US begins war on Syria as early as Thursday

[Revmitchell]

Senior American officials say the United States has planned to launch missile strikes against Syria “as early as Thursday” in order to punish Damascus over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The unnamed officials told NBC News on Tuesday that the “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at “sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities.”
On Monday night, four US warships were deployed in the Mediterranean within cruise missile range of Syria.
American defense officials said if the US wants to send a message to Assad, the most likely military action would be a Tomahawk missile strike, launched from a ship in the Mediterranean.
The US military has beefed up equipment during the past weeks. Several nuclear-powered submarines are reportedly in the water near Syria, also cruise-missile equipped.
The report came one day after US Secretary of State John Kerry accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/us-begins-war-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

In other words, the Great Pretender's version of Clinton's multimillion dollar Cruise missile strike on a worthless patch of desert with a bunch of $10 tents pitched on it.

Utterly useless, pointless, and stupid. The equivalent of telling the class bully, as he's beating up another kid, 'Ooh, you are so going to get it!" Followed by nothing.

We need to do something. This is not it.

 

[InTheLight]

Hopefully the custodian at the White House will polish Obama's Nobel Peace Prize before the war starts. Once the Prize Committee requests its return I don't think it will get cleaned again.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hopefully the custodian at the White House will polish Obama's Nobel Peace Prize before the war starts. Once the Prize Committee requests its return I don't think it will get cleaned again.

I hope wisdom somehow prevails. The president is making a huge mistake as he continues US policy of strike first and ask questions later. It is a policy that does not serve the country well.

 

[Revmitchell]

The president is making a huge mistake as he continues US policy of strike first and ask questions later.

So what method did you use to ensure your accusation is true in this case. What are your sources?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The president is making a huge mistake as he continues US policy of strike first and ask questions later.

That's not what he's doing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nfirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/

The initial confirmation that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for a suspected chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 came from a tip from the Israeli intelligence service, western intelligence sources tell Fox News.

A special unit of the Israeli Defense Force -- an intelligence unit that goes by the number 8200, which is a military intelligence listening unit -- has been cooperating with the NSA, sources tell Fox News.

This Israeli intelligence unit helped provide the intelligence intercepts that allowed the White House last weekend to conclude that the Assad regime was behind the attack.​

We could well ask, "Why don't the U.N. inspectors look at the Israeli evidence?" The answer lies in the question: " ... U.N. inspectors ... "

 

[Revmitchell]

That's not what he's doing:

Yea maybe Roger should have vetted that comment before he posted it so all of Christianity will not lose credibility.

 

[poncho]

That's not what he's doing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nfirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/

The initial confirmation that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for a suspected chemical weapons attack Aug. 21 came from a tip from the Israeli intelligence service, western intelligence sources tell Fox News.

A special unit of the Israeli Defense Force -- an intelligence unit that goes by the number 8200, which is a military intelligence listening unit -- has been cooperating with the NSA, sources tell Fox News.

This Israeli intelligence unit helped provide the intelligence intercepts that allowed the White House last weekend to conclude that the Assad regime was behind the attack.​

We could well ask, "Why don't the U.N. inspectors look at the Israeli evidence?" The answer lies in the question: " ... U.N. inspectors ... "

That's not much of a question to answer really..

If I were the UN I'd take any claims that Israeli' intell makes with a grain of salt simply because it has a vested interest in toppling Assad. And the NSA has been caught breaking the law and lying through it's teeth about it. That and everyone knows (maybe not everyone) Faux Snews itself lacks credibility when speaking on foreign policy as it is terminally infected with neocon warmongers and their followers..

There ya have it. Three compromised sources that would benefit from a military attack on Assad creating a narrative that serves their purposes. I don't believe it for a minute. Much as I disagree with the UN sometimes it does come to rational conclusions.

 

[church mouse guy]

The best way to destroy Syria would be to force Obamacare on them. The Democrats need a war to detract from their miserable economic policies. WW I, WW II, Korea, and Vietnam were all started when a Democrat was in the White House.

 

[InTheLight]

Would someone please explain why the US needs to get involved in this?

 

[poncho]

Several motivations are operating simultaneously. One is offered by Phil Greaves of Global Research: “There are predominantly two parties to blame for the sectarianism rife in Syria and spreading beyond its borders, they are: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Sitting behind these states, and driving their destructive policy is, as always, the Empire of the era.

Those who gain the most from destabilizing whole resource-rich regions for their own benefit. For the last 60 years, that Empire has been the United States of America.”

A second explanation is the hypothesis of Paul Craig Roberts: “Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China.”

A third reason is held by many, including both Greaves and Roberts, which is that destabilizing Syria allows Israel to achieve its aims.

Fourth, for both the U.S. and Israel, this is a means to undercut Hezbollah, which is sponsored by Iran.

Fifth, the neocon agenda long ago was to roll up the “axis of evil”, including Iran and its ally Syria. Their agenda is world domination by the sole surviving superpower.

Sixth, the military-industrial complex and its lobbies on the Hill thrive on the profits, the work of war, the advancements, and the demand for their services that instability brings. The DHS thrives on an atmopshere of war and fear. Members of Congress thrive on making speeches about promoting rights and democracy, even though they are promoting war, instability, refugees and death. The State Department appears to have abandoned diplomacy and become subservient to the neocon influences.

CONTINUE . . .

 

[SolaSaint]

What will happen is Obama will have missiles lobbed into Benghazi by mistake to destroy any evidence or witnesses of what happened their. oops

 

[InTheLight]

Several motivations are operating simultaneously. One is offered by Phil Greaves of Global Research: “There are predominantly two parties to blame for the sectarianism rife in Syria and spreading beyond its borders, they are: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Sitting behind these states, and driving their destructive policy is, as always, the Empire of the era.

Those who gain the most from destabilizing whole resource-rich regions for their own benefit. For the last 60 years, that Empire has been the United States of America.”

You think the US would benefit if the ME were to be destabilized? Pshaw..

A second explanation is the hypothesis of Paul Craig Roberts: “Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China.”

Ya sure, Muslims are going to get pissed at China if Syria's government falls! Are these "analysts" on crack?

A third reason is held by many, including both Greaves and Roberts, which is that destabilizing Syria allows Israel to achieve its aims.

Destabilizing Syria was just said to cause Muslims to become radicalized in the previous point given. Pretty sure an influx of freshly radicalized Muslims is not one of the aims of Israel.

Fourth, for both the U.S. and Israel, this is a means to undercut Hezbollah, which is sponsored by Iran.

Wow, that's quite a reach.

Fifth, the neocon agenda long ago was to roll up the “axis of evil”, including Iran and its ally Syria. Their agenda is world domination by the sole surviving superpower.

So how does Obama figure into this Neocon plot? I thought he was a closet Muslim bent on destroying America. C'mon, make up yer mind.

Sixth, the military-industrial complex and its lobbies on the Hill thrive on the profits, the work of war, the advancements, and the demand for their services that instability brings. The DHS thrives on an atmopshere of war and fear. Members of Congress thrive on making speeches about promoting rights and democracy, even though they are promoting war, instability, refugees and death. The State Department appears to have abandoned diplomacy and become subservient to the neocon influences.

Sorry, but Obama doesn't strike me as a big supporter of the military or Neocons.

 

[poncho]

You think the US would benefit if the ME were to be destabilized? Pshaw..

I think the people of the US would suffer once again at the expense of special (corporate) interests. These are the interests you were referring to right? You know they aren't really US interests at all as the MSM would have us all believe I hope.

But anyways . . .

Yeah they'd make out pretty well with new and bigger contracts, advancements in weapons, beefed up security and secrecy and so on, . . .

Yeah they'd make out like fat cats.

Ya sure, Muslims are going to get pissed at China if Syria's government falls! Are these "analysts" on crack?

Not sure how you get that from this . . . “Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China.”

Destabilizing Syria was just said to cause Muslims to become radicalized in the previous point given. Pretty sure an influx of freshly radicalized Muslims is not one of the aims of Israel.

In the greater scheme of things the radical muslims are very useful to the US and Israel both as a destabilizing force abroad and as bogeymen back at home.

When they aren't being used to topple regimes unfriendly to the globalist's corporate interests they're being used as an outside threat to undermine our liberties and empower the government and of course fill the pockets of those who benefit from creating a militarized big brother police state.

Wow, that's quite a reach.

How so? It's not like the neocons have ever been secretive about their plan to destabilize Iran and build a "new middle east".

Condi Rice was talking about it way back when.

So how does Obama figure into this Neocon plot? I thought he was a closet Muslim bent on destroying America. C'mon, make up yer mind.

See you weren't paying attention again. Obama is a puppet. To see the real game you have to look passed him at the real powers who always benefit from chaos and war.

Quit getting hung up on puppets.

Sorry, but Obama doesn't strike me as a big supporter of the military or Neocons.

And yet "his" foreign policy has followed the old neocon plan for global hegemony without swerving.

How do you explain that?

 

[poncho]

You think the US would benefit if the ME were to be destabilized? Pshaw..

I think the people of the US would suffer once again at the expense of special (corporate) interests. These are the interests you were referring to right? You know they aren't really US interests at all as the MSM would have us all believe I hope.

But anyways . . .

Yeah they'd make out pretty well with new and bigger contracts, advancements in weapons, beefed up security and secrecy and so on, . . .

Yeah they'd make out like fat cats.

Ya sure, Muslims are going to get pissed at China if Syria's government falls! Are these "analysts" on crack?

Not sure how you get that from this . . . “Perhaps the purpose of the wars is to radicalize Muslims and, thereby, destabilize Russia and even China.”

Destabilizing Syria was just said to cause Muslims to become radicalized in the previous point given. Pretty sure an influx of freshly radicalized Muslims is not one of the aims of Israel.

In the greater scheme of things the radical muslims are very useful to the US and Israel both as a destabilizing force abroad and as bogeymen back at home.

When they aren't being used to topple regimes unfriendly to the globalist's corporate interests they're being used as an outside threat to undermine our liberties and empower the government and of course fill the pockets of those who benefit from creating a militarized big brother police state.

Wow, that's quite a reach.

How so? It's not like the neocons have ever been secretive about their plan to destabilize Iran and build a "new middle east".

Condi Rice was talking about it way back when.

So how does Obama figure into this Neocon plot? I thought he was a closet Muslim bent on destroying America. C'mon, make up yer mind.

See you weren't paying attention again. Obama is a puppet. To see the real game you have to look passed him at the real powers who always benefit from chaos and war.

Quit getting hung up on puppets.

Sorry, but Obama doesn't strike me as a big supporter of the military or Neocons.

And yet "his" foreign policy has followed the old neocon plan for global hegemony without swerving.

How do you explain that?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If I were the UN ...

Fortunately, you're not. Unfortunately, the real U.N. isn't much more rational. If at all.

 

[poncho]

Fortunately, you're not. Unfortunately, the real U.N. isn't much more rational. If at all.

I'm no fan of the UN either my mistrust of it is second only to my mistrust of those in Washington that have proven several times over that the truth if far from them.

And throw in the long history of false flag attacks and other dubious justifications and pretexts used for attacking other nations without evidence I'd say rushing to the aid of Al Qaeda because Assad is puttin a whuppin on em is the last thing we need to do.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... I'd say rushing to the aid of Al Qaeda because Assad is puttin a whuppin on em is the last thing we need to do.

To associate all Syrians with al-Qaeda is foolish and indicative of a total lack of understanding of what is going on in Syria.

 

[poncho]

To associate all Syrians with al-Qaeda is foolish and indicative of a total lack of understanding of what is going on in Syria.

My understanding of what's going on in Syria is evidently good enough to force you to construct a strawman to knock down.

Anyone can look at all my posts on Syria to see I have never associated "all Syrians" with Al Qaeda.

Building such strawman arguments doesn't do much for your credibilty ole hoss.:tongue3:

Question. How is it you haven't thrown a fit at yourself for using partial quotes? You absolutely forbid me from doing that not long ago, remember that? I do.