Things are escalating fast in Syria
I don't want to get in the habit of making daily updates about Syria, but events are moving so fast, and they are so important, that I can't ignore them.
It all started with Hasakeh.
Kurdish fighters on Monday captured the central prison in Hasakeh after fierce clashes with Syrian regime forces and are in control of 90 percent of the northern city, a monitor said.
This is a big deal, but it is potentially dwarfed by developments hundreds of miles away near the largest battle of the Syrian civil war.
Following a short lived ceasefire during negotiations, clashes between the Syrian regime forces and the People's Protection Units (YPG) resumed on Monday, while some 320 kilometers west, the YPG militia moved to cu0t the only connection of Aleppo's regime-held parts with the rest of the world, a move that might force the regime to back out.
The Assad regime cannot afford to lose Aleppo. If the Kurds have turned against the Syrian government then the whole war has shifted.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has declared “an exclusion zone” in Syria.
Over the weekend they repeatedly scrambled fighter jets to chase off the Syrian planes, warning they were going to ‘defend themselves.”
The Pentagon has since expanded this to declaring the area “an exclusion zone,” which is distinct from a no-fly zone because the Pentagon says it is a different thing. Spokesman Peter Cook insisted the US has warned Syria not to fly planes in the area for a long time now.
In practice, the move is a dramatic escalation, and Cook’s arguing of semantics didn’t mean much of anything
Let's see if I have this right.
A no-fly zone is a zone that Syria and Russia can't fly in.
An exclusion zone is a zone that Syria and Russia is excluded from flying in.
Is that clear?
It's a biiiggggg difference because the Pentagon said so.
If you are thinking, "Hmmm. A no-fly zone in Syria. Where have I heard this before?"
Ponder no longer.
During the Dec. 19 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News generally steered the candidates toward hawkish positions on foreign policy. She appeared to accept the premise that the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also called ISIS) is both necessary and urgent. But one position advanced by former Secretary of State and current frontrunner Hillary Clinton was so hawkish, so cavalier, that even Raddatz felt compelled to push back. After Clinton said she supported a no-fly zone in Syria in the context of fighting ISIL, Raddatz skeptically followed up:
RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to go back to that if I could. ISIS doesn’t have aircraft, Al Qaida doesn’t have aircraft. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?
CLINTON: I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting airspace. […] I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia […] The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.
Raddatz moved on, but this exchange illustrates the absurdity of Clinton’s support for a “no-fly zone.” A no-fly zone over Syria, as all parties understand, is a tacit declaration of war not only against Syria, but also against their longtime ally Russia, whose air force is currently flying over Syria to defend the government of Bashar al-Assad against both ISIL and various rebel groups, some overtly or covertly backed by the United States.
So no big deal. We just shoot down a couple planes, right?
But most Americans don’t know what a no-fly zone is, because the media almost never explains what it would entail. Indeed, one has to look to paragraph 19 of an article in The New York Times from 2013 to get some specifics:
Imposing a no-fly zone, [Gen. Martin E. Dempsey] said, would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated antiaircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.
That was written before Russia entered the war in September 2015. The total number of U.S. servicemen needed to enforce a no-fly zone is likely now much higher, and the stakes for shooting down a Russian jet, intentionally or not, are much greater than for a Syrian one.
Plus, everyone keeps forgetting that Baghdad and Tehran won't be keen on this idea.
In other words, total bat-sh*t insanity. And Obama appears to be setting the table for Hillary's madness.
Who could possibly go along with this? Oh, right.
Retired Army Gen. Richard Cody, a vice president at L-3 Communications, the seventh largest U.S. defense contractor, explained to shareholders in December that the industry was faced with a historic opportunity. Following the end of the Cold War, Cody said, peace had “pretty much broken out all over the world,” with Russia in decline and NATO nations celebrating. “The Wall came down,” he said, and “all defense budgets went south.”Now, Cody argued, Russia “is resurgent” around the world, putting pressure on U.S. allies. “Nations that belong to NATO are supposed to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “We know that uptick is coming and so we postured ourselves for it.”
Speaking to investors at a conference hosted by Credit Suisse in June, Stuart Bradie, the chief executive of KBR, a military contractor, discussed “opportunities in Europe,” highlighting the increase in defense spending by NATO countries in response to “what’s happening with Russia and the Ukraine.”
The National Defense Industrial Association, a lobby group for the industry, has called on Congress to make it easier for U.S. contractors to sell arms abroad to allies in response to the threat from Russia. Recent articles in National Defense, NDIA’s magazine, discuss the need for NATO allies to boost maritime military spending, spending on Arctic systems, and missile defense, to counter Russia.
Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.
And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”
Think tanks with major funding from defense contractors, including the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council, have similarly demanded higher defense spending to counter Russia.
Even sanity and common sense are no match for profits.
Comments
There is neither sanity nor common sense in using murder as
a profitable enterprise in the first place.
Please consider subscribing monthly, to help keep c99 going.
But society's capitalist "makers" are the kind of folks
who recognize the distinctive ka-ching of business opportunity when it knocks. In fact, if it doesn't come knockin' on its own, they know which movers and shakers to visit with whatever quid those pros quote. Lots of backs are scratched, lots of favors swapped, lots of chits called in. War is very big business. (How many trillion $ did the Pentagon seemingly mislay?) War scenarios in different theaters of operation are planned years in advance by defense contractors. Peace simply isn't profitable for that special interest segment.
Hippie peaceniks can hold quaint corner peace vigils and drone on while drones maim and murder. All that collateral damage is mere collateral in the (Panamanian and other) bank accounts of the Clintons and their cronies. Crony capitalism morphs into what should be treated as capital crimes.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
It's like they WANT to start WWIII
A US exclusion zone in Syria is completely illegal under International Law as we have no UN mandate to be there in the first place.
Not even the pretext of international legitimacy for this aggression. We are just doing it because we can.
Domestically, stretching the 14 year old AUMF to include a declaration of war on Syria is as tenuous as a hundred yard taffy pull.
Warmongering run amok.
Meanwhile Obama golfs.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
US wants "regime change" and you know how well
that works out : Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen. It leads to destroyed countries and forever war and it makes the MIC very rich.
To thine own self be true.
MIC?
Men in Charge?
Mercenaries in Combat?
Military Industrial Complex?
What did you you mean by MIC?
The people, united, will never be defeated.
In this context Military Industrial Complex, of course.
To thine own self be true.
Thanks
The people, united, will never be defeated.
Yes. All of the above. n/t
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when we are afraid of the light.
--Plato
That's what I was going for.
Drops the MIC!
The people, united, will never be defeated.
Yet...
I don't see the GOP congress rushing to get a clarifying statement on the AUMF passed. The fix is in. Perpetual war is good for business. As long as it is 'somebody else's kids'. That is the lesson learned from Viet Nam. NOT the lesson of fighting asymmetrical warfare is costly and messy. Costly is the feature.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
It is a funny move before the election
maybe the neocons are worried about getting Clinton over the finish line after all? They'll throw her under the bus and get their war on now. Or maybe the thinking is that the country will seek continuity of 'leadership' if WWIII is already in progress.
More likely the latter
If there is one constant about our electorate it is that they are scared little sheep and any big time hostilities leads them to seek constancy or the biggest bully with the biggest bat. Which could be a mistake on Clinton's part as Trump fits the latter.
glitterscale
A co-worker this morning
mentioned WWIII and how the Rump would cause it.... And she's afraid an enemy will come and attack this country, so that's why we have to keep on fighting war after war... Oh, and also we protect civilians on the ground against their own rogue governments, so we really are the good guys and without us the whole world goes to hell.
I tried reminding her of Vietnam and maybe a small tiny portion of that got through - that we had no right to be there either, and not a hope in hell of winning there. Iraq and our invasion of it goes against everything we once stood for after WWII, that the money we spend on it could indeed fund universal health care (which we can't afford now and all socialized medicine is bad, bad, bad anyway, you might not get to pick the doctor you want anymore, never mind that if you have the money to do so it can still be done and that at least that way no one goes bankrupt because they got sick), and that Hillary already has the skids greased to get us into Syria and Libya. And a reminder that we funded Saddam Hussein before we decided he was an enemy, and sold him the gas he used on Iran. And yes, I threw in good old Osama and his mujahedeen that we armed up to fight the Soviets under THEIR illegal invasion and who we now are fighting against.
I doubt much got through, and it made me realize once again just what we are truly up against - a population so saturated with the forever war mentality that they no longer see the folly of it. She's not a Faux watcher either, I could at least excuse that as just being dumb but she's far from dumb. Depressing.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
She must have been watching some of Hill's ads
which are, obnoxiously, everywhere.
Disgusting to watch an expensive campaign chasing after the pretense of credibility.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The Peace Dividend Terrorizes Profits. nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Insanity backed up by bullshit, reinforced by greed.
It's simple really.
Who the fuck believes that? Yeah, the Russkies made a power grab for the Crimea and East Ukraine. Being in their shoes for the moment, I can't say I blame them. Obamasky has surrounded Russia with new, improved, nukes. Da. Vladimir P. is just hoping for enough territory to protect Russia from a land war, if it comes to that. The lessons of WW2 ("the Great Patriotic War") have not been lost.
So, now, without bothering with camouflage, this General says that his company, in the name of PROFITS, has to foment some more wars--as if Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria weren't enough.
Come on, Obama/Hillary let's just say it aloud--the "Defense" industry needs some more economic stimulus.
I would like to put Hillary and O'Bummer in an exclusion zone--jail for war criminals.
The lessons of WW II have not been lost, not just in Russia
FDR observed in gearing the country up for war production that in a capitalist country going to war, you had to let businesses make money. And they made lots of it. Of course, FDR also raised taxes on income to very high levels at the top, but that bit of the lesson appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
We've moved from letting businesses profit from making war, to making war to let businesses profit.
Please help support caucus99percent!
I don't remember the group
but this reminds me of a song that goes; "there aren't any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks! Just corporate criminals, playing with tanks."
And the Syrian people have to live this daily horror. smh
The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.
The Walls Came Down by The Call
One of my all time favorites!
Who the fuck believes that?
Who the fuck believes that?
Raises hand. Umm ... I do.
I don't approve of US imperialism (including in the Middle East), but I don't think Russia is above such things either, nor do I think that Russia has so little agency of its own that it's only reacting to US provocation. I'm guessing I'm an outlier on this one and I'm fine with that, but just, you know, fwiw.
I appreciate your essays about Syria and keeping us updated
on what's happening there.
The war in Syria and the other countries in the Middle East is because of what the US' wars are always or have been about.
Smedley Butler told us this when he wrote his book that he wrote in 1930War is a Racket
This is a wonderful article that backs up what Smedley wrote.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-a...
None of the wars have had anything to do with protecting the United States or defending its freedoms. They have always been so that companies could get their hands on other country's resources or for some of our allies to do the same, or to build oil pipelines or other things.
The American people believe that the US is fighting in Syria because of ISIL or to protect the Syrian people.
We had to remove Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad and other elected leaders because of what they had or are doing to their citizens. It's just too damned bad that so many innocent civilians have to be killed before they can be liberated from those leaders or have freedom and democracy, right?
The reason Obama said that Assad had to go was because he used sarin gas on his people. Guess who actually used the sarin gas? The so called Moderate Terrorists that the us created to help overthrow Assad. Where did those moderate terrorists get the sarin gas? From the CIA and some of our allies when they ran it out of the Benghazi embassy after raiding Gaddafi's stockpiles.
And who all knew about it?
Read this article to see all the players involved in the sarin gas attack and what the reason for the Syrian war.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-a...
And if the United States is actually supposed to be spreading freedom and democracy all over the world, then why has it removed so many elected governments and installed brutal, puppet dictators that the US watched commit heinous human rights violations and the US does nothing until they quit playing by the rules.
Another reason for removing the leaders of the governments in the Middle East and installing puppet governments is so that Israel is the only superpower there.
Too bad that it's American troops that are killed or injured and we pay for the wars while the Israelis sit on the sidelines and have no skin in the game.
Why should they risk their lives or pay for the wars when our government has no problem sending our troops into harm's way?
I hope that you read the article.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Some excerpts from the article
Then there's this.
The picture of the young boy in the ambulance is being used as propaganda so that people will be so upset at what Putin did to that young boy that they will have no qualms about the coming war with Russia that has been in the works for a few years.
As Goering stated,
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
That photo of the young boy
in an ambulance is a still from a video that appears to have been staged. It now being circulated throughout Western media, no questions asked. Analysis here:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/08/the-wounded-boy-in-orange-seat-anot...
... Al-Hasakah is a loong way away from any battle front with ISIL. What are US Special Forces doing there anyway?
... The news source quoted, Daily Sabah, is an organ of the Turkish AKP, so it's analysis might not be neutral.
native
I've seen the video
It looks real
I don't understand how so many people in our government
Or in governments of other countries can be so callous. Seriously, what type of people can have no empathy for other people? How do they live with what they do when they bring such large scale misery and death to people in order to make people more rich?
The way sarin gas kills people is so heinous and people like Obama, Hillary, Kerry and everyone else who can do these types of things don't give a thought about what they are doing.
And the only reason why Obama didn't attack Syria after he killed over a thousand innocent civilians was because
Obama didn't attack Syria only because it was proven that the Syrian army wasn't capable of deploying the sarin gas.
Never mind that he was responsible for murdering over ONE THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS!
Good god, I have no idea how to relate to people who can blithely order the deaths of innocent civilians so that countries and corporations could get their hands on the resources of those people's countries!
The United States wouldn't let Hersh publish his report so he had to go to Turkey to publish it. (The country that wanted the false flag attack).
And if Hillary's supporters find out that she was complicit in this attack as well as the Iraq and Libya, the coups in Honduras and Ukraine, would they still vote for her?
I think that they would become they don't give a damn about how many republican neoconservatives from the Bush administration have endorsed her.i guess that they don't bother to think why they have!
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/seymour-hershs-news-report-banned...
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Obama did not attack Syria:
When Obama was saber rattling about Syria, members of the House returned from recess to make the rounds of TV shows saying that Obama had to at least consult Congress before he went to war with Syria. In addition, over 100 members of Congress signed a letter saying that the President should consult Congress over Syria. Finally, Boehner sent Obama a letter raising 14 legal questions about how the President was proceeding as to Syria. After that, Obama erased his red line.
Probably relevant background: Several members of Congress had sued Obama in court over taking action in Libya without having consulted Congress. The suit was dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs (Kucinich and maybe 7 others) had not claimed that they were speaking for the House. Had Boehner taken a vote and gone to court over Syria, though, the standing issue that had been an obstacle in the suit over Libya would not have been an obstacle.
Obama did attack Syria and is an absolute war criminal for
his wars in Libya and Syria. He should be tossed in prison along side Bush, Cheney, Blair, Kissinger, Kerry and Clinton, among others until he fucking dies.
Exactly!
“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”
― Noam Chomsky
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Not in 2013, he didn't. He had drawn a "red line" and threatened
to invade openly, as Bush had in Iraq. Obama did not act on his threats after the events I described in my post. I think that was causation, not only correlation.
Whoever used the gas, Assad is more than capable of killing
his own people. So was Hussein. So are a number of other nutter rulers. The question for me is, what, if anything, does that justify the US in doing? I don't know the answer. At the same time, I wonder if the ability of rulers to kill their own people is why we do what we do, or do we have other motives? I don't know if we are lying, either. However, I do know we are capable of lying about our motives and have done so in the past.
A better question is
Would regime change help anything?
Based on all available evidence, the answer is "no".
Regime change always involves bombings
The people of the despot-ruled countries learn how to survive their dictators somehow but bombing kills randomly, destroys infrastructure, homes, water and food supplies. Today even hospitals and schools are not protected in bombing raids.
So ask the people living under these dictators, which do you prefer?
To thine own self be true.
^^^THIS^^^ exactly I wished they would do.
https://www.euronews.com/
You cannot force people to be free
If they want to get rid of their dictators, permanently, without just replacing one strongman bully with another, they have to do it themselves. No outside force can do it for them. (A lesson the US is not only not capable of learning, but has perverted into playing "musical strongman puppets".)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Does the U.S. govt care which the residents prefer?
I don't see a lot of evidence for that.
no, that's the point, right?
https://www.euronews.com/
It's a different question, that's certain.
If regime change occurs to me, I am going to at least ask if I'm justified in changing regimes before I ask how much net benefit regime change will give me. I may forge ahead knowing I am unjustified, but that should at least be established. I agree with your point that regime hasn't gotten us much (not that you and I know about, anyway). That is because we seem to be okay at getting ridding of the old boss, but as O'Malley put it during the debates, didn't really plan for the Day 2.
So far, we've been lousy at anything but old school war and maybe we used to be good at that because we had more troops and money and weapons than anyone else--and were willing to destroy as many lives and limbs as winning took. I don't know. I am not an expert in that kind of analysis. However, the Olympics reminded me that, as a kid, I thought that winning a lot of Olympic medals confirmed what a great country we were.
As a kid, it never occurred to me to compare the population of the US to the population of the nations we were defeating. Or our ability to sponsor athletes. Anyway, some things are just easier when you have lots of bodies and dollars to throw at them and maybe that's why we used to be good at winning wars. ("Winning wars" is an oxymoron, anyway, in my opinion). Since Korea, we've pretty much stunk at "winning" wars and we may always have stunk at winning the peace.
Personally, I always wonder just how many
of those evil dictators we in the US actually installed in those countries. Maybe someone out here knows how the Assad's came to power and maybe it wasn't us, but I wonder.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
We've certainly supported many dictators. We like them.
We--and by "we" I mean American businesses operating abroad--like stability and we think dictators bring stability.
Our presidents have been killing young Americans with zero
justification (except profits to the MIC) since I was three and a half. 12 Hairy Men in a row, such exceptionalism. The real nutters are cultures that permit such monsters.
Please consider subscribing monthly, to help keep c99 going.
our proxy war with Russia
From the beginning of the Syrian revolution/spring, I've wondered why Assad HAD TO GO. We support a violent exclusive Saudi gov't (to the extent of selling weapons, jets, and providing unintelligence to promote their bombing of children in Yemen), but Assad has to go. Why? I think it's all about a pipeline and selling natural gas.
http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html
Many suggest this proxy war with Russia is aimed toward an Iran invasion. Now that Russia is flying out of Iran it may add fuel to the fire. I think many in the weapons industry are licking their lips at the thought of a war with Russia.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
For American neocons, it is about Israel, not Syrian people.
This is not going to be an anti-Zionist rant, but about trying to understand the war makers in and outside of our government. Robert Perry of Consortium News wrote an article about Clinton's militarism, and referenced a policy paper which Clinton distributed to her staff which made it onto the State Department website. The article is at:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/02/how-hillary-clinton-ignores-peace/
Here is the link to the document Perry references.
https://foia.state.gov/search/results.aspx?searchText=C05794498&beginDat...
You can read the document, but in outlining a strategy attacking Assad directly, there is no mention of the suffering of the Syrian people. The paper as Perry notes, the reason to attack and remove Assad is for the greater security of Israel. This implacable position remains unchanging even in the face that if Assad is violently overthrown, ISIS will take over, who are much more dangerous to the Israel state than Assad. This doesn't even take into account the genocide IS will commit on Shia and Christian populations.
In many ways, the pipeline issue is real and at least some rational reason. Unfortunately, with the American neocon establishment, rationality does not exist. They are driven by the same death cult ideologies we have seen throughout history.
As a side note. Clinton's emails reveal much. But unfortunately, the establishment press is marginalizing the emails to avoid these types of discussions on the content. Bernie was wrong to make light of the email issues as they reveal the essential Clinton he was running against.
Interesting, and it confirms my own suspicions
about all of our shennanigans in the ME.
However, it seems idiotic to me. The result so far has been even greater animosity not only to the US but to Israel. So the strategy seems to be to be the biggest and most powerful bully in the schoolyard.
Sooner or later the rest of the kids will collaborate to bring down the bully. As it seems we are unable to change our own "regime" from within (as evidenced by the blatant election rigging), the impetus for change may well have to come from outside. "Shining city on the hill" my ass. The whole world (with the exception of the majority here) has watched as our leaders have become more and more depraved.
If I remember correctly,
that's the same James Rubin that is married to Christiane Amanpour. CNN will surely be leading the propaganda charge for a more aggressive stance on Syria. I think you've largely pegged it regarding the neocon strategy, but I'd emphasize that there are multiple overlapping reasons, that appease several constituents of the MIC.
Israel just wants the wheels knocked off Syria, and someday, Iran, just as they did Iraq in the past. A healthy, prosperous Syria might be a threat someday (and an unhealthy one isn't?). It's irrational, but Bibi's inner circle buy into it. Others want to see Assad overthrown for possible pipeline deals, and for the prospect of like-minded neighbors (Qatar, KSA, et al), the US would like to see the Russians out of Syria, there are assorted reasons they want Assad out.
The trouble is, in spite of all of their efforts, Assad seems as entrenched as ever, and has the overwhelming support of significant sections of the population, especially minorities (except Kurds). The harder the US tried to help the Islamists, the greater face that Putin gained among virtually all non-Islamist populations in the region. Putin never had any currency in Lebanon, for instance, yet he does now.
The harder the US tried to squeeze Assad out, the worse the US position became. The choices now are probably down to an all-in intervention, or a negotiated settlement that keeps Assad in power over at least part of Syria. The former would be a disaster.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
It is NOT a civil war
It is an externally instigated war by the U.S. and company against Syria.
And how.
There has been some crazy shit done to create justifications for this.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
US efforts to overthrow
the Syrian Government are tragically ill-informed, in regard to the wider sectarian conflicts that are tearing the Middle East apart. Here is an excellent analysis of Sunni-Shia relations in the region - starting with the American asteroid that hit the Middle East in 2003, shattering the old order, and tracing the various consequences that have followed. An excerpt:
Whether intentionally or inadvertently, US foreign policy is aiding and abetting the spread of Wahhabi Salafist Islam, and strengthening its primary sponsor, Saudi Arabia - thereby helping its toxic ideology more and more to define the wider Sunni identity.
native
FWIW...
and I don't know this fellow, but 'Syria and the city of Deraa: How the CIA engineered the civil war in Syria', at duran.com
If any of you have sorted out the many (several?) Kurdish groups, good on you. YPG: US sponsored?
The Kurds are in every country in the Middle East
because when the European colonialists carved up the Ottoman Empire, they neglected to give the Kurds a country.
To thine own self be true.
Are the Kurds becoming an endangered species?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Boots on the ground!
If this were an actual presidential campaign at least one party would point out the obvious, that telling a country not to bomb rebels because American troops are on the ground there, is a declaration of war.
But this is pro wrestling. (Hint: the guy with the orange hair is supposed to lose)
Worried about email when we are starting World War III?
If Trump merely mentioned that Obama just escalated the war in Syria he'd get a five-point jump in popularity. But he won't because the US is no longer a democracy. It is an oligarchy with the figureheads pro wrestling to see who wears the ermine cape.
Still two months to go
before the election, and four to go until we enact our own "regime change". Will Obama be able to keep his Syrian operations on the back burner and out of sight until then? Things are really heating up over there, & the pot's liable to boil over unexpectedly. Will Hillary be able to sell escalation and/or war to the US public? Or to Congress?
And you're right, Trump is a total fraud. No help from that quarter, even if he did get elected. Which he won't.
native
The US was never intended to be anything but an oligarchy
According to the way the Constitution was written, only about 6% of the population was entitled to vote once it was ratified. Guess what? They weren't the poorest 6% either. And that 6% was entitled to vote only for Congressional reps. The more powerful Senators were elected by state legislators--and those state legislators were not the poor people of the state either. Of course, the President was elected--and still is--by electors. We are still a Republic, voting and paying for people who are supposed to represent us, but do not because we are not lobbyists.
Trump won't mention war because he's too busy saying how big he will make the military once he's President. IOW, we have two war parties, one which has long freely copped to it and the other of which began to do the same after 911, if not sooner.