No Missiles For Hezbollah

[georgephillip]

When the dust finally settles in Syria, the questions is who among them will be left to grieve for their departed?

Rocco...do you see Syria becoming Somalia when this dust finally settles?

No one in PNAC, obviously:

"The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda was predicated on 'waging a war without borders'.

"The PNAC’s declared objectives was to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars' in different regions of the World as well perform the so-called military 'constabulary' duties 'associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions'.

"Global constabulary implies a Worldwide process of military policing and interventionism. (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses.pdf, September 2000)"

?War without Borders?: Obama?s ?Long War? | Global Research

 

[Kondor3]

Aren't PNAC and the NeoCons largely yesterday's news? Are they still in a position to influence world events? Are they still even relevant?

 

[georgephillip]

Aren't PNAC and the NeoCons largely yesterday's news? Are they still in a position to influence world events? Are they still even relevant?

The economic goals of neo-cons appear at least as relevant today as they were when Truman institutionalized the concept of global military dominance at the outset of the Cold War. Every US President since that time has enhanced Harry's goal to one degree or another. The current president included:

"Under the Obama presidency, this global military project has become increasingly pervasive. Military escalation as well as the Worldwide deployment of US military might are an integral part of America’s 'long war' military doctrine, to which the current administration is firmly committed.

"The nature of the long war was recently reaffirmed by the Vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General James Cartwright:

“[For the next] 'five to 10 years…. the military likely will remain engaged in the same kinds of conflicts it has been fighting since 2001 … [N]o one I know thinks we’ll be out of' these kinds of conflicts any time soon. There is nothing out there that tells us we won’t be wrapped up in these conflicts for as far as the eye can see.. ” quoted in John T. Bennett, Cartwright: Expect war for 5-10 more..."

War is never "yesterday's news" in America since profit is always relevant to those who fund the best governement money can buy.

?War without Borders?: Obama?s ?Long War? | Global Research

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741; georgephillip, et al,

If Libya and Egypt are any yard stick for comparison, then Syria will be in trouble.

When the dust finally settles in Syria, the questions is who among them will be left to grieve for their departed?

Rocco...do you see Syria becoming Somalia when this dust finally settles?

(COMMENT)

Remember that the vulture circling in Iran.

After the Civil War concludes, there will be a certain amount of chaos and confusion.

If the Assad Government wins (and that is a distinct possibility - Assad doesn't want to the way of Gaddafi or Murbarak), it will surely be weakened. Russia is in it for the profit (political capital and military sales) and not so much the reconstruction. However, for Iran, Syria represents a gateway country to the Mediterranean. It already has Iraq in its pocket and a foothold in Lebanon (Hezbollah dupes), and it is working on improving its position in Syria - betting Assad is not going to wind-up trophy on somebodies wall.

If the Rebels win (and that is by no means a foregone conclusion), there will be this period of internal struggle for power and control. The Mujahideen, Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist, Syria Hazem Badran (al-Qaeda splinter), are the birds of prey here. They have the weaker position, but are being supplied with Saudi weapons and Russian/American anti-tank missiles as well as Israeli supplied medical kits to combat chemical and nerve agent exposure. The UK and France have taken a stand and have started supporting the Free Syrian Army [(FSA)(Colonel Reyad Musa al-Asaad)]. COL al-Assad was recently injured in a car bomb assassination attempt, more likely conducted by his own, rather than the Assad Regime. The Syrian National Coalition [(SNC) (the political aspect of the rebel movement)] definitely shows signs it is deteriorating. With the resignation of the SNC Leader (Mouaz al-Khatib), the Muslim Brotherhood (Ghassan Hitto) seems to be gaining internal strength in the rebel movement.​

It is a mess.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

In Syria, no matter which side wins to rule the country, the Syrian citizens lose.

 

[Roudy]

MJB12741; georgephillip, et al,

If Libya and Egypt are any yard stick for comparison, then Syria will be in trouble.

When the dust finally settles in Syria, the questions is who among them will be left to grieve for their departed?

Rocco...do you see Syria becoming Somalia when this dust finally settles?

(COMMENT)

Remember that the vulture circling in Iran.

After the Civil War concludes, there will be a certain amount of chaos and confusion.

If the Assad Government wins (and that is a distinct possibility - Assad doesn't want to the way of Gaddafi or Murbarak), it will surely be weakened. Russia is in it for the profit (political capital and military sales) and not so much the reconstruction. However, for Iran, Syria represents a gateway country to the Mediterranean. It already has Iraq in its pocket and a foothold in Lebanon (Hezbollah dupes), and it is working on improving its position in Syria - betting Assad is not going to wind-up trophy on somebodies wall.

If the Rebels win (and that is by no means a foregone conclusion), there will be this period of internal struggle for power and control. The Mujahideen, Jabhat Al Nusra Jihadist, Syria Hazem Badran (al-Qaeda splinter), are the birds of prey here. They have the weaker position, but are being supplied with Saudi weapons and Russian/American anti-tank missiles as well as Israeli supplied medical kits to combat chemical and nerve agent exposure. The UK and France have taken a stand and have started supporting the Free Syrian Army [(FSA)(Colonel Reyad Musa al-Asaad)]. COL al-Assad was recently injured in a car bomb assassination attempt, more likely conducted by his own, rather than the Assad Regime. The Syrian National Coalition [(SNC) (the political aspect of the rebel movement)] definitely shows signs it is deteriorating. With the resignation of the SNC Leader (Mouaz al-Khatib), the Muslim Brotherhood (Ghassan Hitto) seems to be gaining internal strength in the rebel movement.​

It is a mess.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, had it not been for the dismal results and mismanagement of president Obama's much advertised Arab Spring, where all the countries affected so far have turned Islamic, the US would have the political capital to intervene in Syria and prevent its citizens from getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands.

Let us not forget that Obama started bombing Libya because he saw a "humanitarian mission" in preventing the slaughter of a people by its own army, yet he has stood by picking his nose when it comes to Syria, where over 100,000 of its people have been killed so far.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roudy, you can't have it both ways. To suggest that Arab Spring was mismanaged indicates an unnuanced understanding of massive cultural conflict.

 

[MJB12741]

The USA & Israel should just stay out of any involvement whatsoever over the Arab Spring. As long as they just kill each other, that's their own internal affairs.

Roudy, you can't have it both ways. To suggest that Arab Spring was mismanaged indicates a juvenile understanding by you of massive cultural conflict.

 

[Lipush]

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

 

[RoccoR]

Lipush, et al,

History has shown us that the US doesn't know how to handle these interventions.

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

(COMMENT)

These never turn-out well for the US or the nation in which we intervene. And our reputation just keeps getting worse. We need to stay as far away as we can.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually in Israel's case, the nation has done well by American's turn out for it.

 

[Lipush]

Lipush, et al,

History has shown us that the US doesn't know how to handle these interventions.

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

(COMMENT)

These never turn-out well for the US or the nation in which we intervene. And our reputation just keeps getting worse. We need to stay as far away as we can.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree.

 

[georgephillip]

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

"Operation Orchard[2][3] was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria carried out just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007. The White House and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) later confirmed that American intelligence had also indicated the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose, though Syria denies this."

Israel's business is to stimulate arms sales in the Middle East.
Whenever any Arab state shows signs of developing weapons as advanced as the Jewish state's arsenal, Israel intervenes, as the North Koreans well know.

 

[MJB12741]

George, we already know how anti American you are. But do you actually support nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies?

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

"Operation Orchard[2][3] was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria carried out just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007. The White House and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) later confirmed that American intelligence had also indicated the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose, though Syria denies this."

Israel's business is to stimulate arms sales in the Middle East.
Whenever any Arab state shows signs of developing weapons as advanced as the Jewish state's arsenal, Israel intervenes, as the North Koreans well know.

 

[georgephillip]

George, we already know how anti American you are. But do you actually support nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies?

Oh, we always stay out of it. we have no business in those places.

"Operation Orchard[2][3] was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] of Syria carried out just after midnight (local time) on September 6, 2007. The White House and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) later confirmed that American intelligence had also indicated the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose, though Syria denies this."

Israel's business is to stimulate arms sales in the Middle East.
Whenever any Arab state shows signs of developing weapons as advanced as the Jewish state's arsenal, Israel intervenes, as the North Koreans well know.

Do you actually support the murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of innocent Iraqis?
None of them would have suffered to that extent if Iraq had the same number of nuclear weapons as Israel.
You apparently define "American" as one who supports war crimes like the illegal occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.
Most Americans don't.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You apparently define "American" as one who supports war crimes like the illegal occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Most Americans don't."

Most Americans - rightly or wrongly - don't classify those things as War Crimes, so there is no conflict for them in supporting their Government's actions.

Really, I think your 'most Americans' label is spread-about a bit too thinly on that one.

 

[georgephillip]

"...You apparently define "American" as one who supports war crimes like the illegal occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Most Americans don't."

Most Americans - rightly or wrongly - don't classify those things as War Crimes, so there is no conflict for them in supporting their Government's actions.

Really, I think your 'most Americans' label is spread-about a bit too thinly on that one.

The fact that most Americans don't classify the US invasion of Iraq, for example, as a war crime has more to do with their ignorance of the formal definition of the supreme international crime than with any level of support for their government's murder, maiming, displacement, and incarceration of millions of Iraqi civilians.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I think our friend Kondor3 is correct.

"...You apparently define "American" as one who supports war crimes like the illegal occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Most Americans don't."

Most Americans - rightly or wrongly - don't classify those things as War Crimes, so there is no conflict for them in supporting their Government's actions.

Really, I think your 'most Americans' label is spread-about a bit too thinly on that one.

(COMMENT)

Forces in Afghanistan are there under Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA); not an "occupation." US forces have never been in Palestine under a combat or mutual defense pact deployment. And the US contingent to MNFI was there under UNSC Mandate after June 2004, and a SOFA after 2008; not an "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...did the UNSC authorize the invasion of Iraq or did Saddam present a threat to Wall Street?
I'm guessing not too many Afghans got to vote on that SPA.
It's hardly surprising the solo superpower finds legalese to hide its occupations behind, but that doesn't soften the suffering of millions of innocent Muslim civilians or the amount of money Pentagon elites earn from their "service."

 

[Kondor3]

History has shown us that the US doesn't know how to handle these interventions.

Agreed. You seem a thoughtful fellow. Do you have any speculation-caliber insight into why this might be? I have a few odds-and-ends myself (frequent shifts in policy, always expecting to be liked, not knowing when to walk-away rather than rebuild, enlisting internal bad-guys to assist, bulldozing past local culture and customs, taking sides too early or choosing the wrong side, etc.) but nothing particularly coherent.