Thread: Military intervention in Syria

Originally Posted by raycarey

IMHO, the best course of action would be the following:

1. wait for the UN report...if it indicates the syrian govt used chemical weapons
2. go to congress for a vote to use force as part of a UN coalition.....if it passes
3. go to the UN security council for a vote....if it passes, limited strikes with no ground troops. if it fails, publicly admonish those who voted against it.

This from the boy who cheered on the beheadings of American contractors in Iraq helping recover from the war.

Who could imagine RA as a war monger?

Oh, but that's right! Bush bombs were bad but Obama bombs are filled with love & caring...

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Originally Posted by raycarey

from what i've read and heard, the president hasn't made any decisions yet.

IMHO, the best course of action would be the following:

1. wait for the UN report...if it indicates the syrian govt used chemical weapons
2. go to congress for a vote to use force as part of a UN coalition.....if it passes
3. go to the UN security council for a vote....if it passes, limited strikes with no ground troops. if it fails, publicly admonish those who voted against it.

you sound like Cameron

well, then he must be quite clever.

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by barbaro

Did anyone care about the Tsutsi and the (forgot the other African name). Darfur?

Hutoo or some such spelling. Clinton and Company stayed well clear of that mess. Evidently in spite of Bill being called the "first black president," he left little doubt that the killing, (genocide) that occurred was simply a local problem.

The UN General resigned after a short period of being told "stand down," let them sort it out! At least a couple hundred thousand died during that escapade.

One of the most shameful incidents in modern history, and at least 800,000 people were killed in 100 days.

Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010

after getting its ass kicked in iraq and now desperately looking for an exit in afghanistan, the US military (and govt) needs to learn to select who to fight more carefully.....syria is not a good choice.

joining a UN coalition that bombs assad's interests to show the world that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated is likely the morally right thing to do.

but unilateral action and sending in ground troops is just going to make things worse for everyone.

We're only picking on Syria to supposedly get at Iran. Interestingly, the western bullying and rhetoric has only increased since Iran elected a moderate President- it's like our powers that be didn't really want that..

But events on the ground in Syria have not met 'our' expectations, quite the opposite. The regime has turned out far more resilient and solidly backed than our so called planners anticipated, and domestic support for the rebellion has sharply dropped as it has become more Islamist, and foreign in nature. So now we find ourselves bedmates with Al Qaeda again.

I suppose it is too much to ask our dopey politicians to admit that they were wrong, and pursue more productive pursuits.

If Assad goes the Christian minority will be slaughtered

Found this article, but it's too generic:

How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran
Washington is apparently ready to punish Syria for using poison gas, but a generation ago the calculus was different
By Harold Maass | August 26, 2013





The U.S.'s role in the Iraq-Iran war was greater than previously believed.
Henri Bureau/Sygma/Corbis


As the Obama administration mulls a military response to punish Syria for allegedly using poison gas to kill hundreds of people in a rebel stronghold, Foreign Policy reports that the U.S. didn't always play the role of the good guy when it came to the use of chemical weapons.

Near the end of Iraq's war with Iran 25 years ago, the U.S., using satellite imagery, warned Iraq that Iranian troops were moving to exploit a hole in its defenses, according to Foreign Policy, citing recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents and interviews with former intelligence officials. U.S. officials shared the information with Iraq even though they knew that Saddam Hussein's military was likely to respond by attacking with the lethal nerve agent sarin and other chemical weapons — and he did, killing thousands.

The documents show that then-CIA Director William J. Casey, a close friend of then-President Ronald Reagan, had been told about Saddam's push to make enough mustard gas to keep up with demand on the front lines. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in one top secret document.

The new evidence suggests that the Reagan administration decided it was better to let Iraq continue with its attacks — and even point out potential targets — than let the war tip in favor of Iran's mullahs, who at the time were seen as the greater threat. The latest revelations "are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched," say Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid at Foreign Policy.
The report fills in some important blanks about the U.S. role in the Iran-Iraq war, but Foreign Policy isn't the first to uncover evidence that Washington had a pretty good idea what Saddam's forces were up to. Here's Max Fisher at The Washington Post:

It's worth noting that academic studies, not to mention U.S. government documents released in 2003, had long ago revealed that the U.S. knew that Iraq was deploying chemical weapons against Iran and still provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence assistance. The CIA documents released this week add important new documentation to that, but the timing of their release — as the U.S. considers whether or how to respond to Syrian chemical weapons use — and their portrayal as revelatory has generated significant controversy in U.S. foreign policy circles. [Washington Post]

However, it does somewhat undercut the Obama administration's claim to higher ground. Conor Friedersorf at The Atlantic:

How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran - The Week

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

American contractors in Iraq helping recover from the war.

If by 'helping recover' you mean 'make obscene profits' and by 'the war' you mean 'illegal invasion' then you might have a point.

Originally Posted by raycarey

after getting its ass kicked in iraq and now desperately looking for an exit in afghanistan, the US military (and govt) needs to learn to select who to fight more carefully.....syria is not a good choice.

joining a UN coalition that bombs assad's interests to show the world that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated is likely the morally right thing to do.

but unilateral action and sending in ground troops is just going to make things worse for everyone.

When they US and it's crusader coalition allies stop using weapons of mass destruction themselves you may have a point. Until then this war has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010

You need to view the oil fields of the Eastern Med before you comment on oil.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010

You need to view the oil fields of the Eastern Med before you comment on oil.

Please read the top 30% (at least of this article) Natural as and oil pipelines and then the author focuses on Russia for the bottom 40% of the artice.

Comments on this author's bent? Agree, or disagree on some points?

Why Syria? It's not what you think and it's not what you've been told. Sun Tzu said that "All war is deception." Syria like Iraq and Afghanistan before it is no different. Let us look at the real reason why the globalist corporations and banking interests are fixated on this nation. A fixation that started over a decade ago. A fixation that has the potential to lead to a major global war as key world powers are now involved.

If one remembers in the late 90's the ruling party in Afghanistan was the Taliban. They have rested most of the control of the nation from their Northern Alliance adversaries and were enjoying favor from Washington. Then it was discovered that this mountainous grave yard of empires can serve a purpose in running a gas as well as an oil pipeline dubbed the famous Caspian Pipeline. Ring a bell?

The objective of the pipeline was to run a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Azerbaijan, through Georgia and into to Turkey onto the destined Euro-Mediterranean markets. All the while bypassing Russia and allowing at that time the European Economic Community to be free of Russian Natural Gas and Gazprom.

In Early 2000 there was a meeting between leaders of the Taliban and Assistant Secretary of State, Political Crony and Known Leaker of the Valerie Plame CIA agent scandel, Richard Armitage. Armitage gave them an offer that they could not refuse. Run a secondary pipeline through Afghanistan as well and into Pakistan, out to the Arabian Sea. All facilitated by Unocal and their now famous or infamous,depends how you look at it employee Hamid Karzai. Unfortunately for the Taliban they refused. Armitage it was reported stated to the visiting Taliban delegation, "You can take the offer either with a carpet of Gold or a Carpet of Bombs."

Fast Forward one year and Afghanistan is invaded, the Taliban overthrown and Unocal employee Hamid Karzai is put in power as president. The shocking thing is this, If one takes the time to look at the Afghanistan map, large US military bases are on the very path of the purposed pipeline. This as well that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find it's way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.

So what does this have to do with Syria. Syria is the final chess piece of a move to cut Russia's lucrative lock in Natural Gas and Oil that it supplies to Europe. If this connection is cut in any way it will bring severe consequences to the Russian economy as well as Russia's natural gas company Gazprom. This is a move that the US stands to gain from.

The trouble for Syria began with two things. First the discovery of natural gas in the Mediterranean right off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Read that list again, especially LEBANON and SYRIA, is the picture becoming clearer? This discovery took place about a decade ago, the thing is though there already exists within the middle east a Liquid Natural Gas Producing power house. That my friends is the tiny nation of Qatar.

Now here is where you need to put your thinking caps on. Qatar is floating in LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) It has over 77 Billion Tonnes in Reserve and that is with a moratorium in place. The problem is that Qatar would love to sell it's LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is their regional big brother Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. So what is the oil rich micro mite to do? Simple cut a deal with the biggest bully in the neighborhood, you guessed it, the US.

As recently as May of this year deals have been put in place by Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International, a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets.. So little Qatar is anxious, power hungry and dangerous, the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why Natural Gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long.

Enter Nabucco signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009 it was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Is it not interesting that the main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now, the ones so spoken of in the news are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. Coincidentally folks those happen to be the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising having spent over $3 billion so far in conflict. The other side of the story is that Saudi Arabia also financiers anti-Assad groups in Syria. You see the Saudis do not want to be marginalized by their ambitious little brother, thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Hence this is the reason why you have two somewhat opposing factions in Syria. On one side you have the Qatari backed Muslim Brotherhood and it's subsidiaries who have very close ties with the Emir of Qatar. On the other side you have the Saudi backed Wahhabi AL-Queda and it's subsidiaries. Hence you have various levels of atrocities from the cannibalism of the Wahabis to the Christian slaughter of the "Brotherhood". These all have Qatari and Saudi fingerprints all over them.

In the background of this den of Jackals is the chief Hyena the US ready to spread Love and Democracy not by war but "Kinetic Action". You see as the economy in the US crumbles, Pax Americana is in it's final death rattles, it desires to see it's age old rival Russia knocked off it's energy pedestal in the highly lucrative Euro market. It also is anxious to get a piece of the Natural Gas Pie. Folks you have to understand that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are proxy puppet states to the Anglo-American powers. The US will stand to gain immensely no matter which faction topples Assad. In fact deals have been cut since 2009. Again the problem is Russia stands in the way.

The recent Cyprus bail in was not something that was just a simple bank failures, which was inevitable but it was primarily designed to go after the wealth of the Russian Oligarchs who coincidentally have strong ties with the Russian energy sector. Lucky for them they were warned in advanced by a Cypriot banker and they were able to liquidate before they lost everything. This has not gone unnoticed by Putin. Why do you think that immediately after the Cyprus fiasco Russian warships docked there the following week. This was Putin sending a very strong message to the Western Banksters that Russian interests will not be messed with.

Russia is now forced to draw the line, a very hard line in the sand. Syria is much more than losing a strategic port in the Natural Gas rich middle east. It is about losing the entire European region to Middle Eastern and Caspian Energy interests. Russia cannot allow that, this is why they are moving their military assets in place, This is also why resource hungry China cannot have it's natural gas flow interrupted as well and have sided with the Russians when it comes to Syria.

Folks this is the real reason for Benghazi it is much more than giving arms to Al-Queda, and theories about shooting down Western Airliners. It about arming a large rag tag mercenary army that will help engage the Russians on the ground when the time comes. That is what Benghazi is all about is another Bear trap just like Afghanistan was for the Russians. Facing Guerrilla tactics in the desert by religious zealots is a situation that Russia is trying to avoid. So the answer to ending all of these problems for Russia is to engage the Americans directly. We are leaving them no choice. This is the reason for Benghazi.

Why Syria? It is THE way to break Russia. COPYRIGHT THE GUERRILLA ECONOMIST MAY BE REPOSTED PROVIDED LINKS ARE INCLUDED TO THIS LINK

Aug 25, 2013

V - The Guerrilla Economist Updates

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010

They're sitting on about $250 Billion worth of oil at current prices, and that's before they exploit what is rumoured to be sitting off their coast.

If oil money is the motive, surely that's plenty.

Seems nobody can find a good reason to bomb Syria, and there are a number of good ones already posted on this thread. Here's another.

On intervening in Syria
Tariq Ali 28 August 2013
Tags: syria
The aim of the ‘limited war’ as set out by the United States and its European vassals is simple. The Syrian regime was slowly re-establishing its control over the country against the opposition armed by the West and its tributary states in the region (Saudi Arabia and Qatar). This situation required correction. The opposition in this depressing civil war needed to be strengthened militarily and psychologically.

Since Obama had said chemical weapons were the ‘red line’, the weapons were bound to come into play. Cui prodest? as the Romans used to inquire. Who profits? Clearly, not the Syrian regime.

Several weeks ago, two journalists from Le Monde had already discovered chemical weapons. The question is: if they were used, who used them? The Obama administration and its camp followers would like us to believe that Assad permitted UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, and then marked their arrival by launching a chemical weapon assault against women and children, about fifteen kilometres away from the hotel where the inspectors were lodged. It simply does not make sense. Who carried out this atrocity?

In Iraq we know it was the US that used white phosphorus in Fallujah in 2004 (there were no red lines there except those drawn in Iraqi blood), so the justification is as murky as it was in previous wars.

Ever since the war and occupation of Iraq, the Arab world has been divided between Sunni and Shia components. Backing the targeting of Syria are two old friends: Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both want the regime in Iran destroyed. The Saudis for factional reasons, the Israelis because they’re desperate to exterminate Hizbullah. That’s the endgame they have in sight and Washington, after resisting for a bit, is playing ball again. Bombing Syria is the first step.
It’s foolish to get too worked up about Britain. It’s a vassal state, de facto governed by a National Government that includes Parliamentary Labour. Its political parties have accepted permanently situating themselves in the ‘posterior of the White House’. Cameron was gung-ho for a war some months ago. When the US went cold on the idea, Downing Street shut up. Now they’re back in action with little Ed saying that he backs the war ‘reluctantly’, the most pathetic of positions. Conservative backbenchers are putting up a stiffer resistance. Will more Tories vote against than Labour? We shall see.

The Iranians have reacted strongly and threatened suitable retaliation. It may be bluff, but what it reveals is that even with a new ‘moderate’ leader, praised by the Western media, the stance being taken is no different from that of Ahmedinejad. Tehran understands well what is at stake and why. Every single Western intervention in the Arab world and its surrounds has made the conditions worse. The raids being planned by the Pentagon and its subsidiaries in Nato are likely to follow the same pattern.

Meanwhile in Egypt, an Arab Pinochet is restoring ‘order’ in time-honoured fashion, with the backing of the slightly embarrassed leaders of the US/EU conglomerate.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/08/28/tariq-ali/on-intervening-in-syria/

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No.

Good thing we got rid of that dumb cowboy Bush, who unilaterally invaded Iraq with like 40 other countries.

Americans wanted change and it seems they got it.

No coalition this time, just go it alone.

Say it ain't so .... France of all countries wants in on it.

^Why do anything? We've no dog in this fight? Do we? Want to do something? Send medical aid and lots of doctor's...now that's positive intervention.

If it is credibly shown they did lob gas, I'm not against a rap on the knuckles. What real difference will it make? None really- maybe a deterrent effect, from it happening again?

Let me ask you this Sabang, if someone lobbed gas on you and you're family and friends, would they need bombs in retaliation or would you need medical assistance? Which one would render the greatest assistance?

What would you want? If I were in a position to make such a decision, I would be sending in the "Red Cross and all other medical supplies and doctors needed." I believe that's the message that makes the greatest practical impact and the message the world needs to send.

Taking sides solves nothing from a humanitarian pov. that is what we're discussing here innit?