Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

polly7

(20,582 posts)
Fri Aug 30, 2013, 09:45 PM Aug 2013

The Lie of "Limited" War Against Syria

The Lie of "Limited" War Against Syria

By Shamus Cooke

August 30, 2013 "Information Clearing House - The rats are jumping ship. Obama's strongest allies can't stomach the stench of lies that are the foundation of the war effort against Syria. Even England, whose entire foreign policy is reduced to asking "how high?" when the U.S. says "jump,” opted to stay grounded for Obama's war drive.

The Arab League, too, having long been considered a puppet show by U.S. foreign policy, has cut its strings. The UN Security Council — after having learned not to trust Obama in Libya — also refuses to give permission for an attack. Which leaves France — the former colonial master of Syria — to fill England's shoes as the token "important" European nation to give the attack a thin coat of "international" support. But England's insolence will surely make an impression on the French public, who voted in a "socialist" president, presumably not to act as a warmonger.

Obama has offered zero evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the most recent chemical weapons attack. UN investigator Carla Del Ponte blamed the U.S.-backed rebels for a previous chemical weapons attack, so if one were to presume guilt, it would flow towards the rebels.

While foreign nations instantly recognized Obama's war song as a plagiarism of President Bush's lyrics used to attack Iraq, sections of the American public have been fooled by Obama's mellowing tone. The soft, reassuring sound of "limited strikes" that will last "hours, not days" has a calming effect on the nerves of the American public, who are essentially being told that Syria needs a light slap on the wrist for being "bad,” after which everything will return to normal; no U.S. troops need die. No big deal, really.

But, of course, any military action in the Middle East is a big deal. With each new war the U.S. wages in the region tensions rise, self defense preparations are made, and regional alliances are readied to act as deterrents. The nations not aligned with U.S. foreign policy — and there are many — are desperate to stop the U.S.' bloody march across the Middle East.


Full Article: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36039.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36036.htm
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Lie of "Limited" War Against Syria (Original Post) polly7 Aug 2013 OP
K&R idwiyo Aug 2013 #1
Them are some strong words 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #2
I do too. polly7 Aug 2013 #4
It's a bit hard to take the author seriously DavidDvorkin Aug 2013 #3
Yeah, wtf ever. nt. polly7 Aug 2013 #5
When you can't argue content, seabeckind Aug 2013 #6
It's not semantics DavidDvorkin Aug 2013 #8
In that case seabeckind Aug 2013 #9
Nope. Those who agree with the OP DavidDvorkin Aug 2013 #10
But, but, think of the chilrens... seabeckind Aug 2013 #7

polly7

(20,582 posts)
4. I do too.
Fri Aug 30, 2013, 10:07 PM
Aug 2013

I haven't even been able to post much lately because I feel just sick about this, it's like pre-Iraq and Libya, and the never-ending drone attacks ... it's all just too freaking depressing. Good that someone can say what millions around the world are thinking though.

DavidDvorkin

(19,469 posts)
3. It's a bit hard to take the author seriously
Fri Aug 30, 2013, 10:02 PM
Aug 2013

given that he says England when he means Britain and that he puts "important" in quotes when referring to Britain and France as important European nations.

DavidDvorkin

(19,469 posts)
10. Nope. Those who agree with the OP
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 04:12 PM
Aug 2013

should post something credible that makes the same argument. I'd read that with interest and care.

seabeckind

(1,957 posts)
7. But, but, think of the chilrens...
Sat Aug 31, 2013, 10:16 AM
Aug 2013

Que the disgusting pictures. BTW, I just saw the ASPCA commercial as I passed by the tv. Reminded me of the disgusting pictures the anti-family planning group waved in my face as I drove down the street.

And has just as much effect.

Then again, I'm no longer an isolationist, this week I'll be a pacifist. And, just like when I comment on the local news site, there are so many who don't understand what either of those terms actually mean. Feels like I'm arguing with my 9-yo sister again ... wow, does that bring back memories.

Now I will ask the same question I asked before and never get an answer...

Cui bono?

Who benefits if we do this act of war?

Think carefully...cause I don't think the one who benefits is either an American common person, nor even a syrian.

[on edit]...why do I always misspell that term?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Lie of "Limited" War ...