War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[TooTall]

It's like people on this site have never heard of the "The Project for a “New Middle East”"
General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991 - YouTube

Worth a few minutes to read:

"'Hegemony is as old as Mankind…' -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research

Isn't ZB the advisor to Carter that oversaw the overthrow of the Shah in Iran so the Muslim Ayatollah could return to power? As I recall, the Shah was mistreating some Russians that were making mischief in Iran, Carter didn't like that and wanted a religious leader to replace him.
How did that work out?

 

[JWBooth]

Isn't ZB the advisor to Carter that oversaw the overthrow of the Shah in Iran so the Muslim Ayatollah could return to power? As I recall, the Shah was mistreating some Russians that were making mischief in Iran, Carter didn't like that and wanted a religious leader to replace him.
How did that work out?

Yep, that would be him.

 

[paulitician]

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Our National Security is not at risk. That's a stretch at best.

 

[JWBooth]

I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Our National Security is not at risk. That's a stretch at best.

It is also absurdly silly to suggest that it is.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the US to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?

 

[JWBooth]

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?

You forgot depleted uranium

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

U.S. Army Tested Chemicals on Cities, Low-Income Residents

*****Newly disclosed documents have revealed details on how the U.S. military carried out testing of chemicals on major U.S. cities during the 1950s and 1960s. Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor of St. Louis Community College says zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed in several cities without residents’ knowledge. The most densely sprayed area appears to have been a housing complex for low-income people in St. Louis.Lisa Martino-Taylor: "It was pretty shocking, the level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people. There’s a lot of evidence that indicates that people in St. Louis in the city, particularly in minority communities, were subjected to military tests that was connected to a larger radiological weapons development and testing project."

Headlines for September 27, 2012 | Democracy Now!

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.

Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Russia is a massive oil exporter.

Oil reserves in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might want to rethink your conspiracy theory.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?

You forgot depleted uranium

Thats true. And I just addressed Iraq, too. So many other instances of the US use of chemical weapons exist. Unbelievable, listening to Assads use of chemical weapons being used to support a war.

 

[JWBooth]

We still do not have proof Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack. And if he did, there is no difference between him and the US officials who ordered napalm and white phosphorous to be used against civilians in Iraq. The US uses chemical weapons against civilians. Why is it OK for the use to unlawfully use chemical weapons against civilians but not OK for Assad to do the same?

You forgot depleted uranium

Thats true. And I just addressed Iraq, too. So many other instances of the US use of chemical weapons exist. Unbelievable, listening to Assads use of chemical weapons being used to support a war.

But the motives of US policymakers are as pure as the driven snow, and they've only killed people who were threats to Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.

 

[jasonnfree]

What would Reagan do?

I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept

-Geaux

Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.

Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra. Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran. Didn't you kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade? Your reading assignment today junior is to read up on the felony convictions of over 100 people in his administration.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Over 1400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we've fabricated, this is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action … I was elected to end wars not start them." -President Obama addresses the Syrian crisis from the G20 summit

 

[paulitician]

I don't think things would of got this bad under someone that actually knows what their doing. Obama is inept

-Geaux

Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.

Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra. Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran. Didn't you kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?

Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.

 

[Redfish]

Yep, Reagan would have been on this about 2 1/2 years ago and the problem would be solved by now.

Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra. Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran. Didn't you kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?

Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

 

[paulitician]

Reagan was really on top of things during the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut and of course Iran Contra. Drug dealing, facilitating weapons to Iran. Didn't you kids talk about this stuff in 6th grade?

Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit. I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell. Okay. . ..really?

And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria? Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions. It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.

Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:

Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .

The Pentagon wants no part of this?

Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime. So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?

Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.

Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote. The strategy: that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.

Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice. The first time only killed a few folks. This last time was more horrendous. We didn't do anything the first time. If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?

 

[paulitician]

Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit. I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell. Okay. . ..really?

And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria? Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions. It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.

Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:

Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .

The Pentagon wants no part of this?

Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime. So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?

Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.

Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote. The strategy: that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.

Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice. The first time only killed a few folks. This last time was more horrendous. We didn't do anything the first time. If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?

False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.

 

[Vox]

Unlike Assad, the United States will be trying to limit civilian casualties. Plus the strike will deter Assad from using Chemical weapons again which will save the lives of Syrian civilians.

our missiles will kill civilians, count on it. probably thousands of them. probably more than assad killed with CW.

this is stupid, it will accomplish nothing.

Ever contemplate how many people Assad could kill with his next Sarin gas attack?

None of OUR business. Let his neighbours take care of it

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit. I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell. Okay. . ..really?

And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria? Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions. It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.

Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:

Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .

The Pentagon wants no part of this?

Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime. So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?

Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.

Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote. The strategy: that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.

Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice. The first time only killed a few folks. This last time was more horrendous. We didn't do anything the first time. If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?

False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.

And that is my worst fear. Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used. So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit. What will we have accomplished?

 

[Rocko]

onless they do something to us no war.