The war drive against Syria

[n2doc]

26 August 2013
Ten years after the US government went to war in Iraq on the basis of lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a no less grotesque provocation is being concocted by Paris, London, and Washington to justify a new war of aggression against Syria.

The allegations that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad carried out mass chemical weapons attacks last Wednesday in Ghouta, near Damascus, lack any credibility.

The Assad regime has no motive to carry out such an attack. Until Wednesday, its forces were handily defeating the US-backed opposition militias without using chemical weapons. Due to their lack of popular support and the repeated defeats they have suffered, the opposition is disintegrating into bands of looters and murderers—a state of affairs confirmed by Al Qaeda-linked opposition forces’ declaration that after the Ghouta attack, they will kill any member of Assad’s Alawite faith they capture.

Allegations that Assad used chemical weapons serve only one purpose: to give Washington and its allies a pretext to attack Syria, which they have repeatedly threatened to do if a chemical attack by the regime occurred. If a chemical weapon attack did take place in Ghouta, François Hollande, David Cameron, and Barack Obama know far more about its execution than does Bashar al-Assad.
Before any proof of a chemical attack had emerged, and before any investigation had even begun—indeed, in less time than police departments take to issue an indictment in a routine street crime—French and British officials were calling for war with Assad. The day after the alleged attack, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius insisted that “force” was the only appropriate response.

more

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/26/pers-a26.html

[Little Star]

1. This red line in the sand shit stinks!....

From your article:

There is deep opposition in the working class in the United States and Europe to being railroaded into another war for oil and geopolitical advantage. One Reuters/Ipsos poll published Saturday shows that only 9 percent of the US public supports US intervention in Syria, and only 25 percent would support it even if it were proven that Assad had used chemical weapons.

People do not want this f**king war!

k&r for your OP

[snappyturtle]

2. Yes. I cringed the day the President drew the line. nt

[Little Star]

3. Me too. I never even did that with my kids. Yeesh!!

[brooklynite]

4. I can see a thoughtful debate on our role in the Syrian conflict...

...but what the Socialist International thinks won't be part of it.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Of course not ...

[brooklynite]

8. Has Colin Powell been appointed to a job in the Obama Administration?

The "Obama = Bush" mantra, or that there's "no difference" between Republicans and Democrats is exactly the sort of ridiculous message I would expect the Socialists to make.

[Arctic Dave]

6. K&R

This entire narrative of CW use stinks like a three day old fish.

[KurtNYC]

7. Didn't we do this about 3 months back...

May 23, 2013 -- allegations that Syria used chemical weapons
June 14, 2013 -- US arms rebels based on claims that Syria used chemical weapons in May.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/13/syria-chemical-weapons-us-confirm

And the Russians dismissed the evidence:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/14/russia-us-syria-chemical-weapons

The bigger picture here is that Iran has a pact with Syria that calls for one to defend the other if they are attacked by the US. Russia also has an agreement. So worst case scenario is that this is the start of our long-scheduled war with Iran.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. " Iran has a pact with Syria "

Crap...I had not remembered that.

[KurtNYC]

10. Iran also wanted a naval base in Syria

but I lost track of whether they actually built one.

From 2005

Iran and Syria heightened tension across the Middle East and directly confronted the Bush administration yesterday by declaring they had formed a mutual self-defence pact to confront the "threats" now facing them.

The move, which took the Foreign Office by surprise, was announced after a meeting in Tehran between the Iranian vice-president, Mohammed Reza Aref, and the Syrian prime minister, Naji al-Otari.
...
Regarded as rogue states by the White House, Iran is under pressure over its nuclear ambitions, while Syria came under renewed scrutiny over the assassination this week of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Yesterday's announcement came as the Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, predicted that Tehran would have the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon within six months.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/17/usa.syria

In February of this year, Iran signed a pact with Russia and put Russian warships in their ports while the Iranians sent their ships to a Russia port. In July, Iran made a deal with China. So some have speculated that a US invasion of Syria could be the start of WWIII.

http://tehrantimes.com/politics/108817-iranian-warships-sent-to-russian-port

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/05/312337/iran-china-sign-security-pact/

[kentuck]

11. The truth of the matter.

"Allegations that Assad used chemical weapons serve only one purpose: to give Washington and its allies a pretext to attack Syria, which they have repeatedly threatened to do if a chemical attack by the regime occurred. "