50 cruise missiles, Mr. Putin?".

You captured the essence of Obama's problem ...

And now he is seeking Congress' explicit complicity for his little strike, in a situation where no one has control over the possible consequences; he's a lawyer (maybe) after all

but it seems he needs Aipac's support to win a vote in Congress; I'm afraid of what Aipac may ask in return, if it decides to do so

Posted by: claudio | Sep 1 2013 1:39 utc | 128

#114...

"I see agreement at Mondweiss...."

Well, if nothing else, you're damned tenacious with your position, Don. Tell me, do you think that Foxman, Kristol, Joe Lieberman, Dershowitz, Bernard-Henri Levy, Rove, Abrams, Biden, Feinstein, etc, would advocate a policy that is polar to AIPAC's agenda?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 1:40 utc | 129

@121

Yes don, a conflagration very very similar to what they were demanding vis a vie Iran

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:41 utc | 130

somethings never change: Obama is Bush mark 2(smarter model) dejavu Bush 'Now watch thisdrive!' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCm9788Tb5g the Golfwar ................Fox News ‏@FoxNews 3h
Obama goes golfing after deciding on Syria military strike http://fxn.ws/18fJspO : the candidate for change you can believe in!

Posted by: brian | Sep 1 2013 1:47 utc | 131

@124

The idea that these 2 groups of zionasties are at loggerheads over this is hilarious

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:48 utc | 132

#117....

Don, you pose a question that deserves an answer. Personally, I believe that much could be accomplished to advance the Israeli/zionist/neocon/imperialist agenda under the cover of complete and utter Middle Eastern chaos. Don't forget, Israel and the United States still enjoy total military superiority in the middle east, and if the whole region was aflame there would not be much that we couldn't get away with behind the fog of war. Heavy civilian casualties could be blamed on a myriad of bad actors, and many covert and genocidal operations could be carried out under the cover of chaos. Arab unity and stability works AGAINST Israel's agenda, which is continued military dominance, eternal expansion, and a final solution to the "Muslim threat". I whole-heartedly disagree with you that the chaos of total regional instability works against Israel's agenda. I think it is, in fact, part of the agenda. As you know, for a few years now I have opined that this chapter won't end without billions of Muslim casualties, and I still subscribe to that belief. To put it bluntly, I think thats the goal.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 1:52 utc | 133

draft resolution on Syria sent by White House to Congress

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:53 utc | 134

I too see agreement at mondoweiss, though of a different sort than don sees

Behind the scenes, several veteran pro-Israel lobbyists also said they don’t want a repeat of the Iraq War, when the vast majority of groups and Jewish leaders supported taking out Saddam Hussein.

Afterward, many felt they were left with the blame when the war became deeply unpopular with the American public…“They don’t want this to be seen as a Jewish or an Israel war,” said one veteran pro-Israel activist.

The lobby dont want the blame, thats all, hence the low profile at the moment. But they dont have any real problem with the war that they have helped engineer

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 1:57 utc | 135

@POA
Chaos in Syria is fine with them -- the destruction of Tel Aviv, which Syria and Hezbollah are fully capable of, is not. One must realize, as b has described, the horror of all-out war in the whole region. NOBODY who live there wants that.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 1:58 utc | 136

"Chaos in Syria is fine with them -- the destruction of Tel Aviv, which Syria and Hezbollah are fully capable of, is not"

Well, then, the advocation for war by those such as Kristol, Abrams, Foxman, Liebermen, etc, becomes a bit inexplicable, does it not? Or do you think the "destruction of Tel Aviv" is of no concern to them?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 2:04 utc | 137

The draft resolution is open-ended, and does not specifically prohibit President Barack Obama from using U.S. ground forces to carry out this military mission. It allows more than "sending a message" -- which is silly anyhow. You either fight a war (I don't recommend it) or you don't. Killing people "sending a message" only sends one message -- retaliate. Level Tel Aviv.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:05 utc | 138

@PAO
Do you expect me to defend neocons? Come on.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:07 utc | 139

sorry -- POA

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:08 utc | 140

@129 This is a good first draft. Simple, meaningless, and only a page and a half so probably 20% of congress who try to read it will actually be able to make it all the way through. Of course they'd prefer some colorful pictures, but you can't have everything especially on short notice.

I think we can expect probably, say, what 1,000 pages of pork barrel amendments to be added to this before it shoots it's way through congress like a plate of bad chicken vindaloo?

With McCain and Miss Lindsey refusing to go along with "limited" strikes (they'll demand regime change for their votes) it is clear that the bombing, if it does happen, will mean more than just "limited" strikes. The aim will be the removal of the Assad and the installation of the head choppers into power.

PRESS TV: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/31/321488/mccain-lindsey-syria-strikes-not-enough/

"We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement, as reported by Reuters.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 2:12 utc | 141

Here are 2 very well known fully-paid-up members of the jewish lobby demanding "action" on syria


WOLFOWITZ DEMANDS THAT ANNAN RESIGN TO ALLOW MILITARY ACTION ON SYRIA
link to thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com

Daniel Pipes Promotes Syria’s Destruction link to veteranstoday.com

The jewish lobby aint just aipac you know

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 2:12 utc | 142

And here is the zio-nastie govt itself, deeply involved with the ZATOterrorists

Israeli official admits ‘extensive connections’ with Syrian rebels

link to thepassionateattachment.com

Israel deputy minister’s aide meets with Syria insurgents

link to presstv.com

====

So,

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 2:15 utc | 143

from the draft resolution--

Missile strikes "will send a clear message of American resolve."

Just like 9/11 sent a clear message of terrorist resolve?

What kind of nonsense is that?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:19 utc | 144

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's no slouch. With their victory assured in Syria, they're moving onto Egypt.


http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2013/August/middleeast_August375.xml&section=middleeast

Al Adnani called on Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis to “renounce peaceful calls and to carry weapons and join jihad for the sake of God ... We advise those in the Egyptian army to repent and to defect.”

He described the militaries of Arab states as “armies of the oppressors,” “renegades” and “infidels,” especially the Egyptian army “which tries to prevent God’s rule and establish secular rules.”

And just as they will not stop attacking America even as we so kindly provide them an air force in Syria, neither is Morsi ("a secularist in an Islamist cloak") good enough for them though he promised to send poor egyptians to fight with them in Syria.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 1 2013 2:20 utc | 145

For anyone that could not be bothered with daniel pipes, here's the headline
Zionism Needs A Balkanized Syria

Not really possible to get more in-yer-face than that, imo

Astounding that some people still maintain that the jewish lobby is not pushing hard on destroying syria

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 2:24 utc | 146

141) Because Judaism is a religion, nothing else. There is a Israel lobby in the US pushing Israel's interest. Neocons are a unique American mix. Religion does not unite people on common interest, it unites them in their fear of death. Countries generally unite people in their interest, however people in countries also have different interests depending on the way they earn their living. If your brain hurts now,hmm, just stop thinking it is better for you.

Discussion of Syria in congress will be fun. Democrats will hate Obama for that.

A House Democratic aide, on condition of anonymity, said "the vote will depend on the Republicans" because Democrats "will be split down the middle."

Asked how the votes might go in the House and Senate, Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said he thought it could be "problematic."


Posted by: somebody | Sep 1 2013 2:36 utc | 147

Just some thoughts.

1) There is no way Obama is going through all this trouble for a few pin-prick strikes to "save face." The whole purpose is to help the Al Qaida useful idiots win (meaning destroy Syria.)

2) That whole bullshit of 'just a few cruise missiles' story existed only to a) convince the Syrians and there allies not to hit back. It seems they did not buy it and told Obama plain; his choices are all out war or no war at all. And b) it was also meant to sell the war to the public as being easy and low cost.

3) Which brings us to where we are today, A full on media blitz to sell the war to the public like in 2002-3. The problems facing the powers that be are a) a much more compressed time frame b) a public with a twice bitten thrice shy attitude and c) perhaps most importantly, a much more potent alternative media. Those are important speed bumps, but not insurmountable by any means. While I'm heartened by the large number of antiwar comments an MSM news sites, I'm under no illusion that the public can't be persuaded to support an 'easy' war against a (supposedly) helpless enemy.

4) There should be no doubt whatsoever that Israel and her very powerful lobbies in the US and Europe all pray for the destruction of Syria as a nation state and would love for somebody else to do all the heavy lifting of destroying it. They may offer a pretense of reluctance, they may be anxious that they will in fact have to pay a substantial price themselves, or they may fear that the whole operation could go to hell in hand basket, leaving there enemies much stronger than before. But that is what they want and any division withing their ranks is about strategy and fear of costs, not objectives.

5) The west and Israel face the formation of a unified Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon with access to enormous oil wealth, arable land, large population and man power and huge military potential. Such an entity will have the ability to challenge and overthrow the Persian Gulf puppet states and would be the beginning of the end of Israeli-western domination in the middle east, especially if such a body enjoys the support of Russia and China.

Anybody who thinks the west will simply say 'goodbye to all that' is delirious. Anybody who doubts that they will kill anybody, destroy anything to prevent that from happening is in a coma. They may not succeed, but be sure that they will try and try and try and until they either get what they want, or loose.

Please keep that in mind when thinking about whether Obama will actually attack Syria, with intent to destroy, if he can.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 1 2013 2:41 utc | 148

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

The draft resolution would authorize the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with . . ."

There is nothing "limited" about it. The Decider would decide, as in the Iraq fiasco, except -- as b indicates -- worse, much worse.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:43 utc | 149

@somebody
"Religion does not unite people on common interest, it unites them in their fear of death."

That wasn't at all the case in Iran after 1979. Religion united people to do positive things all together. Unless if you consider resistance, independence and struggle to build a better political society as a negative and fearful values.

Posted by: ATH | Sep 1 2013 2:45 utc | 150

The usual pathetic bullshit from zomebody

Zome things never change

Zionazis claim that jewish is a "cultural" designation as well as religous one.

They even claim that being jewish makes them "a people".

So everything you just said on the subject is contradicted by the very people you claim i am misrepresenting.

While that might make your brain hurt, hasbara-boy, its still what they claim about themselves.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 2:45 utc | 151

@Lysander
Please keep in mind that Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon has the considerable capability to retaliate.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:45 utc | 152

@145

He does, when it is arabs or muslims being united

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 2:46 utc | 153

@Lysander
Please keep in mind that Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon has a considerable to retaliate.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:47 utc | 154

Fred Kaplan in Time agrees with my view on the Zionist lobbying:

Three Reasons Congress May Not Approve War In Syria

Surely the American Israel Public Affairs Committee will help whip a vote, since having a failed state on the Israeli border isn’t appealing and the next looming red line is Iran. But that doesn’t make victory a sure bet.

Posted by: b | Sep 1 2013 2:50 utc | 155

There was a reason Obama and Biden looked grumpy in the Rose Garden announcing plans for a new war -- they were late for their tee time.

President Obama played golf on Saturday following his major announcement that he had decided the United States should take military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on civilians during that country’s civil war.

The president and Vice President Biden left for the course within minutes of his Rose Garden speech in which he asked Congress to first approve such action.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:55 utc | 156

"The usual pathetic bullshit from zomebody"

Has anyone politely told you to shut the fuck up yet?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 2:55 utc | 157

There was a reason Obama and Biden looked grumpy in the Rose Garden announcing plans for a new war -- they were late for their tee time.

President Obama played golf on Saturday following his major announcement that he had decided the United States should take military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on civilians during that country’s civil war.

The president and Vice President Biden left for the course within minutes of his Rose Garden speech in which he asked Congress to first approve such action.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 2:56 utc | 158

b, you should be asleep. Get your rest because we are really going to need you in the weeks to come.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 1 2013 2:59 utc | 159

@156
Well in my experince the type of people that do that are not usually polite people

Mostly they are themselves complete assholes tbh, as you so so knidly demonstrated yourself just now

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:00 utc | 160

As I recall, POA's relationship with 'somebody' in the past hasn't been totally a bed of roses, and yet here he comes through for him with a highly-nuanced yet suggestive phrase that, while a bit misty, isn't difficult to understand. "Shut the fuck up." I like it. I'd pick POA to be in a foxhole with me any day, if it were necessary.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:02 utc | 161

Right back at ya don ;-)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:03 utc | 162

You 2 seem to think you own this place

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:03 utc | 163

#139...

Don, you misunderstood the point behind my question. Of course I do not expect you to "defend the neocons". I have "known" you for far too long, and have far too much respect for you to expect such a flight of fancy. But do you really expect these people, many with dual citizenships, to advance a policy direction that jeopordizes Tel Aviv, or will inevitably work against Israel's agenda? Obviously, they have considered the ramifications of the policies they advocate for. Ergo, they must see an advantage to striking Syria. And, if they believe, as you do, that absolute chaos will ensue in the middle east, than that too, in thier minds, must work to Israel's advantage. Or, they do not share your premonitions about the ramifications of a strike on Syria. Personally, I think Israel would like nothing more than to take on Iran, with our participation, now rather than later. And an attack on Syria may be an avenue they are pursuing to that end.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:05 utc | 164

"Foxhole"?

Don, it's a website, not the korean war

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:05 utc | 165

@hmm
Calling POA a 'complete asshole' is over the line. You are talking to an individual who is worth six of you. He's a man who puts in a day's work and knows ten times what you have exhibited. Now please just crawl back into your hole and leave. You offer nothing and so you aren't wanted here.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:06 utc | 166

@ Don 152 (and 154:-))

Yes they do and that is why you see some division in the ranks of the west. Basically, some think they can eventually wear down Syria via non-stop terrorism, whereas others think that card has been played to the max without the desired result.

If it has, they can either accept the scenario I outlined in 148, or they can roll the dice with a war. Since colonialists (Zionists and the west in general) cannot countenance ANY loss of power, much less the loss of enormous power, they will be prepared to take risks they otherwise wouldn't take and accept losses they would otherwise shun.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 1 2013 3:07 utc | 167

"The president and Vice President Biden left for the course within minutes of his Rose Garden speech in which he asked Congress to first approve such action"

Such elitist arrogance from our leaders will spell doom for our nation. These people are maggots. A shame we can't teleport them to the front lines of one of their criminal holocausts.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:08 utc | 168

Telling people to stfu, when your rabbiting on nonstop yourself, is preety much the definition of an asshole, don

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:09 utc | 169

"Calling POA a 'complete asshole' is over the line"

I don't know, Don. I really think I might prefer it over being half an ass.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:13 utc | 170

@Lysander
I think that this 'chemical crisis' is due to Syria gaining the military ascendency over the opposition. One indicator is that Idris's 'field commanders' recently posted a video indicating that they would go with the strongest anti-Syria field forces, i.e. al-Nusra. McCain and others have recognized this situation.

So what to do? Hey, let's go with Bandar's idea, a concocted chemical weapons strike.

So it's not just a desire to wear down Assad. It's panic time. Putin senses it -- the West has lost and so it's 'crisis time.'

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:13 utc | 171

@POA
You don't want me to defend neocons, and then you do. They're certified nut-cases, right? Whatever they say doesn't ever qualify to even be repeated.

Yes, Israel wants the US to take on Iran --THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. Iran, not Syria, is the current AIPAC position, because an external war against Syria would light up the Middle East and no sensible person in any country (that excludes crazy neocons) wants that.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:19 utc | 172

Biden, Fienstien, Lieberman, Dershowitz are "crazy neocons"?

Besides, is it possible that Israel realizes that an unprovoked arttack on Iran won't sell. But, attacking Syria may incite Iran into providing the prequisite provication?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:23 utc | 173

Equally a war against iran would also light up the M.E.

Your argument against the claim that the lobhy wants to artack syria works just as well as an argument against war with Iran.

If your argument were valid then aipac would not be gunning for iran either


Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:24 utc | 174

@hmm
Telling people to stfu. . .is preety much the definition of an asshole, don

Except when it's directed at you, hmm. With you, it's warranted.
Now your mission is to contribute to this blog in a positive way while stopping your infantile attacks on somebody. It's distracting and lessens the quality of a blog with access provided to you, paid by others, in the expectation that your comments will add to the discussion and not be petty attacks on other readers.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:24 utc | 175

Don

Grow up

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:24 utc | 176

And, about those "crazy neocons".... uh...have you noticed how effective they seem to be at getting the wars they want?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:25 utc | 177

So it's not just a desire to wear down Assad. It's panic time. Putin senses it -- the West has lost and so it's 'crisis time.'

Don, I agree with all that. The 'wear down Assad' plan has failed. The west IS loosing and they ARE panicking, but that's precisely why they will resort to extreme violence, (as opposed to nonstop terrorist violence) In the past, that has always been their trump card.

Putin has outplayed them, and I'm sure he has anticipated their current reaction. I suspect he is confident that he can either beat them or at least leave them with a very hollow and Pyrrhic victory.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 1 2013 3:25 utc | 178

Just speculating---

It's well known that the NSA isn't sure exactly what Snowden made off with.

I wonder if there's a concern that among the data is some smoking gun relative to Israel/US/Saudi Arabia and their operations and interests in Syria that they fear just might be released in the event of a US attack.

Posted by: sleepy | Sep 1 2013 3:27 utc | 179

@POA
Biden, Fienstien, Lieberman, Dershowitz are "crazy neocons"?

Biden was a material aid to Bush in initiating the Iraq fiasco, the largest foreign policy blunder in US history. In the runup to the war Biden was Chairman, Senate Foreign Affairs. His hearings did not allow anti-war witnesses who might have slowed the march to war.

Feinstein -- As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Lieberman -- I'm sure you'll agree there's none worse. Plus he was Obama's mentor when that f***head came into the Senate.

Dershowitz I'm not too familiar with. Ad I recall he's a Zionist sympatizer at Harvard, but I don't know.

Tell you what -- let's make them "honorary" crazy neocons, okay? I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with any of them, to use a tired analogy.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:31 utc | 180

Iran Foreign Minister Zarif says Iran traced transfer of homemade Sarin gas to 'extremists' in Syria, told US about it in memo 9 months ago
http://inagist.com/all/373938807826948096/

Posted by: Paul | Sep 1 2013 3:32 utc | 181

It's been claimed that the NSA is not sure what snowden got. But there's way to verify that.

So it is just a claim, nothing more. A claim that i personally don't believe

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:34 utc | 182

"....is preety much the definition of an asshole, don"

I was gonna drop it, 'cause I feel like I'm just feeding a monkey bananas. And that is an endeavor that only ends when you run out of bananas. And knowing myself as I do, I can regretfully note that I'm capable of importing trainloads of the damn things to a blogsite such as this one.

But, I regret I must feed him one more.

So, hmm, I suggest you read the entirety of your "contributions" to this thread, and note the "tone" with which you've engaged Don and Somebody. I got news for you, you epitomize the term "asshole" with your every inciteful and hateful utterance on this thread. I'm willing to start over if you are. But barring that, just fuck off. I think I'll just ignore your simian bullshit.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:35 utc | 183

No thanks

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:38 utc | 184

@Lysander
We should be very cautious ascribing any thought process to these characters. Obama is simply a young, inexperienced politician with very limited experience and no achievements except making pretty speeches and getting elected.

(POA says this more colorfully.)

Obama, trying to look presidential, prattled something about redline and then, however it happened, had to actually do something or eat crow. He should have said "pass the ketchup" but he decided to play Commander-in-Chief, a roll he enjoys, instead. That's ALL that it is.

Putin, Lavrov and hopefully some Washington pols need to be the adults in the room.

So there's no need to imagine deep Zionist or neocon plots. It's just Obama being Obama. A young man with a thinking problem.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:39 utc | 185

I'm honestly surprised some think Israel doesnt want Syria to be attacked, thats contrary to all the known facts and history. Even the "main evidence" to justify bombing of Syria came from Israel.

From my post in another thread:
--------------------------------------------
Israel is heavily, HEAVILY trying to influence NATO to start bombing:

1) Israel was pushing for Syria's destruction (and occupation of its land) for decades, weakening of Hezb and Iran would be nice bonus.

2) Israel extensively supports terrorists with weapons (you can find more Israel's produced weaps in Syria than by US), intelligence and logistics.

3) Israel's puppets among politicians are 100% supporting terrorists and pushing for bombing of Syria.

4) Israel itself bombed Syria multiple times in recent months.

5) Israel's influenced media just did 24/7 "bomb Syria!" campaign.

6) Most importantly, latest development - Israel's provided recording was the main "evidence" which "convinced" major NATO members to start preparations of Syria's bombing without bothering with UN or its investigation.

If anything, it proves Israel BADLY wants Syria to be attacked by NATO, and if not invasion, then at least bombed a la Libya.
--------------------------------------------

Road to Tehran goes through Damascus, and Israel is hell bend to destroy Syria, then Hezbollah, and then strong-arm US to attack Iran.

Just because Israel wants to keep lower profile (so instead of them, war and public's anger would be on Obama's head) shouldnt confuse others about their intentions, their lobby is working overtime to make Syria's bombing happen.

Also Israel already occupied MORE Syria's land during this war, and will continue expanding "buffer zone" if war continues. Assad is too busy to open another front, and if he loses or country is divided to smaller pieces, Israel will grab all they can eat, while trying to do the same in Lebanon. Who will stand in their way? No strong (independent) Arab country remaining, UN wont move a finger, US will veto anything Israel doesnt like, etc.

Posted by: Harry | Sep 1 2013 3:44 utc | 186

"A young man with a thinking problem"

Or a Trojan Horse about to let its demons out.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:46 utc | 187

Just look at who Obama has had around him in foreign affairs. Clinton (wife), Rice (management consultant at McKinsey & Company), Donilon ( Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae, now there's a success story), and now Samantha Power -- zero and Kerry, the flip-flopper.

Who could or can expect anything productive from these people? Obama might as well go golfing. Oh, that's right, he did. With Biden, who has to remember to put the club in his hand rather that his foot in his mouth.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:49 utc | 188

Just look at who Obama has had around him in foreign affairs. Clinton (wife), Rice (management consultant at McKinsey & Company), Donilon ( Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae, now there's a success story), and now Samantha Power -- zero and Kerry, the flip-flopper.

Who could or can expect anything productive from these people? Obama might as well go golfing. Oh, that's right, he did. With Biden, who has to remember to put the club in his hand rather that his foot in his mouth.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:49 utc | 189

@Harry
As b has indicated above, external war against Syria would destroy not only Syria but its neighbors as well. Don't fight it. Believe it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 3:51 utc | 190

"Telling people to stfu, when your rabbiting on nonstop yourself...."

Next thing we know, he's gonna accuse me of datoing. Guilty as charged. I do rabbit. I dato too. Who ratted me out?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 3:52 utc | 191

Depends on your definition of "productive"

Certainly bankers would consider obamas team to be very productive

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:52 utc | 192

holy crap, b! are you naive!!!
Obama wants the whole conflagration, and so does all of congress. what planet are you getting your info from???
and you want us little folks to stop it? christ, we paraded in streets last time, got whacked in the head by riot cops, did sit-ins in our congressional offices, amd gathered every stupid community group to meet with our reps.
I will tell you what I learned: our rep (Lofgren) told us to our faces that she opposed the Iraq war and marched with us in the streets, but with a straight face told us that she HAD TO vote to FUND every further war crime to SUPPORT THE TROOPS, and as she said this, I looked up at her wall, and there were photos and awards from Lockheed Martin and all her local war corporations kissing her and hugging her.
I GET IT.
the US doesn't care about its people any more than it cares about Arabs. it wants weapons sales and oil and whatever the hell Israel wants.
give us some idea of what to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know so many youth who just want to leave.

Posted by: anon | Sep 1 2013 3:54 utc | 193

@189

I just took a wild guess an got lucky. You just looked like a dato-er to me.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 3:57 utc | 194

@anon
Obama wants the whole conflagration
How do you know what Obama wants? Have you spoken with him recently? You don't know.
and you want us little folks to stop it
Damn right, and we will, in spite of you can't do people. Quitters.
give us some idea of what to do
We can't tell you what to do.
Do whatever you can do that's positive and contributes to the anti-war effort.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 4:00 utc | 195

@anon
Obama wants the whole conflagration
How do you know what Obama wants? Have you spoken with him recently? You don't know.
and you want us little folks to stop it
Damn right, and we will, in spite of you can't do people. Quitters.
give us some idea of what to do
We can't tell you what to do.
Do whatever you can do that's positive and contributes to the anti-war effort.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 4:01 utc | 196

#189...

Thats more like it. Can you maintain that jovial civility? These fuckin' bananas are getting heavy.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 1 2013 4:02 utc | 197

I could, but best not to rely on that too much.

Low tolerance for liars and idiots. Bane of my life

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 4:06 utc | 198

Hence my intolerence for he who shall remain nameless (hint -rhymes with cumbody)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 1 2013 4:07 utc | 199

I have the vague memory of hmm being actually human when he first came on this blog. I think maybe he got bit by something.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 1 2013 4:07 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.