In Syria, Obama's Calculations Reveal Stupidity of US Imperialism

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/28-3


Does the planned US/NATO attack on Syria serve a larger strategic goal than simply "saving political face"? Perhaps not, but that doesn't make it any less stupid, illegal, immoral, or repugnant. (AFP Photo/Chad R. Erdmann)

With the U.S. war machine in full gear for an expected air assault on Syria, and with a US media continuing to focus on the inevitability of such an attack but not the true reasons behind it, the fundamental question remains: Why would the U.S., backed by its NATO allies, carry out such a misguided, dangerous, and—not to put too fine a point on it—stupid military campaign?

Citing reasons strategic, legal, and moral—critics of a U.S.-led attack on Syria are being drowned out by major news outlets, many citing unnamed government sources, who say U.S. cruise missile attacks (and possibly a multi-day aerial bombing campaign) could begin as earlier as Thursday.

But why? To what end? Who benefits? And who will be left to suffer?

Though asking these questions may not determine definitive answers, there are at least three points of agreement among experts cautioning against war. First, the details of last week's use of a chemical agent outside remain unclear and government claims about intelligence on the matter should be received with high levels of skepticism. Second, even if the Assad government, or someone loyal to it, was responsible for the attack the idea that cruise missiles would be the appropriate response (legally, morally or otherwise) is simply not true. And lastly, there is simply no military solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

[malaise]

1. The stupid burns

but then I follow the money

[xchrom]

2. yeah - i really want to know how much this adventure is going to cost. nt

[malaise]

4. And I also want to know how much the war industry boys will be making

this time around

[dipsydoodle]

3. As far as I'm aware NATO have yet to be involved.

US is currently out on a limb.

[malaise]

5. What are those wimps known as

Lib Dems saying?

[xchrom]

6. !

[dipsydoodle]

7. Clegg was supportive of Cameron

but that doesn't mean the rest of his tribe was.

Miliband et al will only support with UN approval.

There will be vote later today - the first of two the next being next week earliest. Be interesting to see how the first vote goes. See : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=579029

[malaise]

8. Thanks dipsydoodle

Wish I could watch but I have a project to complete today