US to attack Syria in "unbelievably small, limited strike" if they don't give up chemical weapons

who benefits.........do we really believe that Asad would chem his own people knowing it would bring the wrath of the rest of the globe against him and his government?

 

Yes - I do think Assad is capable of doing this.

A must-see for anyone who wants to know more about the Syrian cabal who have been running things for decades should watch the two part Al Jazeera special "The Reckoning", which goes back to the early days and ends just before the current crisis.

They have levelled entire cities of 30k plus civilians because the city - as a whole - was deemed to be in the pocket of their rivals.

To me it feels like a "Western Autopilot" leading us once again into a complex web that proves - again - how far short our ability to change things falls when compared to how much we THINK we can change things.

The last decade has been an object lesson in the futility of western intervention, but I guess "this time for sure" right boys??

Bullwinkle Foreign Policy

 

I love Kerry's "moral obscenity" comment. It's so hypocritical it hurts my brain.

How many wars, ahem, excuse me, "kinetic actions" are they engaged in at the moment?

Drone strikes?
Torture victims?
How many homeless because of a lack of banking regulations?

Moral Obscenity? Look in the mirror America.

praktik, your comment - The last decade has been an object lesson in the futility of western intervention, but I guess "this time for sure" right boys?? Rings so true. We should stay well clear of this. Besides, lets say we go in, airstrikes or boots on the ground, then what? How do you exit when there is no viable opposition who is solid to lead after. Yet, at the same time, doing nothing, cant be a real option if indeed chemical weapons were actually used. This, I am not so sure.

 

Gen. Wesley Clark: Syrian Invasion Planned 10 Years in Advance | Dprogram.net

 

Syria doesn't have oil. So where's this going.

 

That's my question too....

 

well that's why I assumed this has gone on for so long and no one has done nothing about it.

 

It's prime pipeline country for getting oil to Europe.

After Syria is taken out, Iran is next.

The west doesn't like China and Iran getting their oil from Iran... tiptoe to tyranny continues.

 

Even this article, although well laid out, doesnt really say what are the grand aims?

Wim Roffel: What does the US really want in Syria? - Your Middle East

backs up Watchers arguement
Why the US Wants Regime Change in Syria - Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall - Open Salon

 

Oh right. Just like how Afghanistan worked out for them too.

They don't have the money to pull this off.

 

They will eventually go to war with Iran, they have been isolating the area around them for 2 or 3 decades now. First Israel, India, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan and recently Egypt and Syria.

All these countries are on board or will be in the near future, call it democracy or whatever you want but it's about the boner they have for Iran and the need to control the flow of oil in the area and who gets it (ie not Russia, India or China).

A similar thing is happening in the Arctic except everyone is claiming to have ownership over the land, again all for oil.

 

Afghanistan never worked out for anyone, it's not ideal fighting terrain no matter how many ops or sims you do in preparation. Money is not the issue unless China comes calling and even then I'm sure the Saudis will help bail out the USA.

Who's going to be able to collect a 16+ trillion dollar debt? nobody unless they invade the USA but lets be real here, Red Dawn will never likely happen and Patrick Swayze will save us all anyway.

Which bring me to your question that the USA doesn't have the money to pull it off. Whats another 10 trillion on a debt nobody can collect? not to mention the vested intrest of France, Germany and the UK in having access to cheap oil, I'm sure they're on board with the cause

 

Wolverines!

 

3rd time I've post this video over the years.

stew

 

Ya thats the issue right? The offense is grave, but is it anymore grave than destroying mosques with families hiding inside or using their air force to level a city that was "disobeying"?

In terms of numbers some of the earlier crackdowns were in the same league - but didn't cause us to intervene (at the time it was more of a Soviet client state anyway, and "out of reach" - but we didn't even really use it to shame them or the Soviets either, nobody cared).

So on the scale of things in terms of impact on human misery, I'm not sure this attack is really all that out of line with what they have been doing for decades and even before "using chemical weapons" they were devastating cities with conventional means, and I'm not sure a dead kid cares whether it was the collapse of his roof from a mortar or a chemical weapon that killed him...

So we back ourselves into rhetorical/philosophical corners with "red lines" like chemical weapons, and when you unpack those kind of "triggers", you realize that maybe the real trigger should have been some time ago, when the crisis started and civilians started dying - not now with so much blood already spilt.

And again this rests on the assumption that A) western power CAN make a difference and B) that it is appropriate for us to have "triggers" like that at all, when they can force us into open-ended messes w/ downstream consequences we can't identify or understand...

 

As for the alleged economic/geopolitical benefits from engaging in Syria, I see little examination in the circles propogating these theories to all the potential deleterious downstream consequences from invading Syria - its all about how the West will get a pipleine, or something...

They had the same rhetoric about Iraq - but there was little recognition that the American misadventure there was one of the most stupendous failures of American foreign policy EVER, draining blood and treasure in a futile war that only empowered Iran and the nexus of opposing asymmetric forces across the middle east that used the war to galvanize support and become stronger.

To me the benefits of intervention in Syria are slim indeed - with similar potential for unforseen and dramatic downsides as Iraq...

Now, do American planners *THINK* there are some upsides like a pipeline or geopolitics?

Sure... some of em do! but that doesn't mean those dreams will be realized...

 

Kerry signals US Intervention in Syria, but to What End? | Informed Comment

Gulf Arab Press Condemns Alleged 'Bloody' Chemical Weapons attack in Syria (OSC) | Informed Comment

Obama’s Limited Options: Bombing Syria unlikely to be Effective

 

just wanted to clarify this comment,

of course there is upside, take a look at all the development contracts the hiring of private mercenaries to get around laws, the introduction of western businesses to the region and the deployment of the military. from a monetary perspective there is certainly upside, Rome(the US economy) can burn to the ground, regardless someone will make a profit. When one percent of your population controls ~80% or more of your wealth then who really matters? the other 99% can rot, we've already seen that story start to unfold with LIBOR, recession (almost depression), mortgage scandals, banking scandals etc.

 

The Watcher- how come you only / always post videos and not much else?