Results 21 to 30 of 30
Not sure what your point is here, because I don't remember throwing my lot in with the US...in fact didn't even mention the US. Should I refrain from criticising any government or regime in any country, unless I'm willing to mention that the US sucks too?
My point was I am on no one's side here; I'm not willing to support either side on the ground in Syria, nor the various reactionary and imperialist interests eagerly circling above.
That is exactly the point. Around Libya, you had a unified imperialist assault on the country. Syria? Not so clear. Syria unlike Libya is a Russian ally, and Russia is these days just another capitalist country with definite imperial pretensions, which has given Syria considerable military aid, and whose borders are a lot closer to Russia's than Libya's are. If you're not clear on that, just ask Putin, he'll set you straight.
So yes, it's a dark back alley of bourgeois geopolitics, and until it gets clearer just what is actually going to happen, jumping in bed with Assad, a bloodthirsty pro-capitalist reactionary just as bad as the rebels, is premature to say the least.
A few million bucks thrown to the opposition and some military advisers are not going to overthrow Assad. Syria is one of your more important countries in the Middle East, not an overblown desert oilarchy like Libya. If Obama really wants to overthrow him they would have to take serious military action, and have to deal with the opposition of Russia and China.
So my guess is that he won't. He is just trying to pressure Assad in the hope of persuading him to take a deal. Which is quite possible.
And also to look tuff for the elections. If there is no war before election day, I don't think there will be one. If Obama decides he wants to go to war after the elections, when he doesn't have to worry about his popularity anymore, it would more likely be with Iran, which unlike Syria has oil, so that would be worthwhile from his POV.
But just because I don't think Obama really wants to go to war with Syria, doesn't mean it won't happen anyway, this sort of scene is how wars break out. And Israel has been itching to go to war with Syria for a long time. And in that case, yes, we'd have to defend Syria against imperial assault. But, hopefully, that won't happen.
-M.H.-
Agreed. It's noticeable that the Western imperialist powers are less-than-gung-ho on presenting a solid presence and sales pitch this time around. Their efforts seem to be falling flat, and it's turned into something more like cajoling rather than a team spirit that sweeps through into brisk action.
For the trillionth time here on this forum, there is a difference between a *country* -- in the sense of a location of denizens -- and the person who has assumed control of its matters of business and state.
Maybe a rough comparison here would be the outpouring of world sympathy shown to the people of the U.S. after the events of 9/11 -- this wasn't an *endorsement* of President Bush at the time from the world's population. There's a difference.
Yes, we're seeing that.
You make a valid point, I formulated that a bit carelessly. Yes, if the USA starts bombing Syria or invading Syria, then fighting against that means defending Syria, not defending Assad. But we aren't there yet, and it is not at all certain that we are going there.
Certainly we should oppose all imperialist intervention into the Syrian civil war. But let's not talk about "defending Syria" until Syria is actually attacked. So far it's just petty stuff, not too effective.
-M.H.-
But more than mere neutrality and ambivalence are called for here, since it (should be) obvious that the war machine requires destruction for its growth.
There have already been efforts during this year to at least *counter* the war-mongering and initial attempts on the part of NATO to barge into Syria. These efforts have *not* been misplaced, and it's even possible that the public is not as knee-jerk regarding intervention into Syria as it was about intervention into Libya.
We should all be saying US and EU Hands Off Syria, for sure. But it's premature to root for Assad vs. the rebels at this point. They are a scummy lot, but Assad is just as bad. And they aren't yet simply US or Israeli puppets, though that most certainly could happen.
-M.H.-
I don't know about that. We've seen this kind of pre-war "defiant" posturing from those parties before, but when the US and its "Coalition of the Billing" ramoras go into action, C & R are nowhere to be seen or heard on the topic, while still doing daily business with Uncle Sam and his Money Tree. I believe "craven" is the correct word to describe C & R in their relations with the US.
Fortunately, you've already addressed this....
[EmergencyResponseforUSAttackonIranorSyria] Tony Cartalucci: US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria
US Prepares For Direct Intervention in Syria
As FSA proxies fail and psychological operations falter, US prepares more direct (and desperate) approach for long-sought regime change.
by Tony Cartalucci http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
July 22, 2012 - As it becomes increasingly clear that last week's "surge" by NATO-backed so-called "Free Syrian Army" terrorists was a failed psychological operation, coordinated with meticulously timed assassinations the day of the UN Security Council vote designed to stampede the Syrian government out of power, the FSA's foreign sponsors are preparing the public for a more direct intervention while desperately attempting to maintain the illusion of chaos and the imminent collapse of Syria's government.
Contradicting NATO's narrative, was Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria who reported that Syria's continuity of government seamlessly moved forward after the assassinations last week, and that state institutions are still standing and very much functional. He describes Syria's latest unrest as the result of a coordinated NATO-backed terrorist operation aimed at creating confusion and panic, coupled with Western propaganda - and warns that more operations are likely on the way.
The Telegraph's, "Bashar al-Assad's Syria is now in a death spiral," and the Guardian's "Syria endgame: who and what will emerge from the ruins?" both desperately attempt to write off the Syrian government as already finished, an unsubstantiated reoccurring narrative being repeated daily by the West. Both articles however, categorically fail in qualifying their premises with subsequent facts - instead they depend on rehashing the initial violence that accompanied last week's assassinations - violence that has already been adequately dealt with by Syrian security forces.
In New York Times' article, "US to Focus on Forcibly Toppling Syrian Government," is all but an admission that indeed NATO's FSA terrorists have failed, and that what is in reality imminent, is the restoration of order by the Syrian army after over a year of foreign subversion and armed infiltration. Essential to the West's plan, is now fabricating a justification the US, Israel, and the Gulf despots currently do not have - to more directly intervene before the limitations of NATO's proxy forces are irrevocably exposed.
To achieve this, the Western media has decided to continue depicting Syria as "collapsing" even as security has been fully restored in Damascus, border crossings retaken after NATO-harbored terrorists struck from across Syria's borders, overrunning small platoon-sized garrisons, and now it is confirmed that bolstered Syrian border defenses near Daraa on the Jordanian-Syrian border, entirely balked FSA terrorists.
Despite this, the Western media is still reporting "battles" in Damascus, that have "spread" to Aleppo. Aleppo being another relatively unscathed city, is being purposefully attacked in order to enhance NATO's campaign to terrorize, panic, and divide the Syrian people. Already, however, Syrian troops have begun security operations to surround and neutralize terrorist elements, just as they have done already in Damascus.
But before the violence ebbs, at least, before the Western media finds it no longer tenable to report battles that have subsided days ago, the West has stampeded through several declarations. New York Times' article, in addition to admitting more direct military intervention is being prepared, admits that the US and France are putting their proxy "Syrian National Council" in place to lead a "transitional government."
The West's problem is that not a square-inch of Syrian territory is held by NATO's terrorist proxies - unlike in Libya where NATO proxies were operating out of Benghazi - raising the specter that some larger military intervention emanating from Syria's borders will take place. The most likely location of such an operation would be via Turkey to establish a seat of power for the Western client regime.
To justify more overt Western intervention, an incredible amount of time and energy has been invested in preparing the general public for the prospect of a "chemical attack."Syria has never deployed its chemical weapons, nor does it stand to gain from any such deployment, tactically, politically, or geopolitically. The only beneficiaries of such an attack would be NATO, Israel, and the Gulf despots, who could then use it to justify the "forcible toppling" of the Syrian government they now openly seek. If chemical weapons are deployed in Syria, it will most certainly be the work of NATO and its FSA proxies, using Libya's admittedly pilfered and proliferated arsenal.
The announcement that indeed the US and France are maneuvering their client regime into place, while they plan on openly intervening on behalf of the so-called "Free Syrian Army," is the final nail in the "opposition's" legitimacy, exposing them as place holders of Western geopolitical aspirations in Syria, and in the Arab World. Earlier it was reported that the Syrian opposition was literally being coached and tutored by the US State Department, via the US government-funded US Institute of Peace (USIP) who is literally writing Syria's "new" constitution, as well as engineering the entire "transitional" process on their behalf.
Syria and its allies, should they remain resolved and react only to the actual conditions on the ground can continue to balk Western ambitions by standing united, as they have throughout their history. For now, it appears the West will be happy to divide Syria along sectarian lines, forcing the government's supporters to flee to ethnic enclaves. This means that NATO death squads will be focusing primarily on attacking minorities - a campaign that seems to have already begun.
Above all, skepticism and vigilance is needed to objectively analyze further developments, with further NATO machinations all but assured to follow.
-----
US is Writing Syria's New Constitution - Tutoring SNC for Take Over
Syria's opposition and their "transitional government" are whole-cloth creations of the US State Department.
by Tony Cartalucci
July 22, 2012 - The US State Department, via the "US Institute of Peace" is working directly with Syrian "opposition" groups to formulate a "government" to put into place, if and when NATO covert military operations succeed in collapsing the Syrian state.
The report written by Foreign Policy magazine titled, "Inside the quiet effort to plan for a post-Assad Syria," indicates that the US State Department-funded USIP plans on releasing a report soon, detailing the US-crafted government being planned. The USIP, which already publishes details of how it has crafted, created, and is continuing to manage and facilitate the NATO-installed client regime now running Libya, constitutes nothing less than implementation of modern-day imperialism.
The USIP claims that it is involved in not only "advising" the Western-backed Libyan government, but that it is also involved in, "constitution making, transitional justice, women rights" and "education." The USIP, US government-funded, will also be writing Syria's "constitution" as well - which they are now calling a "transition strategy document."
Foreign Policy magazine, in an attempt to water down the implications of the US government literally crafting the client regime they plan on placing into the vacuum their US-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari mercenaries (FSA) are attempting to create, by claiming:
The absence of Obama administration officials at these meetings, even as observers, was deliberate.
"This is a situation where too visible a U.S. role would have been deeply counterproductive. It would have given the Assad regime and elements of the opposition an excuse to delegitimize the process," [Steven] Heydemann said.
Steven Heydemann is heading the USIP Syrian project.
Unfortunately for this line of thinking, the USIP is in fact a direct functionary of the US government, and more specifically the US State Department, with acting members of the US State Department, including Michael Posner and members of the US Department of Defense, including James Miller, serving on the USIP board of directors. Other compromising BoD members include Amnesty International chairmen and policy makers drawn from Fortune 500-funded think tanks like the Hoover Institution and big-oil's Belfer Center.
To complicate matters further for the so-called "Syrian opposition," prominent members of the movement, including Radwan Ziadeh, is actually a "senior fellow" of the US-funded institution - meaning the opposition leaders were drawn from US institutions, not Syria. The Guardian's article, "The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?" has covered this in depth, illustrating that Ziadeh's background is the rule, not the exception.
Readers should recall that US State Department's Michael Posner, also serving on the USIP BoD, conceded in an AFP report in 2011 that the US had been funding, equipping, and training "activists" from across the Arab World 2 years in advance for the allegedly "spontaneous" "Arab Spring." These included activists from Syria who created the rhetorical predication for the violence now unfolding across Syria.
This admission by the US State Department and the head of USIP's Syrian project indicates the absolute illegitimacy of the so-called "Syrian opposition," - a complete contrivance of the US government, a manifestation of its foreign policy toward Syria - and in no way representative of the Syrian people. The opposition is literally directed by the US government who is forming for them a government to replace the one they are purposefully destroying through a series of mutually supported economic sanctions, military attacks, and diplomatic undermining.
Well of course. But Syria is not Libya, it is a very important country.
Putin did not hesitate to defy Washington when he invaded Georgia, as that affected vital Russian imperial interests. Russia has a serious interest in not letting the US overthrow an important Russian ally in the Middle East.
That doesn't mean that Russian tanks are going to start rolling south, but it does mean that Russia, with China at its side given all the anti-Chinese stuff Obama has been pulling lately, will do everything possible to queer America's pitch. Already, Russia and China have prevented the US from using the UN as a cover, which definitely makes intervention more difficult.
-M.H.-
