General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Real Reason for War With Syria
The American public deserves a full explanation of what we are being asked to support.
Tom Hayden
September 6, 2013
The resolution in favor of American intervention in Syria conceals an agenda for escalation far beyond, as a statement by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez described it, a “narrow” and “focused” US response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21. The American public and Congress are being fooled into a broader effort that looks a lot like war and regime change.
?
Maybe it’s the price the president paid for Senator John McCain’s vote. But McCain’s amendment, which says, “It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement,” suggests escalation will not be far behind air strikes.
The measure authorizes: two or three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes, aimed at decisively damaging Assad’s military bases and infrastructure; increasing the capabilities of the insurgent forces—somehow without strengthening Al Qaeda—and profoundly weakening Assad’s capacity to continue in power. The prohibition of boots on the ground, so important to Congress, does not cover CIA boots on the ground, nor the boots of American advisers and trainers just over the Syrian border.
Kerry even alluded to where this might go, when in his official Senate testimony he said that the authorization should not rule out “boots on the ground.” Kerry told the committee that he believed US troops might have to be used if chaos ensues or militant rebel elements threaten to take control of chemical weapons stockpiles. In other words, “boots on the ground” are stage of escalation not necessary at the present—but which might be necessary as a consequence of the chain of events the United States now is fomenting. Under sharp questioning, Kerry backtracked, saying, “Let’s shut that door now as tight as we can,” then adding that it was only a hypothetical question and that there would be no boots on the ground “with respect to the civil war.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/176059/real-reason-war-syria#axzz2eCeSgAzT
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)
LuvNewcastle
(16,860 posts)I thought they were talking about DAYS here, maybe a week. It's pretty much inevitable that this "shot across the bow" is going to cause the Syrians, Iranians, or the Russians to retaliate. No one would put up with being bombed for that long without responding in some way. This plan is just plain nuts. I don't think Obama's speech is going to change any minds unless he lies about what they're planning to do.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Ya think?
"unless he lies about what they're planning to do."
7962
(11,841 posts)Theyre just bloviating. The Syrians would of course try to do something, Iran SAYS they'll attack Israel. If that happens, Israel will decimate them.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)"shock and awe". This thing has "mission creep" written all over it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They aren't right, but they are absolutely sure of it.
And outraged that it's happened. Even though it hasn't, and won't.
rurallib
(62,460 posts)what more is there to say
valerief
(53,235 posts)Or both?
It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with "protecting humanity". War only protects property, not people.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)that would really sadden me.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)All the firepower to extract the riches of earth can be yours. We'll help.
As long as the pay is good and you match my contributions to the corporate war effort.
Otherwise, no dice.
Blackwater nation has ethical boundaries.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)It could be called the "War with Syria" if Syria was making war on the USA. But, engaging in warfare to remove a government is a war upon someone. an effort to create a regime change. And, into the vacuum will march the Islamist majority and they same thing that happened in Egypt will happen all over again, extremist control.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Possibly the most stupid. It's got bullshit written all over it.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)is slowly sliding toward that 3rd WW. A stumble here, a snub there. An "accidental" bombing of someone 'important', the recalling of diplomatic personnel and then.......
what?
started in 2003-4. wake up.
CRH
(1,553 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)
When that happened in Iraq, 1992 and 2003, the US military totally destroyed the entire infra structure of the country. Including the public health infra structure, in violation of the Geneva accords. Water purification and sanitation were destroyed as part of the strategy of destabilizing the support for Saddam. Can we expect any different from the MIC this time around. Can any president control the pentagon and MIC once they get started.
Once destroyed, then sanctions prevent the rebuilding of the public health infra structure, as was witnessed when the Clinton administration proposed and enforced sanctions that did just that. The death tole of civilian population from these actions is documented and was commented on by then Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/30/democracy_now_confronts_madeline_albright_on
Some veteran Iraq observers say that it was the Clinton administration that set the tone for the Bush administration"s invasion of Iraq. It was Clinton who began the most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, he began almost daily attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones. And in 1998, Clinton"s administration made so-called regime change in Iraq official US policy.
During his presidency, Bill Clinton presided over the most devestating regime of economic sanctions in history that the UN estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of them children. In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeline Albright, who at the time was Clinton"s UN Ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that"s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeline Albright replied "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it." Last night as people filed out of the convention after John Kerry"s speech, we spotted Madeline Albright.
Madeline Albright later backtracked on this position, but the statement at the time, does speak to the mindset behind the politics. In war, in the eyes of the MIC and their political enablers, the civilian population is expendable when the objectives can't be reached by other politically acceptable means. Again it differs little from, burning the village to save it.
This was the Clinton administration not Bush, do you think much has changed since then in the eyes of the MIC and the current cast of military and political players? I seriously question if Obama has control of the present agenda, and especially question his control after the bombing has been accomplished.
On edit: The post originally stated Madeleine Albright was then Secretary Of State. It was after this quote, in 1997, she was promoted to Sec. of State.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, loved ones.
Shouldn't our soldiers command more respect than simply being referred to as "BOOTS"? Is this supposed to somehow disconnect us from the fact that real lives are placed in harms way in war? If that's the idea, then it's a pretty lame one. The term "boots on the ground" disgusts me.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Unless I miss my guess, this little "shot across the bow" may very quickly become something more akin to the Battle of Midway. Syria has powerful allies who are just as capable of making dangerous miscalculations as we so clearly are. If Hezbollah, Iran or even Russia move to become actively involved we may wish we had never even brought up the option of directly attacking Assad's regime.
