Syria, will USA attack?

rahu

Banned
i think we are doomed to more war but not over syria. to many reperts are coming out casting doubt(as usual) on the whole affair.

the rebels admitt to the chemiscal attack
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html

the saudi's gave the rebels the chemicals
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

ron paul calls this affair another false flag
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-syria-chemical-attack-a-false-flag.html

rahu
 

steel

Member
with Pluto coming to Syrias' Sun and then Jupiter coming to the midheaven and then Uranus opposing the Aascendant of Syria...yes..within two days we will throw the Tomohawk...Israel depends on this event...Iron Dome is activated in the whole country....We are truly Pluto as we move towards our Pluto Return @ 29' Capricorn......the Cardinal Cross has brought activation for the Human Species...we have chosen to manifest conflict with this amazing collection of powers...some day the greater action may be of a higher standard...not now.....
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?
Gen. Wesley Clark
Says Pentagon Had Plan in 2001
to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years
http://warisacrime.org/node/19200


QUOTE:

'…...He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq."

This was on or about 20th of September.

"We're going to war with Iraq? Why?"

He said: "I don't know. I guess they don't know what else to do."

So I said: "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?"

He said: "No, no. There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments.I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."....'



'…..So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.

I said: "Are we still going to war with Iraq?"

And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office – "today. This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.".......'



'…...I said: "Is it classified?" :smile:

He said: "Yes, sir."

I said: "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said: "You remember that?"

He said: "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

AMY GOODMAN: I'm sorry. What did you say his name was?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I'm not going to give you his name.......'
 

*emma*

Banned
Saudi Arabia is an Islamist country/monarchy/theocracy where the Quran is the constitution, if the rebels are wantng to change a secular Syria to a religious system with Sharia law makes sense where the weapons support came from
:unsure:

Obama is addressing the nation in about 20 minutes

6.15 pm uk time 1.15 pm washngton time

I gather Kerry said it doesnt matter who fired the weapons, in one breath, in the other said it was Assad regime....is he sane?

Putin has said Kerrys speech was utter nonsense, ilogcal and requesting PROOF it was the regime,ie why would Assad knowing the USA is gunning for hm give them an ace and use chem weapons givng the USA the excuse they need to attack....makes no sense


I thnk all leaders know the vast majority of their populations, USA included, are not in support of military action without solid grounds
 

Kuntuzangmo

Well-known member
It seems to me peaceful logic lays the responsibility to the international community....not in the pride/hubris of the American president.
UN, Arab League, Nato etc....these are the groups who should be leading response with USA giving support behind them.

Jupiterasc....that's pretty scary....and of course never broached in the mainstream media.

I'm looking at charts...more later.
 
Last edited:

Marinka

Well-known member
It seems to me peaceful logic lays the responsibility to the international community....not in the pride/hubris of the American president.
UN, Arab League, Nato etc....these are the groups who should be leading response with USA giving support behind them.

Jupiterasc....that's pretty scary....and of course never broached in the mainstream media.

I'm looking at charts...more later.


Actually, I will disagree and say that is the strength of the president standing up and planning on calling out Syria for what they have done -- it is not his pride that is instigating this action.

Cowards will bow and move out of the way of bully. Sometimes it takes another bully (or policeman) to stand up to a bully. Bullies do not understand peace, they only understand that they can use the delaying tactics like peace talks to further their own aim.

The countries in that surrounding area are afraid of what is happening but, are not going to the UN, Nato, or to the Saudi world -- they are going to someone that can do something about it -- the US.

This is not to say that Syria as a country should not be allowed to rule as they see fit but, they have broken the rules where it concerns the use of chemical weapons.


 

Kuntuzangmo

Well-known member
Marika, under normal circumstances I would agree with you...but this comes on the heels and amidst unprecedented American attacks over the last 12 years in the middle east.
We cannot afford to play global cop. Other countries and/or an international coalition should take charge.
 

*emma*

Banned
Well I wasnt expecting that! Obama says he has the authority to strike Syria without going to the UN or obtaining Congress approval...but he has chosen to ask Congress for approval. They are not due back after the holidays until September 9 ( although its not impossible they may be recalled before, just as Cameron did in the UK)

This will also make his time at the G20 next week in Russia an easier ride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM&feature=youtube_gdata_player


PS Congress has not approved any military action in any war or intervention since WW2.....(according to a commentator on RT News earlier today)

This is a very unusual situation in general compared with e.g. Iraq war...but the USA and other countries are war weary..the legacy of the past decade and a little has certainly made its mark, especially fake evidence for war

Both the USA and UK and to lesser extent France KNOW the public have no stomach for another war....that is at least two of them so far are putting it to a vote....I dont blame them, they are inbetween a rock and a hard place

I found his speech on the whole good,making the best of several awkward situations..he has proven at least HE is not a warmonger...theMccains and Bushes of this world are old news...their gun ho toddler attitudes have never ever made anything better...just miles worse not just for their enemies and the civilians but for their own peoples

I also realised that by him saying usa supports the opposition, oh how can they when theywant an islamist country with sharia law and contain al qaeda elements, this is tantamount to saying he wants regime change...on what authority does any country have the right go instigate regime change in any sovereign country?

I know it is not just me who considers the whole business murky disturbing hypocritical and a little insane



PPS Can anyone tell me if it is by international law illegal to manufacture or supply or store chem weapons why the international community cannot try anyone and confiscate all stocks of anyone who does any of that....better than bombing a country with undoubtedly resulting civilian casualties...what if the collateral damage is more than the people killed in these chem weapon attacks?Compounding all misery and death? that is why NON military action is always the better way....it begets another cycle of death fear misery poverty hatred.....humankind in the 21st century seems to not have advanced that much at all from eons ago...thatis called stupidity...oh and lets not forget the role of religion in all this.....responsible for so much destruction by proxy

MY prediction is there will be no military attack...the situation is complicated, unpredictable, and changing by the day.....the powers that be dont have the proof Assad ordered the massacred 1400 civilians a third of them children, using chem weapons....IF THEY HAD there wouldbe no need for debates and votes and speeches...lets not forget the many reports it was the opposition...
 
Last edited:

Marinka

Well-known member
Marika, under normal circumstances I would agree with you...but this comes on the heels and amidst unprecedented American attacks over the last 12 years in the middle east.
We cannot afford to play global cop. Other countries and/or an international coalition should take charge.

I agree with you that other "international coalitions" should take charge but, at this time -- none exists that have the power or the strength of character to move forward.

America should not have to be "global cop" but, who is going to do it -- China? Russia? Canada? England ? Japan? Australia? The only two with some amount of power are China and Russia and they have their own agenda such that very few other countries would trust them as a leader in a situation like this. England or France might be able to do it but, they would need the US force behind them. The only country that can pull other countries in line with them is the US because most other countries trust that the US does not want to be there in the first place and is acting for the best outcome of the international community.
 

Marinka

Well-known member
PPS Can anyone tell me if it is by international law illegal to manufacture or supply or store chem weapons why the international community cannot try anyone and confiscate all stocks of anyone who does any of that....better than bombing a country with undoubtedly resulting civilian casualties...what if the collateral damage is more than the people killed in these chem weapon attacks?Compounding all misery and death? that is why NON military action is always the better way....it begets another cycle of death fear misery poverty hatred.....humankind in the 21st century seems to not have advanced that much at all from eons ago...thatis called stupidity...oh and lets not forget the role of religion in all this.....responsible for so much destruction by proxy


This is a great question. There was something similar with the war trials that were used for the individual people involved in the Germany death camps but, it took so long for these to work through the system. Usually these come into play after the fact - once a ruler is disposed.

Most countries respect the sovereignty of Syria (or any other country) and as such, ask permission to go into the country such as for the UN inspectors checking for the chemicals. Syria can refuse. There is currently no process in place to take a country's ruler to court or to confiscate material from that country, at least that I am aware of.

 

*emma*

Banned
This is a great question. There was something similar with the war trials that were used for the individual people involved in the Germany death camps but, it took so long for these to work through the system. Usually these come into play after the fact - once a ruler is disposed.

Most countries respect the sovereignty of Syria (or any other country) and as such, ask permission to go into the country such as for the UN inspectors checking for the chemicals. Syria can refuse. There is currently no process in place to take a country's ruler to court or to confiscate material from that country, at least that I am aware of.

Im not aware of it either, I just go by what I read, and what I read is its ILLEGAL to hold manufacture or use chemical weapons....the USA and other countries holds stockpiles...so the USAand other countries are engaging in illegal behaviour ...including the ones that manufacture them.....end of the day if someone dies in a war by being blown up or gassed, whats the difference? Areconventional weapons OK? how about the USA napalming vietnamese or using an atom bomb onjapan? Sad feckers werent they? I know its history but its still the pot cLling the kettle black!!!!!!!

You ALSO have to ask yourself one question.....just one....why does the usa think it should police the middle east? There are so many atrocities over the years in many lands.....where was the usa when thousands of people were getting macheted to death in rwanda eg...so the moral argument falls down
 
Last edited:

Marinka

Well-known member
HUH
isn't it a bit extremist for a presdient to be threathening war on a country that isn't attacking us?
rahu


Syria is acting in such a way to threaten it's neighbors which incidentally, have asked for help from the US.

If Syria continued to harm it's own people without resorting to chemical weapons, then there would have been little reason for any action from other countries - when it is a case of civil war, other countries have little recourse to help the people in that state/country - hence, this explains many of the atrocities that have taken place in many African countries while the world stood by.

If Syria is using chemical weapons, then this could be used against it's neighbors who, justifiably are now alarmed about this situation.

 

BobZemco

Well-known member
What do you think? Are we doomed for more war or will peace prevail?

At least 25 more years of war, ending in Russia.

Gen. Wesley Clark Says Pentagon Had Plan in 2001 to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years.

15.

15 years. I knew that long before Clark did. The US is way behind their time-table, and every day is critical.

There's a "critical mass" point in there somewhere. I don't know when it is, but suffice to say that when Russia and China get enough resources flowing out of Central Asia to the rest of the world....it's history, lights out, good night for the US.

That's that would this is all about. The US$. It has nothing to do with "evil dictators."

It seems to me peaceful logic lays the responsibility to the international community....not in the pride/hubris of the American president.
UN, Arab League, Nato etc....these are the groups who should be leading response with USA giving support behind them.

Those groups have no authority.

Had you bothered to read the UN Charter, then you would know that the UN never had authority to intervene in any conflict, until the conflict ends.

The NATO Charter only permits action when a NATO member is under attack, and I don't recall Syria being NATO member.

Even so, utilizing NATO contrary to its stated purpose in the Charter is a dangerous precedent that will have negative ramifications for every man, woman and child on this Earth.

Even if Syria would be a NATO member, the Charter is for external conflicts, not internal conflicts. Again, using NATO contrary to its stated purpose in the Chart is a dangerous precedent that will serious negative very bad consequences for every man, woman and child on this Earth.

So why do it?

This is not to say that Syria as a country should not be allowed to rule as they see fit but, they have broken the rules where it concerns the use of chemical weapons.

That would be impossible since Syria does not have chemical weapons.

Marika, under normal circumstances I would agree with you...but this comes on the heels and amidst unprecedented American attacks over the last 12 years in the middle east.
We cannot afford to play global cop.

Uh, you are not playing global cop...you are playing global bully and global slave master using the mantra of global cop.

Im not aware of it either, I just go by what I read, and what I read is its ILLEGAL to hold manufacture or use chemical weapons....the USA and other countries holds stockpiles...so the USAand other countries are engaging in illegal behaviour ...including the ones that manufacture them.....

The US secretly deployed chemical weapons to Germany during the JFK Administration....the Germans had no knowledge until 1990 that those weapons....which had become useless and leaking dangerous chemicals....had been in their country for more than 25 years.

You ALSO have to ask yourself one question.....just one....why does the usa think it should police the middle east? There are so many atrocities over the years in many lands.....where was the usa when thousands of people were getting macheted to death in rwanda eg...so the moral argument falls down

Money. It's about money and wealth, specifically about the US$. It's about Americans maintaining a life-style and standard of living that is superior to any other country.

What's in Rwanda? Nothing. No oil, no metal ores, and no non-metallic minerals....so why should the US care?

Same with North Korea....they can have, um, you know...Weapons of Mass Destruction (right) since they have no resources the US needs to control.

[deleted response to attacking comment - Moderator]

This has been going on since 1969 or 1970...not sure exactly when the US capitulated on the Pacific Rim Plan, but another plan was adopted in 1972, and they've been running the play-book ever since.

I was on the team responsible for developing doctrine for Central Asia/Black Sea. Clinton put that into play, but then botched it, otherwise there would be fewer years of warfare and fewer people would die.

Now the whole thing has to be done over again.

I had nothing to do with Middle East/North Africa, but I don't recall Syria, Tunisia or Libya being part of the equation. If I had to venture a reasonable guess, I would say the US expected Israel to have control of Syria, and that the US would be able to control the dictators it installed in Libya and Tunisia.

And, why, yes, it was the US who illegally over-threw the Libyan government and installed Mohammed Gaddafi as dictator, and then continued to support Gaddafi, until Gaddafi tried to be his own man and do what's best for the peoples of Libya, at which time the US branded him as a "terrorist."

Speaking of Gaddafi, I think someone made some silly remark as "not being the style of the US."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/0...kills-all-aboard-italian-airliner-flight-870/

Upon seeing the missile impact the airliner nearby, the Libyan MiG-23 pilot, Ezedin Koal, pulled away, searching for nearby enemy aircraft. In every direction his nose would have pointed, the radar would have suddenly shown more enemy fighter jets.
A flight of three Italian F-104S Starfighter aircraft closed in from one side while one or two A-7 Corsairs from the US Navy came from another direction.

Two French Mirage fighters pressed in from the north, their radars lighting up his early warning radar receiving systems as they tracked him and prepared to fire.

The US, France and Italy plotted to murder Gaddafi in cold blood by shooting down his transport aircraft. Instead, an Italian civilian airliner was shot down, murdering all the people in cold blood and then a Libyan witness, on patrol in his MiG-23, was shot down by the US, France and Italy.

All these things....NATO attack on Libya, NATO attack on Yugoslavia, Syria, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, plus Central Asia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya etc etc are all part of a plan that also included the expansion of NATO....

....and then after Syria, the future attack on Iran, the future wars in Central Asia and then Russia.

The goal is for the US to control all of the world's oil and non-oil resources. The vast majority of those resources sit in Central Asia, and that part of Russia that constitutes "Central Asia/Central Russia" east all the way to the Pacific.

Understand the US does not need to own those resources, rather the US needs to control those resources, to guarantee that the resources are sold on the global market in US$.

I'll have to show you a map, which I can't make tonight since I'm getting ready to go party.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tsmall

Premium Member
That would be impossible since Syria does not have chemical weapons.

If you carefully read the reports, especially those from the UN inspectors who left earlier than scheduled this morning, none of them are saying definatively who "did it." If Syria lacks chemical weapons (although I seem to remember early this year or late last there were reports of the threat from the Syrian government to use them) then who released them?
 

chris10

Well-known member
...why does the usa think it should police the middle east?

Answer 1) uuummm.... because they are after their resources e.g. oil ?

Answer 2) because of altruism on their part?

I'm ... divided between these two :biggrin:





There are so many atrocities over the years in many lands.....where was the usa when thousands of people were getting macheted to death in rwanda eg...

so the moral argument falls down
hmmm ... yes, it does.
I guess people are developing quite thick skin
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Answer 1) uuummm.... because they are after their resources e.g. oil ?

Yes, well first it would be necessary to define who "they" are.

Answer 2) because of altruism on their part?

Close. Not because of altruism on "their" part, but because "they" apply to the altruism of the masses in order to satisfy their own agenda.

Uh, you are not playing global cop...you are playing global bully and global slave master using the mantra of global cop.

I don't mean "you" personally, I mean Brits and Americans, and to a lesser extent, a handful of the Western European countries....well, the northern Western European countries....well, okay, the central Western European countries (all two of them....France and Germany).

This is all your doing.

For the last 150 years or so, you violated Natural Laws, in particular Economic Law, by tilting the playing field so far to your advantage that no others could ever compete against you.

Let's be serious. It's been going on longer than 150 years. Look at what Eroupean invaders inflicted on the brown man they found on the North American continent.

Actually, 150 years ago brings the US to 1863. A prize to anyone who can remember what happened that year in the US.

The real problem isn't the notion that most western people want world domination, and the problem isn't just that most people in the US are too busy wondering what Miley Cyrus did at the VMA's. The problem is that most western people (although feeling a bit of comfort for the lifestyle they have come to expect of their society) don't really give a good gosh dang thing beyond wanting to provide for themselves and their families, and not have to worry about anything beyond the moment.

Which is why as a society we are so easily manipulated. It does not help that we are also so easily frightened by the unknown.

It's funny, and probably not relevant, but this entire discussion reminds me of a book I read in high school...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inheritors_(William_Golding)


hmmm ... yes, it does.
I guess people are developing quite thick skin

No, they always had one...when it came to caring for themselves and their families. Mostly, people don't want to worry about the global economy, or a world market...or even other people they don't know. Not because they don't have the capacity for it, but because they are too busy living in their own moments. Bring it to their house, and they will care. Cast it half the world away, and it does not affect them.
 
Last edited:
Top