|
To Read On Syria
To read on Syria:
President Assad's interview with Izvestia:
President al-Assad: Syria will never become a western puppet state, we will fight terrorism and freely build relationships that best serve the interests of the Syrians – Sana
How the Saudi Price Bandar is goading the Unites States into another Middle East war:
A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works To Build Support to Topple Assad – WSJ
Half of the CIA paid Fee Syrian Army's recruits from Jordanian refugee camps are under 18 and pressed into service through threats and/or bribes on their families
As losses mount, Syrian rebels turn to teenage soldiers – Washington Post
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran – FP
Syria: Expert sees no military grade chemical weapon effect
What Happened? – If it isn’t Sarin, what is it? – Strongpoint Security
Diane Johnstone on the illegality of the proposed attacks on Syria:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/26/us-uses-past-crimes-to-legalize-future-ones/
In essence a war on Syria would have the sole purpose of raising funds for political campaigns in the USA. Elsewhere, in Nato, the purpose would be to appease the US.
The Israeli coalition of fascist political parties wants chaos to reign in the region. It cares very little where, it just wants civil wars everywhere. And it works, 24/7, to provoke, prolong and spread them. In this it has an ally in the Saudi racketeers and their fellow tyrants, who fear, just as Israel does, the mobilisation of Arab public opinion.
Both parties, Israel and the Arab League, nestle under the protection of the United States, without whom they are very insignificant powers, whose malicious wishes would be disregarded, contemptuously, by the international community.
The solution lay in discovering the fulcrum with which to move the US government. That was where AIPAC came in. It realised that the only means of moving America’s political class was to buy it.
There were two basic reasons why this was practical: the first was, obviously, that US politicians are greedy and will do anything for money, provided that it costs them nothing. The second reason proceeds from this: the most extreme policies protecting Israel have no consequences, the most dreadful injustices and barbarisms practised against Palestinians have no political costs.
That was the lesson Israel was demonstrating in its attacks on defenceless Gaza: “it doesn’t matter what we do, or what you support us in” Israel told Congress “you will not risk the loss of a single vote.”
Why? Because all that counts in Congressional elections is money: no politics are involved, there is no difference between the two parties, and no possibility of a third party challenging their duopoly, small chance of a third party getting on the ballot, and, absent enormous amounts of money, very little chance of getting a message out in House districts about 750,000 voters strong and Senate elections with State wide electorates.
The problem was that, although there are many rich Jews vulnerable to the siren songs of Zionist racism in the United States they are a tiny minority among the 1% and they didn’t get rich by giving money away. The trick, for AIPAC, has been to raise vast sums of money to buy the US government not from Zionists but from the American people who, through their taxes, pour billions annually into the support of Israeli fascism.
Not Israel, per se, which, without these billions would be forced into an accommodation with its neighbours and with the people of Palestine (the idea behind the Oslo process) but with Israel’s fascists, the inheritors of Jabotinsky’s mantle, who are in principle opposed to any peace in the middle east which does not involve the submission of the Arab nation to Israeli hegemony.
The way in which Netanyahu and his allies have managed to perform this magic while preserving, often greatly enhancing, the fortunes of its wealthy supporters is not just by persuading the purchased Congress that, while it is cutting Food Stamps feeding tens of millions of American children, on the grounds that it lacks the financial resources to do so, it should increase its donations to Israel’s government. There must be a limit to such insanity; even though it has yet to be reached, it must be approaching.
There are several other ways of diverting money to Israel. One of them is to move Defense industry contracts, off shore, to Israel, so that Israeli corporations share in the trillion dollar US Defense/Security budget as well as in the US subsidy of Israel’s bloated defense budgets.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is the way in which the US tax system is employed to allow taxpayers to write off their donations to a panoply of clearly political “causes” ranging from Summer Camps for Snipers, and the establishment of colonies in the West Bank to funding of Congressional visits to Israel as well as the more established appeals and land funds that Zionists have been running for over a century.
In essence Congress is being bribed to disregard both the opinions and interests of its constituents with the re-cycled money of its insulted electorate.
As to the US government itself, it is a comment upon the moral nullity of those running it that they would contemplate, for a moment, attacks on Syria which would involve the deaths of many people.
In the great scheme of things a US attack on Syria would be of small importance. From the Russian or Chinese point of view it would hardly be worth opposing except in words. The sad truth is that, after the Syrian victims themselves, the most significant casualties would be the USA and its allies who now stand before world opinion denuded of all but the last stained and stinking shreds of their moral and intellectual clothing.
Nobody with more brains than a snail believes for a moment that any righteous indignation motivates US policy. Only a week ago we watched it smiling approval as General Sisi and his minions, using US materiel, subsidised by US money, wearing US style military uniforms burned down mosques full of unarmed protestors and machine gunned crowds running away. So it is unreasonable to credit Obama’s camarilla with any ethical purpose in appeasing Netanyahu, his media chorus and his congressional puppets.
The last time I looked at this matter, of an attack on Syria, I was inclined to believe that it would be seen by Russia, China and Iran as an action that it was necessary for their own preservation to prevent. I no longer believe that to be the case: any strategic gains to the empire from a puppet regime in Syria would be inadequate compensation for the damage it would suffer from the further alienation of world opinion and the increase of its, already enormously overblown, wager on Arab monarchies.
Perhaps the most important fact in US diplomacy at the moment is its weakness in the area of its, traditionally, greatest strength: Latin America. While there is still no shortage of corrupt, vicious client regimes there, few of them (Good Morning Colombia!) look very stable. And the real significance lies in the importance of governments which are defiant of the US, all of which have in common that their current rulers came to power in reaction to US sponsored dictators in the eighties and nineties. The net result of past US triumphs in South America, from Chile to Argentina, has been to nourish implacable opponents in the mould of the lamented Hugo Chavez. It is a curious fact that in Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil victims of US trained torturers, occupants of US built dungeons are in power.
The likelihood is that their equivalents, current victims of the El Salvador option being practised in the middle east, will emerge as the next generation of rulers in Arabia, in Yemen, for example, in Bahrain, Jordan and the Saud family estates themselves.
A Kossovo style operation against Syria would, in all likelihood, bring the day, on which both the Houses of Saud and Cards fall a little closer. To begin with, I suspect, it would cut into the current support that Sisi enjoys in his political honeymoon.
Given this why should Russia protest? Why should China object?
A man with a gun, who has already shot holes in his own feet frightens nobody. And the bigger such a man’s armament the less daunting he is.
Posted by: bevin | Aug 26 2013 18:50 utc | 15
Ozawa (95)
I think you make an error here (although it’s an error most in the western hemisphere make).
If you reasonably compare the relevant parameters of western and Russian weapon systems you will find that Russia has solidly superior systems in the decisive key areas.
Of course, it’s easy to get that wrong and be misled by western media power and control. In order to understand that issue one must do a relatively complex comparison.
Within zato there are basically two major goups, zusa and europe. Both typically have weapons designed and built by conglomerats, with zusa enjoying the advantage of somewhat better control due to the fact that european systems are usually spread over multiple countries and extremely politicized.
Both, zusa and europe, however, have some major factors in common. For one the already mentioned conglomerates (which naturally brings frictions on multiple levels into the process). Another typical property is that the – sales driven – corporations design new weapon systems, typically out of nothing i.e. completely new, and the gobernment(s) then order them. Of course, corporations being sales driven, a very considerable sales pitch and marketing factor enters the equation, not seldom leading to weapons that look great in brochures and theory but are problem laden and in reality under par.
Russia is different in two major aspects. One is that the mil-ind-complex is widely guided by government. Another and extremely important one is that Russia doesn’t create weapons out of thin air but rather incrementally optimizes existing and well proven systems. Quite typically a new SU-Y, for instance, is just another name tag for what actually is a SU-X that had a series incremental optimization steps behind it and such warrants a new label. This leads to very realiable yet modern weapon systems.
Comparing the military capabilities one also must see doctrins and paradigms. zusa has an aggressive doctrin that relies very much on naval power and on sheer quantity, partly because zusa basically never had to defend itself but rather brought war to diverse parts of the world.
Russia, on the other side, is very much based on defense and near abroad operations, which obviously also shows in doctrin and weapon systems.
Somewhat generalizing one could think of 3 levels. The first level would be nuclear, the second one “traditional”, and the third one the troups and their quality.
Obviously, the nuclear level is to be avoided and has its main significance in MAD. On this level Russia has some advantage due to different parameters.
The second level is probably what most see (and try to compare). In our days this level is largely dominated by missiles and air defense capability. One noteworthy detail is that the zusa navy is largely designed around carriers and long range transportation (after all, they have to bring their war machine to places all over the world). Russias navy on the other hand follows a more classical approach with very high level missile capabilities on top. In simple words: a zusa carrier group is about “How to bring war, in particular air raids to any destination”, a Russian flotilla is about “How to a) defend themselves from zato attacks and b) how to destroy carriers and carrier groups”.
As for missiles and air defense, there is no doubt; Russia is strongly superior to zato. Russias missiles are faster, more deadly, have longer reach and (re)act smarter and, very importantly, they work reliably. zusa missile capabilities are something like a compromise between brochures, dreams and propaganda; they are inferior in pretty every relevant parameter and, in particular with respect to defense, more of an afterthought. The most reliable parameter is quite probably their lousy realiability and hit rate.
Coming to the third level, the troups, zato is at a loss. Their troups need climate controlled housing, PXs and Starbucks and their “strength” is to enter theater when cruise missiles and bombers have completely broken any significant resistance. Futhermore their system is such that soldiers are basically just brainless robot; their every move is coordinated and their radios are quite noisy.
This is also why both israel and zusa were so extremely eager to avoid or block S-300 delivery to Syria. These systems would quite simply be a major crowbar in zatos way to conduct a war.
As for Iran it would be a very serious error to underestimate that country. Their troups have a high morale and are very well trained. Furthermore Iran has achieved to design and produce a large part of their weapons themselves. This would be extremely advantageousin case of a war. Considering all factors I’m confident that neither france nor uk could risk a war with Iran. zusa could but they would pay extremely dear. A war against Iran would be no less difficult than a war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Turkey all at the same time.
My guess is that with zusa involved in and by necessity focussed on a war in Syria, Iran would not attack by themselves but they would a) support Syria and b) hit back extremely hard if any of the gulf states or saudi shot as much as single bullet against anything Iranian. There is no doubt whatsoever that nobody but zusa could stop them, which however is rather theoretical considering that zusa were already engaged in multiple wars.
Now, one might say “so what, who cares about saudi arabia”. Well, zusa does. With the saudi regime falling, zusas and zatos power would falter very quickly.
I personally guess that dempsey and possibly even obama are againsta Syria war but that the zio-thugs (aipac, …) will force them into it. The godd new is, pretty much no matter what, israel will be terminated and zusa crippled.
So, obama, bring it on!
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 27 2013 7:06 utc | 99
|
