Log in

View Full Version : US Imperialism and NATO Intervention in Syria is Imminent



TheOther
10th December 2012, 02:09
US Imperialism and NATO Intervention in Syria is Imminent


Fve0Fvm16tE

By Stephen Lendman

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_07/Syria-Iraq-2-0-another-false-flag-invasion-rated-XXX/

December 09, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - On December 7, Voice of Russia (VoR) headlined: "Iraq 2.0, another false-flag invasion rated XXX," saying: "The US and NATO are set to invade Syria, something many of us have been warning about for a while now. It has been obvious that they have been looking for a pretext and that pretext has already been injected into the public debate." VoR cited fabricated claims about threatening chemical weapons. Media scoundrels hype them. Sarin nerve gas was mentioned. Reports claimed Assad readied it in bombs. No evidence whatever was cited. They're ready to go but haven't been loaded on planes, said an unnamed US official. Pentagon spokesman George Little said "any consideration of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would be unacceptable." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "I think there is no question that we remain very concerned, very concerned that as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons. The intelligence that we have causes serious concerns that this is being considered." "The president of the United States has made very clear there will be consequences, there will be consequences if the Assad regime makes a terrible mistake by using these chemical weapons on their own people."

On December 7, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad was unequivocal, saying: "Syria stresses again, for the 10th, the 100th time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against our people. We would not commit suicide." The alleged Syrian chemical weapons threat replicates bogus allegations about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs. It's similar to falsified claims about Gaddafi, the Taliban, and numerous other invented US enemies. Big Lies launch wars. In "The Art of War," Sun Tzu said "All war is based on deception." It's true now like in ancient times. Instant global communications, super-weapons, and scoundrel media complicity make today's threat especially ominous. Washington's rage for war threatens humanity. Peace doesn't have a chance. Media scoundrels hype false threats. Repeated ad nauseam, people believe them. No matter how many previous times they were fooled, they buy the Big Lie again. It happens every time. They're being set up again now. Administration, congressional, and Pentagon officials are preparing the public for more war. Falsified headlines hype nonexistent threats. Humanity hangs in the balance. Where this ends, who knows. In early December, UN officials said they're recalling all non-essential Syrian staff. Growing conflict dangers were cited. Perhaps advance word of imminent NATO intervention was gotten.

On December 6, CNN cited a Pentagon spokesman Little saying Washington updated its military options for potentially striking Syria. "We are prepared for a full range of contingencies," said Little. He added that US forces have all the firepower needed in the region for full-scale war if ordered. A previous article said Washington positioned considerable military strength off Syria's coast. It includes 10,000 combat troops, 70 fighter-bombers, 17 or more warships (including the USS Eisenhower and Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group), heavy armaments, offensive Patriot missiles, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System readiness, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) capability. It suggests US-led NATO intervention could happen any time. More than ever it looks imminent. On December 7, Syria Deeply headlined "EXCLUSIVE: US Trains Rebel Brigades to Secure Chemical Weapons," saying: Washington and NATO allies "hired contractors" to train opposition Syrian mercenaries. Four unnamed diplomats, including a US official, said exercises are ongoing in Turkey and Jordan. At issue is whether Washington plans a false flag chemical attack as pretext for full-scale US-led NATO intervention. Syria Deeply stopped short of suggesting it.

Obama and Clinton said using them crosses a "red line." Washington would respond. On December 7, Hillary Clinton urged all parties involved to make a "concerted push" to resolve the Syrian conflict. Perhaps imminent intervention was hinted. France's Le Figero said French military advisers met with opposition fighters inside Syria. So have US and UK elements. At issue is assessing operational capabilities of different groups and choosing which ones get weapons. On December 4, NATO foreign ministers met in Brussels. They expressed solidarity with Turkey. They agreed to deter any potential threat Ankara faces. There's none, but they suggested otherwise. On December 6, Germany's Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) headlined: "Nato-Führung erwägt militärische Intervention in Syrien (NATO leadership is considering military intervention in Syria)." Multiple sources told SZ that NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance can't "stick its head in the sand." NATO is prepared to intervene in Syria if ordered. Earlier Rasmussen said NATO had no intention of doing so. He lied. Perhaps it's been planned all along. SZ said Rasmussen is supported by Washington, Britain and Turkey. The Pentagon will suggest ways to implement a no-fly zone.

Rasmussen asked what would NATO do if Syria uses chemical weapons? What if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz? Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland discount a chemical weapons threat. Russia told NATO members to take inflammatory threats with a grain of salt. Previous ones proved false. This time isn't different. SZ said NATO foreign ministers failed to reach common ground. It's unlikely to matter. Washington, Britain, Turkey, Rasmussen, and apparently France favor intervention. No combination of other countries can stop them. On December 7, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile headlined "Paris: NATO-Arab Syria intervention imminent," saying: "Sources close to the French Defense Ministry" said intervention "is due to begin shortly with the participation of the US, France, Britain, Turkey, Jordan and other anti-Assad Arab nations." France deployed the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle in the Mediterranean. Combat marines are on board. Britain has at least five warships nearby. They've joined Washington's battle group.

In November, British and French forces "performed landing-and-capture exercises against fortified locations on the coast and mountains of Albania as practice for potential operations against similar terrain in Syria, where the Alawite Mountains loom over the coastal towns of Latakia and Tartus." "French sources told Le Point magazine that the NATO mission for Syria, including the UK and the US, would be modeled on the Western intervention in Libya in 2011." "It would combine an aerial blitz with ground action by special forces for destroying Assad’s chemical weapons stocks, his air force and his air defense systems." Apparently winds of war reached gale force. Expect full-scale intervention any time. It could come before or right after Christmas and New Year's. A previous article called today perhaps the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone. Possible regional or global war looms. Disastrous consequences could follow. Obama may head humanity into the abyss. Perhaps there's no way to stop him. It's vital for anti-war activists to challenge what's too potentially catastrophic to tolerate. The risks are far too great to stay sidelined.

prolcon
10th December 2012, 02:13
So do we want Syria to be defended from US-NATO imperialism or do we just let the fuckers get rolled over because world communism hasn't happened yet?

Comrade Samuel
10th December 2012, 02:24
So do we want Syria to be defended from US-NATO imperialism or do we just let the fuckers get rolled over because world communism hasn't happened yet?

To be honest I doubt it's going to happen quite yet, should it happen in the near future I would imagine picking sides would do nothing for the workers of the world.

More sources would be great, places that say crap like:
It began with Afghanistan, a country that had no connection to 9-11.

They just sorta rub me the wrong way.

GoddessCleoLover
10th December 2012, 02:30
Most Syrian workers are defending themselves right now, but against the Assad regime. Syrian workers understand that Assad's Syria is not their "country". It is called class consciousness, a very basic concept in Marxian thought.

hetz
10th December 2012, 02:38
Most Syrian workers are defending themselves right now, but against the Assad regime.
Evidence? I know it's hard to find reliable sources regarding Syria, but still. If that is so how come the rebels need Islamists from Chechnya to Libya to bolster their ranks?

Os Cangaceiros
10th December 2012, 02:49
Damn, Press TV and Voice of Russia as sources. Maybe I should trot out some Al Jazeera and BBC sources to make my claims that Assad is going to use chemical weapons on his own people! *gasp*

prolcon
10th December 2012, 02:54
It is called class consciousness, a very basic concept in Marxian thought.

I wonder if you've ever made a point in your life without talking down to someone.

brigadista
10th December 2012, 03:16
Most Syrian workers are defending themselves right now, but against the Assad regime. Syrian workers understand that Assad's Syria is not their "country". It is called class consciousness, a very basic concept in Marxian thought.

really ?
since when?

the way things are going in syria- country will end up being a series of areas controlled by salafist warlords not unlike lybia now

TheOther
10th December 2012, 05:17
Well, since there ain't no perfect world like the song by Huey Lewis and The News. And since in life we must choose the best of all possible worlds that reality offers. In other words the lesser evil of all evils. I think that right now because there is not an objective revolutionary situation for a marxist revolution in Syria yet like in many other countries. From my own personal point of view, I think that the Syrian leftists should support the Syrian Government against the terrorists funded by US Empire, European Empires and NATO





Most Syrian workers are defending themselves right now, but against the Assad regime. Syrian workers understand that Assad's Syria is not their "country". It is called class consciousness, a very basic concept in Marxian thought.

Let's Get Free
10th December 2012, 05:19
From my own personal point of view, I think that the Syrian leftists should support the Syrian Government against the terrorists funded by US Empire, European Empires and NATO

Having to choose between NATO and the Assad dictatorship is like choosing between eating crap or crap on toast.

prolcon
10th December 2012, 05:22
Having to choose between NATO and the Assad dictatorship is like choosing between eating crap or crap on toast.

Not really. US-NATO imperialism is the most aggressive modern form of capitalist oppression; standing up to it is standing up to those conditions that give rise to such militaristic tyranny around the globe. If you fight imperialism, you fight oppression in Syria.

Ostrinski
10th December 2012, 05:23
^Indeed (@Gladiator). It is not the duty of communists to encourage the working class anywhere to experiment with the different flavors of shit.

Let's Get Free
10th December 2012, 05:24
Not really. US-NATO imperialism is the most aggressive modern form of capitalist oppression; standing up to it is standing up to those conditions that give rise to such militaristic tyranny around the globe. If you fight imperialism, you fight oppression in Syria.

First, oppression is oppression, regardless of whose doing it. When you’re having your freedom stripped from you, does it matter where the tyrant comes from? Is oppression less oppressive because the guy doing it is from the same nation as you? Is inequality less unequal if it comes from your own government? Clearly not.
Second, this justification makes the assumption that the regime in question is the sole thing standing between the people and a colonization. It makes the assumption that the people have no investment in protecting themselves from imperialism, that they’re incapable of defending themselves from foreign exploitation. It makes the assumption that the people are simply ignorant sheep who will fold to any Western pressure. How Communists can rationalize such a deeply elitist and condescending view is a mystery to me.

prolcon
10th December 2012, 05:25
I love how in-depth and nuanced these discussions can become.

prolcon
10th December 2012, 05:27
First, oppression is oppression, regardless of whose doing it. When you’re having your freedom stripped from you, does it matter where the tyrant comes from? Is oppression less oppressive because the guy doing it is from the same nation as you? Is inequality less unequal if it comes from your own government? Clearly not.

Moralist rhetoric. I was saying that fighting US-NATO imperialism will ultimately resolve those conditions that make oppression in Syria possible. You've clearly missed the point.


Second ...

And I have no fucking clue where the rest of this comes from, like suggesting we help fight imperialism is somehow condescending to non-Westerners.

Ostrinski
10th December 2012, 05:28
I love how in-depth and nuanced these discussions can become.That's what we have you for! :thumbup1:

Let's Get Free
10th December 2012, 05:33
Moralist rhetoric. I was saying that fighting US-NATO imperialism will ultimately resolve those conditions that make oppression in Syria possible. You've clearly missed the point.

No, you said that the Syrians should stand with their murderous government against Nato.




And I have no fucking clue where the rest of this comes from, like suggesting we help fight imperialism is somehow condescending to non-Westerners.

You're argument is essentially "if Assad falls, Nato and imperialism win!"

prolcon
10th December 2012, 05:34
No, you said that the Syrians should stand with their murderous government against Nato.

...

You're argument is essentially "if Assad falls, Nato and imperialism win!"

If you can find a quote where I actually said either of those things, I'll give you my next four paychecks.

Let's Get Free
10th December 2012, 05:36
"From my own personal point of view, I think that the Syrian leftists should support the Syrian Government against the terrorists funded by US Empire, European Empires and NATO"
-prolocon

prolcon
10th December 2012, 05:39
"From my own personal point of view, I think that the Syrian leftists should support the Syrian Government against the terrorists funded by US Empire, European Empires and NATO"
-prolocon

You had me going there for a second.

TheOther
10th December 2012, 05:52
You are right, the thing is that I am a realist. And at the same time, every day for the last years I have been wishing and yelling and telling people around me, the need for poor people to vote for socialist marxist parties in all elections. And to support a socialist marxist dictatorships of the workers in most countries of the world, because workers-governments would offer people free health care, free universities, and higher wages. And those 3 things, are a lot better than what capitalistic governments right now offer the poor people of this world (privatized expensive health care, privatized expensive university studies and very low-wages).

But at the same time most low-wage workers and most poor people of this world are too physically tired and too busy all day, in busy daily lives of domestic labor and regular labor in order to learn that the only solution for their poverty and pain is workers-governments.

But I don't know a lot about the leftist marxist labor parties of Syria, and I don't if the poor people of Syria are smart enough to support them or if the conditions are not ripe in Syria for a marxist party to rise to the Syrian government some day, and that's why I say that leftists should support the Syrian Government of Bashar Al Assad against the US Imperialist forces, and European imperialist Armed forces, because if they out of ideological purity do not support their own Syrian government, the country might be taken over by neoliberals and we all know what neoliberals do in nations. They privatize their resources, sack their nations and increase poverty and misery, for the masses






I love how in-depth and nuanced these discussions can become.