Please understand, any U.S. military action in Syria means that we're being dragged into a proxy war

[scarletwoman]

between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with Israel cheering it on. Sunni Saudi Arabia wants uncontested hegemonic power in the region, and Shiite Iran is its main rival. Israel has been pimping for an attack on Iran for years, and nothing would make them happier than to see Iran enveloped in the general ME chaos.

On a larger scale, this is all part of the PNAC blueprint, to destablize the entire Middle East, to foment "regime change" in one country after another - always protecting the interests of Big Oil.

Is THIS what you really want the U.S. to be a part of? Because if you're supporting an attack on Syria, this is what you're really signing up for.

(edited for typo)

[dipsydoodle]

1. Sounds about right.

.

[scarletwoman]

6. Thank you.

[pasto76]

56. except for the part where the CIC is Obama, not Bush

There is no reason for this soldier, iraq war veteran and NCO to believe (based on his past actions) that this president is 'being pulled into a proxy war'

is it so difficult to beleive that he simply wants to try and stop Assad from using chemical weapons? to degrade - yes, that is a very real military term - (ie, 'degraded operations' for MLRS) the anyone from using chemical weapons. hit some installations, some equipment, some airfields. Call it a day.

no invasion, no 'war'. Actions. Actions have ends. Not very dramatic is it. no wonder the left cant buy into it!

[scarletwoman]

61. "Actions have ends." Maybe you forgot that 2 years ago, in 2011, Obama began saying "Assad must go"?

Maybe you've missed the news that the CIA has been arming the insurgents for some time, and that the U.S. has recently pledged to increase the amount of arms going to them? What kind of "ends" does this lead up to except regime change?

And maybe you've also missed the news that Saudi Arabia has promised to entirely bankroll a U.S. strike on Syria? Yes, those well-known humanitarians, the House of Saud, has offered to pay for using U.S. muscle to "degrade" Assad's capabilities. Entirely out of concern for the dead children, I'm sure.

And Israel, who had no problem with using white phosphorus in poplulated areas of the Gaza Strip, is becoming rather concerned that the U.S. might not go through with bombing Syria. APAIC is planning on a busy week lobbying our Congresscritters.

I stand by what I posted.

[Mojorabbit]

70. + 100 nt

[JEB]

93. Now there is the nitty gritty of the situation

Thanks for sharing all your work and insight.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

111. +1000

[Rockyj]

119. Thank you...

All of this has been so odd I just don't understand why President Obama has become so willing to bomb Syria, yet another country that has not attacked us. WE all know the definition of insanity, doing the same things over again and expecting different results. When will our leaders realize bombs for peace doesn't work? I believe there are other ways to punish Assad other than bombing him, and the US needs to explore every one of them! Sadly, the main reason why so many Republicans in congress have suddenly become Peaceniks is because they do not support anything our President does.

However, to have our Democratic leaders become so willing to start another WAR in the middle east, especially when our country's the poor and elderly are starving and need shelter, our roads and bridges need to be repaired, our unemployment rates are growing hire, and meanwhile we haven't really done anything to prevent Wall Street and our financial system from collapsing, is very disturbing and creepy! I really think they're "Pod" people and their brains have been sucked out and replaced with war mongering Reagan type Republicans.

[Scootaloo]

79. Okay, time for a reality check

Barack Obama's a smart guy, and even though I disagree with him deeply here, I think his heart's in the right place.

Problem is? He's not the only smart guy in this picture. Bashar Assad's a smart guy. King Abdullah - both of them, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - are smart guys. Khamenei is a smart guy. Netanyahu is a smart guy. Putin's a smart guy. Erdogan's a smart guy. There's all these smart guys involved in this, and they're all pulling in their own directions.

So while we can acknowledge that here's this thing that Obama wants... we also need to realize that there's also all these other things that he doesn't want, but are still very likely to happen despite his desires and efforts, because 1) he's not operating in a vacuum and 2) nobody can know everything.

Maybe Mike Tyson isn't on the same tier as those smart guys, but he does have at least one smart thing he's said - "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

What I'm getting at is that even if we grant the president is a good guy, a smart guy, doing his very best for the best result possible... we can't take that as a guarantee that that is how things will actually go. And in this case, the possible numbero f bad, even horrible outcomes - not just for the US but for everyone involved vastly outweigh the handful of best-case scenarios.

[dionysus]

107. +1

[NuclearDem]

2. K&R

[scarletwoman]

7. Thanks.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Yup. That's exactly how I see it.

[scarletwoman]

9. There's obviously some weird stuff with Russia going on as well,

but after those reports last week about the Saudis basically telling Putin, "Nice little Olympic Games you got here, be a shame if anything were to happen to them...", it seems like it still comes back to Saudi Arabia.

[Jeff Murdoch]

52. The more I learn about this,

the more it looks like a proxy war between Gazprom and Aramco.

?

Of course, the stage sets are coming down, and the corps feel empowered to openly run the wars now.
maybe

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe you summed it up pretty well.

Thanks for the thread, scarletwoman.

[scarletwoman]

12. Thank you. Your support means a lot to me.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Peace to you, scarletwoman.

[Aerows]

5. Exactly

This is exactly the plan, and it doesn't end with the US being benign conquerors. It ends with the US people being conquered themselves by leaders they didn't elect because of the folks that hold the purse-strings.

[scarletwoman]

14. Thanks. After our last exchange I decided it was time to come out with an OP.

It ends with the US people being conquered themselves by leaders they didn't elect because of the folks that hold the purse-strings.

I think that's what we're already up against - what with the MIC/Surveillance State we're living under.

[Aerows]

15. We are most fiercely up against it

but I think we have a chance to change the tide.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Like Zappa said--

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

[scarletwoman]

34. One of my favorite quotes - and now it's in this thread twice! (see post #30)

I hope more people are waking up - although generally I prefer to avoid "hope" altogether. But it does seem as if more folks are noticing the brick wall at the back of the theater than there used to be.

Maybe when enough people have been screwed long enough and hard enough, they can't help but get a sneaking suspicion that maybe - just maybe - they are, in fact, getting screwed. Who knew?

[FarCenter]

8. An outright win by the Sunni Jihadists in Syria would be dangerous to Israel.

I don't think that Iran would get embroiled in the war.

A win by the Jihadists would weaken the Shiite position strategically, causing Iran to retrench, move closer to the Russians and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as redouble efforts to get nuclear arms.

On the other hand, a win by the Jihadists would establish a Sunni Arab Caliphate in Damascus with the objective of overthrowing Jordan and cooperating with Saudi Arabia. It would not be dominated by the Saudi King, but the King would have no alternative but to ally himself with the Jihadists.

Ultimately, Israel will find itself surrounded by four strong Sunni Islamic powers centered on Ankara, Damascus, Riyadh, and Cairo. Old colonial boundaries of Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon will be erased, and the Sunni parts of Iraq may de facto join the Damascus power.

This new alignment will be more dangerous to Israel than Iran.

[scarletwoman]

10. Well, Israel has the nuke card - maybe they figure that gives them some leverage with the Saudis.

And if the jihadists get too uppity, I doubt that SA - along with Yemen, Qatar, and the UAE - will have much compunction about putting them in their place. With U.S. military help, of course.

I'm pretty sure that Iran is the ultimate target here. And frankly, I hope Iran DOES get nuclear arms. I think it would go a long way to putting a stop to a lot of this shit.

[FarCenter]

16. Israel is the ultimate target, and the Islamists will work at it until Israel is removed.

It took 200 years to remove the last European intrusion into Palestine, so we have a long time to go.

The Islamist objective is to eject the US from the Middle East, quarantine Israel, and let it wither for a while.

The nukes may not matter. Remember that most suicide bombers in the Middle East have been Sunni. The exception was the Marine Barracks bombing, and that might be considered more of a military attack than a terrorist suicide attack.

[scarletwoman]

18. The Saudis are just fine with Israel. Israel gives them added leverage with the U.S.

As long as the U.S. pays SA the requisite protection money (arms, oil contracts) they'll keep the jihadists out of Israel. After all, isn't that what they just offered Putin?

[roamer65]

42. There is talk of a back channel pact between SA and Israel.

Since both have access to nuclear weapons, it would not surprise me if together they try to stop Iran from obtaining them. Israel has nukes outright and it is not a big secret that the Pak nuclear program was funded by SA.

IMO, this pact became much more public when both Israel and SA jointly supported the Egyptian military coup against Morsi.

These two countries are trying to force us to their dirty work in Syria.

[Aerows]

11. I'm bothering to argue

with a poster in another thread that Sarin gas is not quite as bad as White Phosphorous, and then proceeded to detail why. The poster then declared it wasn't as bad to die in nerveless suffering in a few minutes (she doesn't really understand the physiological ramifications at all, which is why I know she is just being fed talking points) than to be essentially roasted alive for a few days.

You know, it even hurts me to know that there are people being fed such bullshit and are being forced to feed it. Lies are nasty, but to me, there is something fundamentally awful about a campaign designed to push lies.

Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

I don't like it one bit.

[another_liberal]

24. Only a monster would use either on human beings.

Sarin gas and White Phosphorus are both weapons whose use should be punished as a war crime. I really don't see that much reason to choose between the two.

[Aerows]

26. Nor do I

They are both horrific, and excusing one while giving the other a pass is sickening justification for atrocity.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Willie Peter, napalm, DU--all tools of the trade in our benevolent military.

[Link Speed]

33. And I am still losing friends to Orange n/t

[rhett o rick]

74. Dont leave out land mines and cluster bombs. nm

[another_liberal]

87. Armies don't tend to clean up after themselves.

So those weapons continue indiscriminately killing for years.

[rhett o rick]

75. And Depleted Uranium. nm

[another_liberal]

85. Also true.

It should never have been used.

[robinlynne]

27. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Where did that sentence come from?

[Electric Monk]

49. Voltaire nt

[robinlynne]

60. ohhh.

[felix_numinous]

13. K&R I think we need to spread the word

and please try to convince young people not to fight. I am sick thinking about all the out of work kids who will be recruited.

[scarletwoman]

19. "...please try to convince young people not to fight." Amen.

"War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler should be required reading for all U.S. citizens.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. It was read by Commandant David M. Shoup who left after JFK's assignation and refused to be

part of the build-up for the planned war in Viet Nam. Thereafter, he became an outspoken critic of the Viet Nam war.

He, like Smedley Butler, was a man of exceptional courage. His history, and his opposition to the military-industrial complex, should also be taught.

[scarletwoman]

55. I did not know this! Thank you so much for this information!

I will definitely look him up! I'm sorry I have not heard of him before now.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. It's good to see your interest. It may be worthwhile to borrow a book from your library system,

David M. Shoup: A Warrior against War by Howard Jablon,

Here's one blurb from Amazon,

"David M. Shoup was a heroic and decorated military hero. After having served stateside and in China during the 1920s and 1930s, Shoup quickly moved up the ranks upon the outset of the Second World War. For his bravery and leadership in the victory at Tarawa in the Pacific, Shoup was awarded the Medal of Honor. Following the war, Shoup continued his service, eventually being named Commandant of the Marine Corps. Yet, despite this clear dedication to his life-long career in the armed services, Shoup became a fervent and outspoken critic of the Vietnam War. His very public opinions won him the respect of protesters and the loathing of many fellow officers and friends.

"In this fascinating ... biography, historian Howard Jablon chronicles the career of this soldier turned war protestor.

[WillyT]

20. K & R !!!

[scarletwoman]

22. Thank you!

[nashville_brook]

21. indeed.

[scarletwoman]

35. Hi nb!

[nashville_brook]

99. :)

great post!

[Mr.Bill]

23. And while we fight this war

the Islamic leadership of Saudi Arabia will be drinking and gambling their brains out in Monaco.

[scarletwoman]

25. Oh yes. The House of Saud has hypocrisy down to a fine art. (nt)

[HardTimes99]

47. Probably with those decadent Kuwaiti douches - nt9

[Autumn]

28. True, I believe that also.

Recommended and thanks for the well thought out post.

[scarletwoman]

36. Thanks for the kick and the rec! It just seems very obvious, doesn't it?

When a person stops falling for all the sleight of hand - "look over there!" - reality starts standing out.

[Autumn]

46. Reality will reach out and slap you in the face.

I would never in a hundred years have imagined we would be at this point.

[DeSwiss]

30. It's all that......

...and much, much more. We the People, have in the past been easily diverted from the main path of reality. We've been so easily caught-up and manipulated by our own fears or prejudices, which were used by those in power to rope us into their dramas.

But they're finding it harder and harder to make that happen this time. Their system of faux-democracy is imploding in on itself. That is why the monied interests are trying to convert all their ''dollars'' into tangible assets. Why they can threaten to sink global economies if they aren't bailed-out. They want the money. Why they can foreclose on homes that have no mortgage or are eligible for TARPing. They want the land. Why they can buy US Treasuries at negative interest rates. They want it all.

This war in Syria is the same war we've always been caught-up in. Same music, different stanza. We've come to think of them as ''our wars'' when in fact, it is no such thing. It's their wars against each other and we are the blunt instruments they use to wage it. The rich and the powerful hijacked this government long ago. And as Frank Zappa stated so eloquently:



- The scenery is in the process of coming down......

K&R

[scarletwoman]

38. Excellent post! Thank you!

We the People, have in the past been easily diverted from the main path of reality. We've been so easily caught-up and manipulated by our own fears or prejudices, which were used by those in power to rope us into their dramas.

Exactly!

[truedelphi]

80. Yes excellent post. And sometimes I fear that

When the illusion of democracy does become too time involved, too expensive, and everything does get pulled away except the back of the brick wall at the back of the theater, we will find ourselves facing the firing squad. Or sarin gas, for that matter.

[DeSwiss]

109. It is our choice how this works out.

- It always has been.

[font color=gray size=3]A Different Perspective[/font]

''No one who lives in error is free.'' ~Euripides
-
"Battle not with monsters - lest ye become a monster." ~Friedrich Nietzsche
-
"To fight the empire is to be infected by its derangement. Whoever defeats part of the empire becomes the empire; it proliferates like a virus... thereby it becomes its enemies." ~Philip K. Dick
-
"When masses are made to believe something negative, they may create what they did not want, which is how for instance the 'N.W.O.' works. You are believing it is taking shape, so it will take shape and so-called think tanks and political theorists are major players in helping this take shape by bombarding us with the 'facts' that it obviously is taking shape. Those facts claim that you are giving-in to their power everyday, and they control you more... while in reality you are in full control.

So the people who are 'waking up' to it are the ones who are creating it. They say: ''Resist, the control being forced upon humanity. React, when they do their political manueverings to bring about less sovereignty and greater suffering for the nations of the world.''

But we mustn’t resist and react to this control. As Carl Jung said, ''What you resist, persists.'' What the powers that be want is for us to become that radical element (again it doesn’t matter which side we choose -- [font color=red]they always play both sides[/font]).

We can be either for them or against them. It doesn't matter. If we react and if we resist, we give them the manipulative power to push the agenda along. By resisting and reacting, we are demonstrating that we believe in the underlying, subliminal and hypnotic suggestion of this reality, thereby making it our reality, and the events they wish to occur concerning humanity, and that they wish to appear real, will occur and then it ''becomes reality.''

Do not pay attention to the 'world events', they are all orchestrated to make you pay attention to them. The struggle you should pay attention to is on a personal level. The way out, is in."

~The Insider

[truedelphi]

120. All of those are excellent to consider. The last bit

From, the mysterious "The Insider" - it suggests that rather than my suggesting Obama cleanup his act, or that the Big Bankers clean up theirs, that I clean up mine.

Which is always very easy to do, until that first "idiot" cuts me off in traffic. Or I have to deal with a neighbor or a friend whose conversational frames and methods are different than mine. And who wants exactly the opposite of what I feel I have to give.

[DeSwiss]

121. I know it seems hard.

- We make it that way, to learn who we really are......

[truedelphi]

122. Thanks for that advice.

I also try and keep the goal in mind as well:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=580811811965290&set=a.174248849288257.33656.174217295958079&type=1&theater

[MotherPetrie]

32. K&R.

[scarletwoman]

39. Thank you. Glad to see you.

[roamer65]

37. Yes. A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Sunni versus Shia Islam. This is someplace we simply do not to be...

[scarletwoman]

40. It's about power and control in the Ummah. And money, of course. (nt)

[Ztolkins]

41. You may be right about PNAC...

Even though they don't technically exist anymore and the only options that have been discussed have all been small, strategic attacks aimed at knocking out chemical weapon dispersal. Still, it could be about oil.

But what evidence is there to suggest your claim? Are you claiming that the rebels are fighting for Saudi Arabia and will do its bidding if the rebels succeed in Syria? And somehow the U.S dropping bombs just plays into all three sides, but so what cause...oil?

[scarletwoman]

54. The PNAC may no longer exist as a formal organization (above ground, that is),

but their plans live on in those disposed to that particular world view.

As for Saudi Arabia, it's been reported for some time that they are funding at least certain factions of the "rebels", and it was just reported in the last day or so that SA have offered to pay all the costs of a U.S. military strike on Syria. Sorry I don't have a link handy, but it's been posted several times on DU over this weekend.

It's also no secret that SA is worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - this has been a long-standing theme of several year's standing.

Along with the Sunni (SA)/Shia (Iran) thing, the relationship between SA and Iran is not disimilar to the relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the early beginnings of the Cold War. SA wants to make sure Iran doesn't get nukes, because SA wants to remain the dominant power in the region.

[DhhD]

97. Iran could have an atomic bomb by mid-2014, according to David Albright, former UN weapons inspector

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-17

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. The Islamic leadership of Saudi Arabia will be behind our troops. Far behind.

[HardTimes99]

48. + Infinity! - nt

[indepat]

45. TPTB are gonna help protect their buds' interests

[otohara]

50. WoW Good Punditry

this sounds like something I heard from the talking heads on any given channel in the Bush years.

[Democracyinkind]

83. Pundits warned us from entering proxy wars?

Must have missed that warning.

[scarletwoman]

84. Those would be very unusual pundits, I think.

[gopiscrap]

51. Exactly

[brisas2k]

53. You have properly described one-half of the problem.

You have properly described one-half of the problem.

The one you have left out is perhaps the most important one: american leaders have their own agenda, and they are the real ideologues behind the PNAC plan. The israelis, are part of the elite, so are the Saudis, but they do no make decissions on their own, without consulting washingtyon. Washington does make them without them, thought.

And it is not mentioned in your post. By your original account, american leaders have very little to do with today's situation. It is something about others, "them", whetever and whoever "they" are. And that's very wrong.

During the Clinton years,--at the very end of the Cold War--, it started with the idea of fighting two wars simultaneously, concocting a plan under the guise of maintaining " regional stability". In reality, american leaders, --democrats at that time--, knew it was due to the failure of the so-called "peace dividend", a failed clintonian plan, rescued from Bush father, to convert 47 percent of the defense department into tool and goods for a newfound peace.(the fall of the ussr). (note: at some point try to find out why the "peace dividend" was shelved.. hint: first bombing of the WTC took place the same week the plan was permanently shelved by congress).

After 911, the plan was to destabilize regimes throughout the world, (just like it was done during the Cold War, for different reasons back then). But specially important was to do so in the Middle East, where close to 60% or more of the oil was located. The idea was not to "use it" but to controll it. Why? to make other regional, rising powers, accept american leadership demands. Think tanks offered differnt words for it: they said " to prevent the rise of any power capable of challenging american leadership".

I wont extend anymore. You should guest the rest, after reviewing the facts outlined above. This is not an israli, saudi, syrian, iran, problem only.

USA, infofar as the elite is concerned, is purposedly subverting the international order, for its own benefit. At least, american political leaders know it. American citizens, for the most part, are completely unaware, sometimes obliviuos at the implications of such policy.

[scarletwoman]

63. Thank you for your feedback.

I did not intend to imply that it wasn't down to American political leaders at its core, and I thank you for expanding on that.

After 911, the plan was to destabilize regimes throughout the world, (just like it was done during the Cold War, for different reasons back then). But specially important was to do so in the Middle East, where close to 60% or more of the oil was located. The idea was not to "use it" but to controll it. Why? to make other regional, rising powers, accept american leadership demands. Think tanks offered differnt words for it: they said " to prevent the rise of any power capable of challenging american leadership".

I agree completely. Thank you.

[pangaia]

57. K & R

This is the clearest, most logical exposition I have seen. It all seems so simple the way you lay it out.
And even more clear after reading all the posts so far, and your further comments.

many thanks..

[scarletwoman]

62. I'm glad you found this helpful.

Thank you for the K&R!

[Raksha]

59. That sums it up pretty well. n/t

[scarletwoman]

65. Thank you.

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. k&r brief and to the point

[scarletwoman]

66. thanks for the K&R!

[scarletwoman]

67. Take a look at this:

If you are thinking this is about chemicals and not about proxies, read this.

[markpkessinger]

68. Thank you . . .

I would only add that at this point, it is still simply a civil war in Syria. It is the Sunni Arab states -- those states that are eager to 'foot the bill' for our actions -- who are tryhing to make it into the proxy war you suggest. And if we become involved, that is exactly what it will become.

Here is something I posted on Facebook yesterday, along the same lines:

More and more, I am convinced that this whole Syria thing isn't really about chemical weapons at all. It isn't even really all that much about Syria, per se. This is a proxy war for a long-standing Sunni/Shia conflict in the region; Syria is merely the latest battlefront. Assad's party is a secular offshoot of the Shiite branch of Islam, but Shiites represent only 13% of Syria's population are Shia, while 74% are Sunni. Secretary Kerry testified before Congress that several Arab nations had offered to "foot the bill" for any military action against Syria. That makes sense: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Emirates, Kuwait are all Sunni Muslim states, and thus are supporting the Sunni rebels in Syria. Iran, on the other hand, is a Shia Muslim state (populated not by Arabs, but by Persians). So Iran is naturally supporting a Shia government (albeit a secular one). The whole thing is a proxy war of Arabs versus Persians -- Saudi Arabia versus Iran -- in battling for the position of dominant power in the region. Israel figures in this equation as well: Israel is happy to make common cause (in this instance anyway) with Arabs, because it sees Iran as a bigger threat. And of course, both Russia and China have significant trade relationships with Syria. All of which is to say, it is utter madness for the U.S. to insert itself into this situation in any way, shape or form.

[scarletwoman]

69. I don't do facebook, so I'm very glad you posted you fb post here - great post!

And, of course, I totally agree with you. It IS "utter madness for the U.S. to insert itself into this situation in any way, shape or form."

I really appreciate your bringing your comment to this thread, as I appreciate all your contributions to the discussions on DU.

[Catherina]

71. Clear and succinct. Thank you! n/t

[scarletwoman]

76. You're welcome! Thanks for the kick! (nt)

[riderinthestorm]

72. Oh yes. BIG K&R nt

[scarletwoman]

77. Thank you!

[workinclasszero]

73. Of course we are the Saudis merc force

The best that oil money can buy!

Next up...USAF becomes the Al-Quida Air Force!

[scarletwoman]

82. Indeed! And this post illustrates it beautifully:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3623555

(the quoted text is from the 1991 Gulf War)

Among our stated objectives are the defense of Saudi Arabia, the liberation of Kuwait and restoration of the royal family, and the establishment, in the president's phrase, of 'a stable and secure Gulf.' Pesumably these generous-hearted goals should win the cooperation, respect and gratitude of the locals. Indications are, to the contrary, that our involvement is increasing Arab contempt for the U.S.

In this newspaper a few days ago Geraldine Brooks and Tony Horwitz described the reluctance of the Arabs to fight in their own defense. The Gulf States have a population almost as large as Iraq's but no serious armies and limited inclination to raise them. Why should they? The Journal quotes a senior Gulf Official: 'You think I want to send my teen-aged son to die for Kuwait?' He chuckles and adds, 'We have our white slaves from America to do that.'

At a recent meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab states congratulated themselves on their verbal condemnation of Iraqi aggression but spoke not one word of thanks to the American troops who had crossed half the world to fight for them. A Yemeni diplomat explained this curious omission to Judith Miller of the New York Times: 'A lot of the Gulf rulers simply do not feel that they have to thank the people they've hired to do their fighting for them.'

James LeMoyne reported in the New Yok Times last October in a dispatch from Saudi Arabia, 'There is no mass mobilization for war in the markets and streets. The scenes of cheerful American families saying goodbye to their sons and daughters are being repeated in few Saudi homes.' Mr. LeMoyne continued, 'Some Saudis' attitude toward the American troops verges on treating them as a sort of contracted superpower enforcer...' He quoted a Saudi teacher, 'The American soldiers are a new kind of foreign worker here. We have Pakistanis driving taxis and now we have Americans defending us.'"

(my bold)

Complete thread here: You think I want to send my son to die in Kuwait?

[liberal_at_heart]

78. K&R

[scarletwoman]

81. Morning kick.

[Celefin]

86. Since it also will be a proxy war US/Russia once more...

By one war get one free!
Drag enough sides into it an we might hit the trifecta.

[scarletwoman]

89. Yup. Surely heady stuff for the MIC!

[joshcryer]

88. Juan Cole has a good piece about this today.

He notes that we are trying to build a Sons of Syria style group to take out AQ and that the strike threat is to prevent the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons because it would prevent the US from building such a group to begin with. ie, Assad would end the war quicker if he could use chemical weapons at the scale he allegedly used them.

The US wants to prolong the thing for several years to build the internal Sons of Syria group.

[scarletwoman]

90. Thanks! Do you have the link handy, by any chance? (nt)

[TBF]

91. For whatever reason they want to pump the natural gas

from Iran to the coast - and they want to pump it through Syria. That pipeline is going to go in whether Assad wants it or not.

And that is the whole thing summarized in two sentences.

(the other stuff is always going on in that region - but make no mistake that our involvement has nothing to do with that - our involvement has to do with the profits)

[riderinthestorm]

92. Weekday am kick nt

[silvershadow]

94. Nothing matters but that pipeline. nt

[markiv]

95. Saudi Arabia is the invisible hand in nearly all of our mideast policy

even Israel, may be little more than a matador's cape for Saudi Arabia, to draw attention and ire of anyone Saudi Arabia considers to be a threat

In the first gulf war, missiles went into Riyadh Saudi Arabia

911 hijackers were nearly all saudis

911 results in iraq being taken out

Saudi Arabia benefits from almost everything we do, they have unbelievable influence wealth and power, yet they are almost never mentioned

[DhhD]

98. Bush kisses Saudi Prince. What is Obama doing?

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2009/04/15/george-bush-kisses-a-saudi-prince/

[MynameisBlarney]

96. I think we should stay the hell out.

It will not end well if we get anymore involved than we already are.

[merrily]

100. Thanks, but "dragged" is not the word for it.

If we take military action, that will be what we chose to do.

[scarletwoman]

118. Our leaders make the choice - it is the rest of us who get "dragged" along.

We the People will suffer the consequences, whether we want this military strike or not.

[merrily]

123. I agree, as long as it's clear that our elected whatevers are not victims of

circumstances beyond their control.

[DirkGently]

101. Much bigger drivers than chemical weapons.

[BlueMTexpat]

102. It's not simply "Sunni" versus "Shiite" as we

in the US like to label these religious aspects without really knowing anything about either. The principal divergence of belief between mainstream Sunnis and Shiites is in who the "official" heirs of the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad actually were. There are some smaller differences, but this is the main one. It's not even as big a "schism" as that existing between Catholics and Protestants. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/05/economist-explains-19

The problem with Saudi Arabia is that the official and dominant form of Sunni Islam there is Wahhabism, which is often described as 'puritanical', 'intolerant' or 'ultra-conservative' Islam, which makes it exactly as intolerant as similar puritanical religious beliefs in the most intolerant of Jewish or Christian ultra-conservative religious communities. Wahhabism has only been the dominant form of religion there for 200 years or so, consolidating its strength in the early 20th century.

Many Muslims dispute that Wahhabism is even a form of Sunni Islam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Iran's version of Shiite Islam, since the ayatollahs came to political power in 1979, is more akin to Wahhabism than it is to mainstream Shiite Islam. It is every bit as puritanical, intolerant and ultra-conservative.

Insofar as Saudi Arabia and Iran are concerned, it is not simply the religious aspect that usually has them at political odds, although we in the West like to focus rather simplistically on that. It is also that Iran and Saudi Arabia have different peoples, cultures and languages, different histories, different geopolitical concerns and different agendas. What they share is that the West covets the resources of both and has thus interfered in the internal politics of both, especially since the discovery of OIL in both.

I concur with the "proxy war" focus in the case of Syria. But I think that BOTH Iran and Saudi Arabia would be absolutely overjoyed to see the US interfere militarily in Syria and squander any hope of ever regaining international goodwill, along with all the other adverse consequences including the real potential for being dragged into WWIII.

That is all the more reason for us to stay out of this fight ... except in meaningful diplomacy to ensure that whoever used chemical weapons NEVER uses them again and to end the fighting, and also to join in meaningful humanitarian relief efforts that will help the displaced to return to their homes or to relocate to neutral areas. All of these are, of course, much more difficult that simply bombing away, which seems to be the only thing that will satisfy US blood lust.

Yes, PNAC and Likud (fwiw, there are many individual Israelis who feel exactly as we "Peace Purists" do; please do not tar them with the same RW brush) are both standing by cheerleading and egging on "war" efforts. Perhaps even worse. But in doing so, they are exceedingly short-sighted. They are literally cheering on their own destruction. About the only "friend" with any clout that Israel has is the US. If the US is no longer in a position to protect Israel on the global stage after squandering any remaining international good will that we have by using military force when the world overwhelmingly does not support it and letting our own domestic concerns go down the tube, that will be curtains for Israel. Perhaps not militarily, at least for a time. But certainly economically.

The US needs to address its own problems meaningfully. If only Prez Obama would use the same "full court press" he is using to sell his efforts to bomb Syria to address our own problems. If only ....

[liberal_at_heart]

104. I think more us understand this than you think although between the media and the republicans I can

see where you would get your assumption that that is all we know about it.

[BlueMTexpat]

105. I did not mean to talk down to anyone.

It was just that reading through the comments to the OP, I saw a lot of responses - even where we agree as to non-intervention - who did not seem to understand. So the media and the GOP seem to have done a good job.

Anyway, please take my comments for what they are worth. If even one person learns something that s/he didn't know before, I'll be happy.

[liberal_at_heart]

106. no harm done.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

115. Very well said.

Thank you for posting.

[scarletwoman]

116. You make some good points, and I thank you for the time & energy that went into your post.

I definitely simplified a number of issues in my OP. It was meant to be basically an outline - touching on what I saw as key points for consideration.

Your expanding on and elucidating some of these points in deeper detail is a welcome contribution to this thread.

[reusrename]

103. I also think a new cost/benefit analysis has been reviewed.

They figure they can make more money by nuking us.

A nuclear first-strike is in the neocon/neoliberal plans.

But don't worry, it will be an "unbelievably small" nuclear attack.

[BlueJac]

108. Spot on!

[scarletwoman]

117. Thank you!

[Mosaic]

110. What nobody ever seems to understand

Is the Christian Zionist inspiration for all this. Look up Greater Israel and see it's biblical borders, it will open your eyes as to what the fanatical elites who promote all this death and destruction are motivated by. A fairy tale of what Genesis says about Israel! Wake up. Killing is wrong, we all know it with out without God.

[Ocelot]

114. More to do with oil than anything else (n/t)

[Ocelot]

112. Anyone who supports attacking Syria needs to ENLIST NOW

Especially self-described "liberal Democrats"... the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines will take liberal Democrats as soon as they'll take anyone.

Otherwise, no one wants to hear about your newly-realized warmonger tendencies and your opinion that it's the right thing to support "Pres O". When you actually put yourselves in harm's way for your country (and pushing drone-buttons doesn't qualify) you'll have the right to bitch about how we should take action against Syria.

[blkmusclmachine]

113. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

Say sayonara to your retirement, folks. Meow.