The Lie of "Limited" War Against Syria
The Lie of "Limited" War Against Syria
By Shamus Cooke
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
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)with which I happen to agree.
K&R.
polly7
(20,582 posts)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)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.
polly7
(20,582 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)there's always semantics.
DavidDvorkin
(19,469 posts)It's credibility.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)perhaps you might argue its credibility.
DavidDvorkin
(19,469 posts)should post something credible that makes the same argument. I'd read that with interest and care.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)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?