Why Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapon
US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.
In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon.
"The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:
"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."
The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
http://www.alternet.org/world/syria-...ter890083&t=12
I think you are underestimating the scope of what is about to go down, by a couple orders of magnitude.
This post just reminds me of the sad fact that there are so many knee-jerk Obama haters who see all of reality through Fox-colored glasses without bothering to apply critical thinking to anything they see, hear, or believe. That makes me sad.
S'okay. You have me to say "I told you so". Maybe, just maybe, one day you might develop some willingness to question things a bit more critically.
Wow. So much nonsense. You didn't once, explain the part of my post that brought you to each conclusion. Maybe you can work on it and come to me with actual criticisms and perhaps reasons why I'm wrong.
Speaking of looking through colored glasses.
Answer this one question, what would a real attack look like in the age of cell phone cameras and the internet?
https://www.google.com/search?q=syri...w=1600&bih=775
If there were a real attack, what would people think about it, even absent any interest pushing one line of action or another?
We are at a point where we have to ask ourselves, what do we do?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Your automatic assumption that only "empty buildings" would be hit.
The underlying implication is that a Democratic president that you don't like would be unwilling, or incapable of ordering a devastating military strike.
Is that essentially what you were getting at?
And do nothing we should.
can't believe this has gotten to page 7 without anyone making fun of OP for his coon grammar. wtf is a war monger?
-monger
▶comb. form
denoting a dealer or trader in a specified commodity:
fishmonger |
cheesemonger.
■a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, esp. one that is undesirable or discreditable:
rumormonger |
warmonger.
– origin
Old English mangere, from mangian ‘to traffic,’ of Germanic origin, based on Latin mango ‘dealer.’
New Oxford American Dictionary © 2010 Oxford University Press
We don't want another war but hey I love my car and I love using oil. Oh by the way I hate all major oil corporations but I sure do love using their oil. LOL. The stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me.
It's one word "warmonger"
no
I need to go back and reread and find how you could have come up with that.
RandomGuy: I was only saying the boldened part was "completely accurate"
Actualy there is no way of figuring out where you got any of that from my comments. The whole Clinton style bombing is stupid.
Krauthammer: Obama boxed himself in and now he's looking for a way out of attacking Syria
der Krauthammerlong ago yielded any credibility as serious conservative commentator. He's nothing but right-wing tool and shill.
kind of like your zionist ass is for the left except on a tiny scale where only a few spurstalkers ever hear yourder Krauthammer
masterful move by Obama imo. he is taking the issue to Congress.
der Krauthammer
You repeat your MediaMatters talking points very well. They should give you a rai$e.
Do you have an issue with Obama taking this to congress?
Maybe he should of took his comment about the red line to congress to make sure if they will support it.
chemical warfare has been internationally illegal, condemned for decades. Trying intimidate Assad into not gassing was worth a try.
Repugs said nothing as St Ronnie's ally Saddam gassed Iranians in the 80s. Now they have chance to let another chemical-warfare war criminal go unpunished.
It's like the "Kraut" says in the video. 0bama knows he ed up by acting like a tough guy and he's only doing this because Congress will bail him out by nixing any sort of military attack....Amateur Hour at the White House.
. Conservatives have been whining that, per the cons ution, Barry needs to run it through congress. He asks for congresses approval and you er still find a reason to whine.
Is it not the responsibility of the congress to declare war?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
