Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now time for another coalition of the willing under Hillary Re: Russia stop action by USA to change the government of Syria.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Feb 7, 2012, 3:49:34 AM2/7/12
to
In article <3efa0098-634a-4d9f...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 7:04 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 4, 5:45 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 4, 1:22 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 2, 11:20 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:13 pm, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:25 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > The US want to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad of
>Syria. The US
>> > > > > > > > want a UN resolution to change the Syrian government leaders.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Russia say...NO.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Has the USA or the UN the authority to change the leaders of a
>> > > > > > > > sovereign country ?
>>
>> > > > > > > Might makes right.
>> > > > > > > We have the might.
>> > > > > > > We have the right.
>>
>> > > > > > After Syria, who is next Iran, ...the Russia ...may be
>> > > > > > China ?
>>
>> > > > > Yes, until the process is stopped by another nation which has more
>> > > > > power.
>>
>> > > > You are wrong.
>>
>> > .> > The USA attempt to change the government of Syria ...is
>> > .> > stopped by the UN. The Security Council did not approve
>> > .> > action for regime change in Syria.
>> > .> > Russia and China veto the US backed resolution for authority
>> > .> > to change the Syria government... like it did in Libya.
>>
>> > .> Russia and China do the right thing. Despite its short comings,
>> > .> the UN is the only real international organization that can solve
>> > .> at least some problems between nations.
>>
>> > You are right. The UN Charter provide for the UN to intervene
>> > ONLY in cases of disputes or wars between nations...
>> > The UN has NO authority to intervene in domestic civil wars....
>> > or an uprising (instigated by the USA)...or to approve actions
>> > for the USA to change the regime in Syria.
>>
>> Well, the USA did exactly that in Iraq. So, why not also in Syria?
>>
>> > .> Passing the resolution will transform it into a tool for one
>> > .> country or a group of countries to meddle into other
>> > .> country's affair.
>>
>> > This is the reason why Russia and China veto the resolution
>> > backed the USA..to change the government of Syria.
>>
>> > .> The US and its allies invade Iraq. The US has moral, if not legal
>> > .> obligation
>> > .> to clean up its mess, at least partially. The US and its allies
>> > bombed
>> > .> Libya. No one seems to care what is now happening in Libya.
>>
>> > The UN made a mistake ...to approve a "NO Fly Zone"...(did not
>> > approve NATO and the USA to bomb Libya and to send troops to
>> > help the rebels). The USA and NATO take the resolution as
>> > approval ...for regime change in Libya.
>> > The UN's mistake on Libya ...made Russia and China very careful ...
>> > about the wordings of the US backed resolution against Syria.
>>
>> > The civil war in Syria (instigated by the USA) ...is bad...because
>> > thousands were killed (by both sides). Many thousands more
>> > will be killed if the USA and NATO were to support the rebel
>> > against the government of Syria....
>> > It is estimated that the hundreds of thousands were killed in
>> > Libya by the rebel and NATO troops and bombing. (Western
>> > media covered up the killings of Libyans for obvious reasons)
>
>The USA DID NOT have UN approval to invade Iraq.
>
>If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead
>to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
"diplomatic train-wreck" is the term BBC diplomatic correspondent
Jonathan Marcus used to describe the latest action at the UN. (see
attachment below.)
Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to overthrow
Assad's government in Syria.
The only difference is that there would not be an overt presence of US
military personnel on the ground like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at
first. But that might just be for the duration of Obama's reelection
campaign.
Now Lebanon's Hezbollah had warned (before Mrs. Clinton's rallying
call for the willing to fight) that it would retaliate by firing its
missile arsenal into Israel if and when Syria is attacked by foreign
forces.
And because Syria is more or less the last of the frontier before US
military forces will engage Iran in an existential battle for the
latter and before China's western front will be directly threatened
through Pakistan, the consequence of Mrs. Clinton's rallying call to
arm will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
uprising is more or less incited by the West. In fact when Clinton
and her colleagues were saying over and over again that Assad was
killing the Syrian people, it was more than disingenuous.
Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
bunch of defenseless women and children. In that case, the Branch
Davidians were not even supported or instigated by any foreign
elements. When she laid blame alone on Assad, she conveniently and
systematically hid the fact that actually 55% of Syrians, comprising
the majority of the population, support Assad's government as well as
its current response to the various armed groups.
Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively driving
the Syrian uprising.
And don't forget that Russia and China have been lied to last year
vis-a-vis Libya. You get burned once, you will react "twice-shy" to
similar stimuli. They haven't forgotten that experience - in fact
they have repeatedly reminded the world how they were lied to.
How arrogant Clinton must have been then to think that Russia and
China would just meekly roll over again and the United Nations would
forever cease to function or as long as she is our chief diplomat?
And Clinton must be either very arrogant or very dumb to think that
the Chinese and the Russians aren't worried that they would themselves
eventually meet the same tragic fate as Libya has, if they remain in a
state of slumber and continue to let the aggressor advance eastward
toward them.
I say Russia and China have actually finally done something right. (I
was very unhappy about their spineless response to a perfectly clear
aggression last year.) But I am frankly amazed to see a reprise of
the idea of a coalition of the willing to fight in the Middle East
again, so soon after the Iraq war fiasco. It sounds so desperate and
so obviously a confession of a diplomatic defeat!
lo yeeOn
========
1) U.S. floats coalition against Syria
February 5, 2012 3:49 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371692/u.s-floats-coalition-against-syria/
(AP) Beirut - The United States proposed an international coalition to
support Syria's opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a
U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that
violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way
to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its
military crackdown.
The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and
China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential
for Syria's turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that
could degenerate into outright civil war.
The uprising inspired by other Arab Spring revolts began in March with
peaceful protests against Assad's regime, sparking a fierce crackdown
by government forces. Soldiers who defected to join the uprising later
began to protect protesters from attacks. In recent months, the rebel
soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army, have grown bolder, attacking
regime troops and trying to establish control in pro-opposition
areas. That has brought a heavier government response.
More than 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the
U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by
the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow and unleash even
greater violence to crush protesters. If the opposition turns overtly
to armed resistance, the result could be a dramatic increase in
bloodshed.
At least 30 civilians were killed Sunday, including five children and
a woman who was hit by a bullet while standing on her balcony as
troops fired on protesters in a Damascus suburb, according to the
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group.
Syria: After U.N. vote fails, now what?
Russia, China veto UN resolution against Syria
Syrian embassies attacked in Europe, Middle East
Government forces firing mortars and heavy machine guns also battered
the mountain town of Zabadani, north of Damascus, a significant
opposition stronghold that fell under rebel control late last
month. Bombardment the past two days has wounded dozens and forced
scores of families to flee, an activist in the town said.
"The situation is terrifying. Makeshift hospitals are full," said the
activist, who only gave his first name, Fares, for fear of government
reprisal. He said the town has been under siege for the past five days
and there is a shortage of food and heating fuel during the cold
winter.
The commander of the Free Syrian Army told The Associated Press that,
after the vetoes at the U.N., "there is no other road" except military
action to topple Assad.
"We consider that Syria is occupied by a criminal gang and we must
liberate the country from this gang," Col. Riad al-Asaad said,
speaking by telephone from Turkey. "This regime does not understand
the language of politics. It only understands the language of force."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that chances for
"a brutal civil war" would increase as Syrians under attack from their
government move to defend themselves, unless international steps
provide another way.
Speaking to reporters in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, she called
the double veto at the U.N. Security Council on Saturday "a travesty."
"Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our
efforts outside of the United Nations," she said, calling for "friends
of democratic Syria" to unite "support the Syrian people's right to
have a better future."
Clinton calls for united front against Assad
The call points to the formation of a formal group of like-minded
nations to coordinate assistance to the Syrian opposition, similar but
not identical to the Contact Group on Libya, which oversaw
international help for opponents of the late deposed Libyan leader
Muammar Qaddafi. In the case of Libya, the group also coordinated NATO
military operations to protect Libyan civilians, something that is not
envisioned in Syria.
U.S. officials said an alliance would work to further squeeze the
Assad regime by stepping up sanctions against it, bringing disparate
Syrian opposition groups inside and outside the country together,
providing humanitarian relief for embattled Syrian communities and
working to prevent an escalation of violence by monitoring arms sales.
-----
Clinton calls for united front against Assad
February 5, 2012 9:33 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371660/clinton-calls-for-united-front-against-assad/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
(AP) SOFIA, Bulgaria - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
called Sunday for "friends of democratic Syria" to unite and rally
against President Bashar Assad's regime, previewing the possible
formation of a formal group of likeminded nations to coordinate
assistance to the Syrian opposition.
Speaking in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia a day after Russia and
China blocked U.N. Security Council action on Syria, Clinton said the
international community had a duty to halt ongoing bloodshed and
promote a political transition that would see Assad step down. She
said the "friends of Syria" should work together to promote those
ends.
Clinton was bluntly critical of Saturday's veto by Russia and China at
the United Nations blocking action against the continuing violence in
Syria.
"What happened yesterday at the United Nations was a travesty," she
said.
"Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our
efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners
who support the Syrian people's right to have a better future,"
Clinton told reporters after meeting top Bulgarian officials.
Syria: After U.N. vote fails, now what?
Russia, China veto UN resolution against Syria
Syrian embassies attacked in Europe, Middle East
Such a group could be similar, but not identical, to the Contact Group
on Libya, which oversaw international help for opponents of the late
deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. However, in the case of Libya,
the group also coordinated NATO military operations to protect Libyan
civilians, something that is not envisioned in Syria.
U.S. officials said a friends group would work to further squeeze the
Assad regime by enhancing sanctions against it, bringing disparate
Syrian opposition groups inside and outside the country together,
providing humanitarian relief for embattled Syrian communities and
working to prevent an escalation of violence by monitoring arms sales.
"We will work to expose those who are still funding the regime and
sending it weapons to be used against defenseless Syrians, including
women and children," Clinton said. "We will work with the friends of a
democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition's peaceful
political plans for change."
Clinton's comments came as Syria's opposition appealed for
international backing along the lines she suggested following the
double-veto at the U.N. Security Council that outraged the U.S., its
European allies and Arab leaders and intensified fears that Assad
would unleash even greater violence to crush protesters.
Meanwhile, a Syrian state-run newspaper vowed Sunday that Damascus
will press its crackdown on the uprising until stability is
restored. Early Saturday, regime forces bombarded the restive central
city of Homs in what activists said was the deadliest incident of the
uprising. They reported more than 200 killed, but the regime denied
any bombardment and there was no way to independently confirm the
toll.
The Russian and Chinese vetoes at the Security Council effectively
killed an Arab League plan aimed at ending the violence in Syria that
called for Assad to hand over his powers to his vice president and
allow creation of a unity government. The resolution would have
expressed support for that Arab League plan, putting pressure on
Assad, who has rejected it.
Proponents of the Arab League plan are now searching for an
alternative to address Syria's crisis, which the U.S. and many
European countries have said can only be resolved by Assad's leaving
power.
Radwan Ziadeh, a prominent member of the opposition Syrian National
Council said countries backing Assad's foes should form an
"international coalition ... whose aim will be to lead international
moves to support the revolution through political and economic aid."
He said he expected French, U.S. and Arab support for a coalition.
A sensitive question is whether such a coalition would back the Free
Syrian Army, a force of army defectors who in recent months have gone
beyond protecting protesters in Syria to launching attacks on regime
forces and trying to establish overt control in pro-opposition parts
of the country.
------
2) Russia and China refused to endorse the UN resolution our State
department forced through. The result? A diplomatic train-wreck!
International efforts to bring pressure to bear on President Bashar
al-Assad's regime in Syria have collapsed in acrimony.
These efforts have another name: using the UN to advance the US's PNAC
agenda for regime change to countries deemed in sufficiently
subservient to Washington's wishes.
They insist that only Assad's regime is at fault: he is killing his
own people when looked from the other side, it is the armed gangs,
gangs armed by the West and its stooges in the Middle East such as the
Sheikdom Qatar, who have been trying to turn the country upside down
in the name of "democracy" when the opposite is true because as
Jonathan Steele of the UK Guardian pointed out, some 55% of the Syrian
people support the regime the West want to overthrow.
So, who was drive the train which headed for the wreck?
Mrs. Clinton with her foul-mouthed assistant Susan Rice.
China and Russia did not start the uprising and fan the bloodshed.
They were asked to endorse a regime change plan a la Libya.
China and Russia, however, are still trying to recover from being
misled in the Libyan fiasco. They simply refused to be had again.
They were simply sending out a signal that says: no one would be able
to stop the West's belligerent agenda if they really want to start a
war in Syria this time, but that they would not be an accomplice to
the greater bloodshed to come.
They have a conscience and they are sticking to it. They are putting
out a stop sign. But the train's engineer Mrs. Clinton wanted to play
brinksmanship and she lost.
She and her colleagues wrecked the train. They have no one else to
blame except themselves. The Syrians would be fools to want to repeat
a Libya 2.0 in Syria.
Furthermore, Hezebollah has announced that it would strike Israel as
soon as Syria is attacked by foreign forces. So, the antes is up and
Mrs. Clinton has started an arms race, not unlike the Cuban crisis
decades ago. See what brinksmanship can do to your train-wreck?
lo yeeOn
========
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16894752
5 February 2012 Last updated at 07:25 ET
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
. . .
'Not a serious policy'
Almost from the outset of this crisis, all eyes have been on Moscow.
Russia is Syria's only prominent ally. Moscow has long had close
military, economic and diplomatic ties with the Syrians. Russia is
expanding its use of the Syrian naval base at Tartus and has
maintained arms supplies to Damascus throughout this crisis.
. . .
For all the hopes in the West of a last-minute compromise, with Mr
Lavrov and Mrs Clinton hurrying off for bilateral talks in the margins
of the conference, there was probably no deal to be done.
At one level it is quite simple. Russia is, as I have said, Syria's
most prominent ally and that is that.
This, together with Russia's traditional antipathy towards what it
sees as the UN Security Council's interference in a sovereign nation's
affairs - here China takes much the same view - was enough to prompt
the Russian veto.
But it is a little more complicated than that.
I listened closely to Mr Lavrov's comments. "Russia," he said,
"supported the call of the Syrian people for change." It had backed
the Arab League observer mission and had persuaded the Syrian
authorities to accept it.
But, he went on, Russia was not going to accept any resolutions that
might open the way to foreign intervention or that would pre-determine
the political outcome in Syria.
Mr Lavrov was clearly sceptical about what any UN resolution might
achieve.
"What was the West's game plan?" he asked. If the violence continued,
he argued, would you simply go back to the UN for another resolution?
This was simply "not a serious policy".
If the draft resolution did not apply equivalent restrictions on all
parties - for the Russians that means the "armed groups" who they
believe are fomenting the violence as much as the Syrian government -
it was going to be unacceptable to Moscow.
Similarly, if it referred in any way to the Arab League peace plan
which involves President Assad stepping aside according to a tight
schedule, then this too was unacceptable to the Russians, as was
anything that they believe might pre-determine the outcome in Syria.
. . .
-------
China says it was forced to veto UN measure on Syria
Published February 06, 2012 | Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/06/china-defends-its-veto-un-measure-on-syria/
BEIJING - China said Monday it was forced to veto a United Nations
vote on Syria because it was called before differences in the proposal
were bridged but added it wants to play a constructive role in ending
violence there.
China and Russia have drawn the wrath of the United States and Europe
for the weekend veto, which they say blocked a U.N. attempt to end
nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that the violence will
escalate.
China says the resolution put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian
government and prejudged the result of any dialogue between the
parties in Syria.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Monday that he had
no information on whether Beijing plans to send an envoy to Syria as
Russia is doing.
Liu told a regular news conference that the vote on the
U.N. resolution was forced before all parties had agreed on it.
"Such practices do not help maintain the unity and authority of the
U.N. Security Council, nor does it help to properly solve the issues,"
he said.
Liu also rejected criticism that China was favoring the government of
President Bashar Assad, whose regime has vowed to press its military
crackdown.
"On the issue of Syria, China is not sheltering anyone nor do we
intentionally oppose anyone. We uphold justice and take a responsible
attitude," Liu said.
The Syrian uprising, inspired by other Arab Spring revolts, began in
March with peaceful protests against Assad's regime. That sparked a
fierce crackdown by government forces, and led to some soldiers
defecting to join the uprising.
In recent months, the rebel soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army,
have grown bolder, attacking regime troops and trying to establish
control in pro-opposition areas. That has brought a heavier government
response.
More than 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the
U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by
the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow.
On Monday, activists said Syrian troops were heavily shelling the
restive central city of Homs.
The Local Coordination Committees activist group said the bombardment
hit a makeshift hospital, causing casualties.
-------
3) 'Hezbollah will hit Israel if Syria attacked'
By JPOST.COM STAFF02/05/2012 19:53
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=256584
Hezbollah is prepared to attack should Western powers "interfere" in
Syrian affairs, Lebanese official says.
Hezbollah is prepared to attack Israel if Western powers interfere in
Syria against the regime in Damascus, a Lebanese Hezbollah official
said Sunday according to the Palestinian News Network.
The unnamed official said Hezbollah was prepared if Western powers
intervened in Syria in order to stop Syrian President Bashar Assad's
crackdown on anti-government protesters, even if the "price for it" is
to engage the IDF in battle in order to divert attention away from the
Syrian arena.
According to the report, Hezbollah - which is believed to have a
stockpile of over 30,000 missiles - believes that a war in the Middle
East may prevent the fall of Assad.
The Jerusalem Post could not confirm this report.
The Shi'ite group supports a compromise based on reforms and "easing
the crisis" between anti-government forces and the Syrian regime,
according to the official. While Assad himself has said his government
will push reforms, and has released thousands of detainees arrested
since the start of the 11-month conflict, the violence in Syria has
not dwindled.
Last week, over 200 people were killed in an overnight military
assault on the restive city of Homs. At least 18 people were gunned
down by Syrian troops on Sunday according to activists, and nine
Syrian troops were killed in clashes with rebels in the northwestern
Idlib province bordering Turkey.
Israel has said that Hezbollah along with Iran are providing weapons
to their ally Syria to help suppress Syrian opposition activists
calling for Assad's ouster, in a conflict that has resulted in the
deaths of more than 6,000 Syrians.
"The radical axis is trying to retain its power and as time passes,
Iran and Hezbollah increase their efforts to help the Assad regime
survive by providing knowledge, weaponry and other capabilities," head
of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said in January.
Hezbollah has been one of the few voices in the Arab world making
statements in support of Assad and the Syrian regime.
Hamas - another Iran proxy in the region - quietly backed away from
vocalizing support for the Assad regime, and many of the group's
officials have left their political bureau in Damascus for neighboring
countries.
Yaakov Katz contributed to this report
------
4) A more candid assessment of our Libyan mischief (from the Atlantic
magazine)
Why did a train wreck occur with Hillary's overzealous diplomacy?
President Obama made a rapid transition from saying "regime change
is not on the table" last March (part of the bargain to get Russian
abstention from the UNSC vote) to publicly calling for his ouster.
Obama lied, and now the Syrians cry!
People in general are once burned (by you), twice shy (from you).
lo yeeOn
========
Syria and the Pernicious Consequences of Our Libya Intervention
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/syria-and-the-pernicious-consequences-of-our-libya-intervention/252631/
FEB 6 2012, 3:00 PM ET 6
Even if toppling Qaddafi made sense on its own terms, the Western
campaign will make it far harder to do any good for Syria.
Intervention, in other words, has lots of consequences, and often
they're quite bad. While it's relatively easy to talk about the
problems the intervention has unleashed on Libya itself, even less
remarked upon are the broader political consequences of the Libyan
campaign. Russia and China, in particular, have openly said they're
angry over how the intervention played out, and it should be no
surprise to see them block future moves for intervention.
A big reason for Russia and China's intransigence is the NATO
coalition that led the intervention, which badly overstepped the range
of permissible actions stipulated in the UN Security Council
Resolution that authorized intervention. Russia was an early critic of
such actions as France's weapons shipments to the rebels -- criticism
that could have been accounted for (Moscow never made any secret of
its concerns) but which seemed to be ignored in the rush to intervene.
President Obama made a rapid transition from saying "regime change is
not on the table" last March (part of the bargain to get Russian
abstention from the UNSC vote) to publicly calling for his ouster.
France and the UK used similar language, ignoring the politics of
getting UN approval for intervention.
Now, when there is another escalating crisis in Syria -- Bashar
al-Assad's unjustifiable mass-murder of protesters -- Russia and China
have stepped in to veto further UNSC action. This was an entirely
predictable response, as both Russia and China were openly scornful of
the misleading statements made by interventionists in NATO and the
Arab League to get support for Libya.
The veto has led some analysts to say the UNSC is losing relevance,
but it seems to me that the opposite might actually be true: the
politics of the UNSC should matter as much for launching an
intervention as the merits of actually attacking the target
country. There is no doubt that what is unfolding in Syria is an
atrocity that must end. Sadly, the Libya intervention itself, while a
precedent for the idea of global action against a humanitarian threat,
is also a very real reason that the world will have a tougher time
doing anything for Syria.
Walter Russell Mead wrote an excellent exegesis of the entirety of
Russia's calculations on the veto, taking special note of Russian
domestic politics and their obsession with their own diminishment in
international bodies like the UN. Put simply: Russia expected some
consideration in the Libyan campaign, but instead the relevant players
are actively working against Russian interests there, even
post-Gaddafi. Moscow could not risk the same thing happening to its
many interests in Syria.
Even if it were not an election year in Russia, where Putin has just
been reminded that he does not enjoy uncritical love from his people,
it's likely Russia would have vetoed Syria because of Libya. But there
are additional, bigger politics to consider as well.
Many states, none of whom are free, worry that the West's renewed love
of intervention might one day be focused upon them. This is a critical
consequence of rejecting sovereignty and declaring governments unfit
to rule through a mixture of expediency and opportunity. Powerful
states with poor human rights records -- Russia and China included --
look at what happened in Libya and see disaster, not freedom. And they
are taking steps to avoid it.
In a broader sense, too, the renewed focus on intervention, especially
considering what happened in Libya, could have pernicious
consequences. Qaddafi famously gave up his nuclear weapons program in
2003. That he was later overthrown right after the U.S. re-established
diplomatic ties with Triploi isn't broadly seen as a victory for
diplomacy and denuclearization, but rather a textbook case of why
nuclear weapons are fantastic invasion insurance. That may be one
reason (among many others) why Iran seems so unwilling to contemplate
abandoning its own nuclear weapons program -- it believes that nuclear
weapons will prevent a capricious and unpredictable West from invading
or intervening in its internal affairs.
In a vacuum, intervening to prevent mass killings in Libya made sense.
Libya, however, did not (and does not) exist in a vacuum. It has both
internal and regional politics. So does Syria. The failure to gain
international buy-in to do something -- not necessarily militarily but
some response -- to the atrocities there is a direct consequence of
interventionists ignoring politics in their rush to do good.
Unfortunately, the people of Syria are now paying the price, and will
continue to do so.
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 7:04 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 4, 5:45 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 4, 1:22 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 2, 11:20 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:13 pm, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 8:25 pm, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > The US want to get rid of President Bashar al-Assad of
>Syria. The US
>> > > > > > > > want a UN resolution to change the Syrian government leaders.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Russia say...NO.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Has the USA or the UN the authority to change the leaders of a
>> > > > > > > > sovereign country ?
>>
>> > > > > > > Might makes right.
>> > > > > > > We have the might.
>> > > > > > > We have the right.
>>
>> > > > > > After Syria, who is next Iran, ...the Russia ...may be
>> > > > > > China ?
>>
>> > > > > Yes, until the process is stopped by another nation which has more
>> > > > > power.
>>
>> > > > You are wrong.
>>
>> > .> > The USA attempt to change the government of Syria ...is
>> > .> > stopped by the UN. The Security Council did not approve
>> > .> > action for regime change in Syria.
>> > .> > Russia and China veto the US backed resolution for authority
>> > .> > to change the Syria government... like it did in Libya.
>>
>> > .> Russia and China do the right thing. Despite its short comings,
>> > .> the UN is the only real international organization that can solve
>> > .> at least some problems between nations.
>>
>> > You are right. The UN Charter provide for the UN to intervene
>> > ONLY in cases of disputes or wars between nations...
>> > The UN has NO authority to intervene in domestic civil wars....
>> > or an uprising (instigated by the USA)...or to approve actions
>> > for the USA to change the regime in Syria.
>>
>> Well, the USA did exactly that in Iraq. So, why not also in Syria?
>>
>> > .> Passing the resolution will transform it into a tool for one
>> > .> country or a group of countries to meddle into other
>> > .> country's affair.
>>
>> > This is the reason why Russia and China veto the resolution
>> > backed the USA..to change the government of Syria.
>>
>> > .> The US and its allies invade Iraq. The US has moral, if not legal
>> > .> obligation
>> > .> to clean up its mess, at least partially. The US and its allies
>> > bombed
>> > .> Libya. No one seems to care what is now happening in Libya.
>>
>> > The UN made a mistake ...to approve a "NO Fly Zone"...(did not
>> > approve NATO and the USA to bomb Libya and to send troops to
>> > help the rebels). The USA and NATO take the resolution as
>> > approval ...for regime change in Libya.
>> > The UN's mistake on Libya ...made Russia and China very careful ...
>> > about the wordings of the US backed resolution against Syria.
>>
>> > The civil war in Syria (instigated by the USA) ...is bad...because
>> > thousands were killed (by both sides). Many thousands more
>> > will be killed if the USA and NATO were to support the rebel
>> > against the government of Syria....
>> > It is estimated that the hundreds of thousands were killed in
>> > Libya by the rebel and NATO troops and bombing. (Western
>> > media covered up the killings of Libyans for obvious reasons)
>
>The USA DID NOT have UN approval to invade Iraq.
>
>If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead
>to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
"diplomatic train-wreck" is the term BBC diplomatic correspondent
Jonathan Marcus used to describe the latest action at the UN. (see
attachment below.)
Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to overthrow
Assad's government in Syria.
The only difference is that there would not be an overt presence of US
military personnel on the ground like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at
first. But that might just be for the duration of Obama's reelection
campaign.
Now Lebanon's Hezbollah had warned (before Mrs. Clinton's rallying
call for the willing to fight) that it would retaliate by firing its
missile arsenal into Israel if and when Syria is attacked by foreign
forces.
And because Syria is more or less the last of the frontier before US
military forces will engage Iran in an existential battle for the
latter and before China's western front will be directly threatened
through Pakistan, the consequence of Mrs. Clinton's rallying call to
arm will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
uprising is more or less incited by the West. In fact when Clinton
and her colleagues were saying over and over again that Assad was
killing the Syrian people, it was more than disingenuous.
Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
bunch of defenseless women and children. In that case, the Branch
Davidians were not even supported or instigated by any foreign
elements. When she laid blame alone on Assad, she conveniently and
systematically hid the fact that actually 55% of Syrians, comprising
the majority of the population, support Assad's government as well as
its current response to the various armed groups.
Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively driving
the Syrian uprising.
And don't forget that Russia and China have been lied to last year
vis-a-vis Libya. You get burned once, you will react "twice-shy" to
similar stimuli. They haven't forgotten that experience - in fact
they have repeatedly reminded the world how they were lied to.
How arrogant Clinton must have been then to think that Russia and
China would just meekly roll over again and the United Nations would
forever cease to function or as long as she is our chief diplomat?
And Clinton must be either very arrogant or very dumb to think that
the Chinese and the Russians aren't worried that they would themselves
eventually meet the same tragic fate as Libya has, if they remain in a
state of slumber and continue to let the aggressor advance eastward
toward them.
I say Russia and China have actually finally done something right. (I
was very unhappy about their spineless response to a perfectly clear
aggression last year.) But I am frankly amazed to see a reprise of
the idea of a coalition of the willing to fight in the Middle East
again, so soon after the Iraq war fiasco. It sounds so desperate and
so obviously a confession of a diplomatic defeat!
lo yeeOn
========
1) U.S. floats coalition against Syria
February 5, 2012 3:49 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371692/u.s-floats-coalition-against-syria/
(AP) Beirut - The United States proposed an international coalition to
support Syria's opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a
U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that
violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way
to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its
military crackdown.
The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and
China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential
for Syria's turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that
could degenerate into outright civil war.
The uprising inspired by other Arab Spring revolts began in March with
peaceful protests against Assad's regime, sparking a fierce crackdown
by government forces. Soldiers who defected to join the uprising later
began to protect protesters from attacks. In recent months, the rebel
soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army, have grown bolder, attacking
regime troops and trying to establish control in pro-opposition
areas. That has brought a heavier government response.
More than 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the
U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by
the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow and unleash even
greater violence to crush protesters. If the opposition turns overtly
to armed resistance, the result could be a dramatic increase in
bloodshed.
At least 30 civilians were killed Sunday, including five children and
a woman who was hit by a bullet while standing on her balcony as
troops fired on protesters in a Damascus suburb, according to the
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group.
Syria: After U.N. vote fails, now what?
Russia, China veto UN resolution against Syria
Syrian embassies attacked in Europe, Middle East
Government forces firing mortars and heavy machine guns also battered
the mountain town of Zabadani, north of Damascus, a significant
opposition stronghold that fell under rebel control late last
month. Bombardment the past two days has wounded dozens and forced
scores of families to flee, an activist in the town said.
"The situation is terrifying. Makeshift hospitals are full," said the
activist, who only gave his first name, Fares, for fear of government
reprisal. He said the town has been under siege for the past five days
and there is a shortage of food and heating fuel during the cold
winter.
The commander of the Free Syrian Army told The Associated Press that,
after the vetoes at the U.N., "there is no other road" except military
action to topple Assad.
"We consider that Syria is occupied by a criminal gang and we must
liberate the country from this gang," Col. Riad al-Asaad said,
speaking by telephone from Turkey. "This regime does not understand
the language of politics. It only understands the language of force."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that chances for
"a brutal civil war" would increase as Syrians under attack from their
government move to defend themselves, unless international steps
provide another way.
Speaking to reporters in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, she called
the double veto at the U.N. Security Council on Saturday "a travesty."
"Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our
efforts outside of the United Nations," she said, calling for "friends
of democratic Syria" to unite "support the Syrian people's right to
have a better future."
Clinton calls for united front against Assad
The call points to the formation of a formal group of like-minded
nations to coordinate assistance to the Syrian opposition, similar but
not identical to the Contact Group on Libya, which oversaw
international help for opponents of the late deposed Libyan leader
Muammar Qaddafi. In the case of Libya, the group also coordinated NATO
military operations to protect Libyan civilians, something that is not
envisioned in Syria.
U.S. officials said an alliance would work to further squeeze the
Assad regime by stepping up sanctions against it, bringing disparate
Syrian opposition groups inside and outside the country together,
providing humanitarian relief for embattled Syrian communities and
working to prevent an escalation of violence by monitoring arms sales.
-----
Clinton calls for united front against Assad
February 5, 2012 9:33 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371660/clinton-calls-for-united-front-against-assad/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
(AP) SOFIA, Bulgaria - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
called Sunday for "friends of democratic Syria" to unite and rally
against President Bashar Assad's regime, previewing the possible
formation of a formal group of likeminded nations to coordinate
assistance to the Syrian opposition.
Speaking in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia a day after Russia and
China blocked U.N. Security Council action on Syria, Clinton said the
international community had a duty to halt ongoing bloodshed and
promote a political transition that would see Assad step down. She
said the "friends of Syria" should work together to promote those
ends.
Clinton was bluntly critical of Saturday's veto by Russia and China at
the United Nations blocking action against the continuing violence in
Syria.
"What happened yesterday at the United Nations was a travesty," she
said.
"Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our
efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners
who support the Syrian people's right to have a better future,"
Clinton told reporters after meeting top Bulgarian officials.
Syria: After U.N. vote fails, now what?
Russia, China veto UN resolution against Syria
Syrian embassies attacked in Europe, Middle East
Such a group could be similar, but not identical, to the Contact Group
on Libya, which oversaw international help for opponents of the late
deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. However, in the case of Libya,
the group also coordinated NATO military operations to protect Libyan
civilians, something that is not envisioned in Syria.
U.S. officials said a friends group would work to further squeeze the
Assad regime by enhancing sanctions against it, bringing disparate
Syrian opposition groups inside and outside the country together,
providing humanitarian relief for embattled Syrian communities and
working to prevent an escalation of violence by monitoring arms sales.
"We will work to expose those who are still funding the regime and
sending it weapons to be used against defenseless Syrians, including
women and children," Clinton said. "We will work with the friends of a
democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition's peaceful
political plans for change."
Clinton's comments came as Syria's opposition appealed for
international backing along the lines she suggested following the
double-veto at the U.N. Security Council that outraged the U.S., its
European allies and Arab leaders and intensified fears that Assad
would unleash even greater violence to crush protesters.
Meanwhile, a Syrian state-run newspaper vowed Sunday that Damascus
will press its crackdown on the uprising until stability is
restored. Early Saturday, regime forces bombarded the restive central
city of Homs in what activists said was the deadliest incident of the
uprising. They reported more than 200 killed, but the regime denied
any bombardment and there was no way to independently confirm the
toll.
The Russian and Chinese vetoes at the Security Council effectively
killed an Arab League plan aimed at ending the violence in Syria that
called for Assad to hand over his powers to his vice president and
allow creation of a unity government. The resolution would have
expressed support for that Arab League plan, putting pressure on
Assad, who has rejected it.
Proponents of the Arab League plan are now searching for an
alternative to address Syria's crisis, which the U.S. and many
European countries have said can only be resolved by Assad's leaving
power.
Radwan Ziadeh, a prominent member of the opposition Syrian National
Council said countries backing Assad's foes should form an
"international coalition ... whose aim will be to lead international
moves to support the revolution through political and economic aid."
He said he expected French, U.S. and Arab support for a coalition.
A sensitive question is whether such a coalition would back the Free
Syrian Army, a force of army defectors who in recent months have gone
beyond protecting protesters in Syria to launching attacks on regime
forces and trying to establish overt control in pro-opposition parts
of the country.
------
2) Russia and China refused to endorse the UN resolution our State
department forced through. The result? A diplomatic train-wreck!
International efforts to bring pressure to bear on President Bashar
al-Assad's regime in Syria have collapsed in acrimony.
These efforts have another name: using the UN to advance the US's PNAC
agenda for regime change to countries deemed in sufficiently
subservient to Washington's wishes.
They insist that only Assad's regime is at fault: he is killing his
own people when looked from the other side, it is the armed gangs,
gangs armed by the West and its stooges in the Middle East such as the
Sheikdom Qatar, who have been trying to turn the country upside down
in the name of "democracy" when the opposite is true because as
Jonathan Steele of the UK Guardian pointed out, some 55% of the Syrian
people support the regime the West want to overthrow.
So, who was drive the train which headed for the wreck?
Mrs. Clinton with her foul-mouthed assistant Susan Rice.
China and Russia did not start the uprising and fan the bloodshed.
They were asked to endorse a regime change plan a la Libya.
China and Russia, however, are still trying to recover from being
misled in the Libyan fiasco. They simply refused to be had again.
They were simply sending out a signal that says: no one would be able
to stop the West's belligerent agenda if they really want to start a
war in Syria this time, but that they would not be an accomplice to
the greater bloodshed to come.
They have a conscience and they are sticking to it. They are putting
out a stop sign. But the train's engineer Mrs. Clinton wanted to play
brinksmanship and she lost.
She and her colleagues wrecked the train. They have no one else to
blame except themselves. The Syrians would be fools to want to repeat
a Libya 2.0 in Syria.
Furthermore, Hezebollah has announced that it would strike Israel as
soon as Syria is attacked by foreign forces. So, the antes is up and
Mrs. Clinton has started an arms race, not unlike the Cuban crisis
decades ago. See what brinksmanship can do to your train-wreck?
lo yeeOn
========
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16894752
5 February 2012 Last updated at 07:25 ET
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
. . .
'Not a serious policy'
Almost from the outset of this crisis, all eyes have been on Moscow.
Russia is Syria's only prominent ally. Moscow has long had close
military, economic and diplomatic ties with the Syrians. Russia is
expanding its use of the Syrian naval base at Tartus and has
maintained arms supplies to Damascus throughout this crisis.
. . .
For all the hopes in the West of a last-minute compromise, with Mr
Lavrov and Mrs Clinton hurrying off for bilateral talks in the margins
of the conference, there was probably no deal to be done.
At one level it is quite simple. Russia is, as I have said, Syria's
most prominent ally and that is that.
This, together with Russia's traditional antipathy towards what it
sees as the UN Security Council's interference in a sovereign nation's
affairs - here China takes much the same view - was enough to prompt
the Russian veto.
But it is a little more complicated than that.
I listened closely to Mr Lavrov's comments. "Russia," he said,
"supported the call of the Syrian people for change." It had backed
the Arab League observer mission and had persuaded the Syrian
authorities to accept it.
But, he went on, Russia was not going to accept any resolutions that
might open the way to foreign intervention or that would pre-determine
the political outcome in Syria.
Mr Lavrov was clearly sceptical about what any UN resolution might
achieve.
"What was the West's game plan?" he asked. If the violence continued,
he argued, would you simply go back to the UN for another resolution?
This was simply "not a serious policy".
If the draft resolution did not apply equivalent restrictions on all
parties - for the Russians that means the "armed groups" who they
believe are fomenting the violence as much as the Syrian government -
it was going to be unacceptable to Moscow.
Similarly, if it referred in any way to the Arab League peace plan
which involves President Assad stepping aside according to a tight
schedule, then this too was unacceptable to the Russians, as was
anything that they believe might pre-determine the outcome in Syria.
. . .
-------
China says it was forced to veto UN measure on Syria
Published February 06, 2012 | Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/06/china-defends-its-veto-un-measure-on-syria/
BEIJING - China said Monday it was forced to veto a United Nations
vote on Syria because it was called before differences in the proposal
were bridged but added it wants to play a constructive role in ending
violence there.
China and Russia have drawn the wrath of the United States and Europe
for the weekend veto, which they say blocked a U.N. attempt to end
nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that the violence will
escalate.
China says the resolution put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian
government and prejudged the result of any dialogue between the
parties in Syria.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Monday that he had
no information on whether Beijing plans to send an envoy to Syria as
Russia is doing.
Liu told a regular news conference that the vote on the
U.N. resolution was forced before all parties had agreed on it.
"Such practices do not help maintain the unity and authority of the
U.N. Security Council, nor does it help to properly solve the issues,"
he said.
Liu also rejected criticism that China was favoring the government of
President Bashar Assad, whose regime has vowed to press its military
crackdown.
"On the issue of Syria, China is not sheltering anyone nor do we
intentionally oppose anyone. We uphold justice and take a responsible
attitude," Liu said.
The Syrian uprising, inspired by other Arab Spring revolts, began in
March with peaceful protests against Assad's regime. That sparked a
fierce crackdown by government forces, and led to some soldiers
defecting to join the uprising.
In recent months, the rebel soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army,
have grown bolder, attacking regime troops and trying to establish
control in pro-opposition areas. That has brought a heavier government
response.
More than 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the
U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by
the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow.
On Monday, activists said Syrian troops were heavily shelling the
restive central city of Homs.
The Local Coordination Committees activist group said the bombardment
hit a makeshift hospital, causing casualties.
-------
3) 'Hezbollah will hit Israel if Syria attacked'
By JPOST.COM STAFF02/05/2012 19:53
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=256584
Hezbollah is prepared to attack should Western powers "interfere" in
Syrian affairs, Lebanese official says.
Hezbollah is prepared to attack Israel if Western powers interfere in
Syria against the regime in Damascus, a Lebanese Hezbollah official
said Sunday according to the Palestinian News Network.
The unnamed official said Hezbollah was prepared if Western powers
intervened in Syria in order to stop Syrian President Bashar Assad's
crackdown on anti-government protesters, even if the "price for it" is
to engage the IDF in battle in order to divert attention away from the
Syrian arena.
According to the report, Hezbollah - which is believed to have a
stockpile of over 30,000 missiles - believes that a war in the Middle
East may prevent the fall of Assad.
The Jerusalem Post could not confirm this report.
The Shi'ite group supports a compromise based on reforms and "easing
the crisis" between anti-government forces and the Syrian regime,
according to the official. While Assad himself has said his government
will push reforms, and has released thousands of detainees arrested
since the start of the 11-month conflict, the violence in Syria has
not dwindled.
Last week, over 200 people were killed in an overnight military
assault on the restive city of Homs. At least 18 people were gunned
down by Syrian troops on Sunday according to activists, and nine
Syrian troops were killed in clashes with rebels in the northwestern
Idlib province bordering Turkey.
Israel has said that Hezbollah along with Iran are providing weapons
to their ally Syria to help suppress Syrian opposition activists
calling for Assad's ouster, in a conflict that has resulted in the
deaths of more than 6,000 Syrians.
"The radical axis is trying to retain its power and as time passes,
Iran and Hezbollah increase their efforts to help the Assad regime
survive by providing knowledge, weaponry and other capabilities," head
of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said in January.
Hezbollah has been one of the few voices in the Arab world making
statements in support of Assad and the Syrian regime.
Hamas - another Iran proxy in the region - quietly backed away from
vocalizing support for the Assad regime, and many of the group's
officials have left their political bureau in Damascus for neighboring
countries.
Yaakov Katz contributed to this report
------
4) A more candid assessment of our Libyan mischief (from the Atlantic
magazine)
Why did a train wreck occur with Hillary's overzealous diplomacy?
President Obama made a rapid transition from saying "regime change
is not on the table" last March (part of the bargain to get Russian
abstention from the UNSC vote) to publicly calling for his ouster.
Obama lied, and now the Syrians cry!
People in general are once burned (by you), twice shy (from you).
lo yeeOn
========
Syria and the Pernicious Consequences of Our Libya Intervention
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/syria-and-the-pernicious-consequences-of-our-libya-intervention/252631/
FEB 6 2012, 3:00 PM ET 6
Even if toppling Qaddafi made sense on its own terms, the Western
campaign will make it far harder to do any good for Syria.
Intervention, in other words, has lots of consequences, and often
they're quite bad. While it's relatively easy to talk about the
problems the intervention has unleashed on Libya itself, even less
remarked upon are the broader political consequences of the Libyan
campaign. Russia and China, in particular, have openly said they're
angry over how the intervention played out, and it should be no
surprise to see them block future moves for intervention.
A big reason for Russia and China's intransigence is the NATO
coalition that led the intervention, which badly overstepped the range
of permissible actions stipulated in the UN Security Council
Resolution that authorized intervention. Russia was an early critic of
such actions as France's weapons shipments to the rebels -- criticism
that could have been accounted for (Moscow never made any secret of
its concerns) but which seemed to be ignored in the rush to intervene.
President Obama made a rapid transition from saying "regime change is
not on the table" last March (part of the bargain to get Russian
abstention from the UNSC vote) to publicly calling for his ouster.
France and the UK used similar language, ignoring the politics of
getting UN approval for intervention.
Now, when there is another escalating crisis in Syria -- Bashar
al-Assad's unjustifiable mass-murder of protesters -- Russia and China
have stepped in to veto further UNSC action. This was an entirely
predictable response, as both Russia and China were openly scornful of
the misleading statements made by interventionists in NATO and the
Arab League to get support for Libya.
The veto has led some analysts to say the UNSC is losing relevance,
but it seems to me that the opposite might actually be true: the
politics of the UNSC should matter as much for launching an
intervention as the merits of actually attacking the target
country. There is no doubt that what is unfolding in Syria is an
atrocity that must end. Sadly, the Libya intervention itself, while a
precedent for the idea of global action against a humanitarian threat,
is also a very real reason that the world will have a tougher time
doing anything for Syria.
Walter Russell Mead wrote an excellent exegesis of the entirety of
Russia's calculations on the veto, taking special note of Russian
domestic politics and their obsession with their own diminishment in
international bodies like the UN. Put simply: Russia expected some
consideration in the Libyan campaign, but instead the relevant players
are actively working against Russian interests there, even
post-Gaddafi. Moscow could not risk the same thing happening to its
many interests in Syria.
Even if it were not an election year in Russia, where Putin has just
been reminded that he does not enjoy uncritical love from his people,
it's likely Russia would have vetoed Syria because of Libya. But there
are additional, bigger politics to consider as well.
Many states, none of whom are free, worry that the West's renewed love
of intervention might one day be focused upon them. This is a critical
consequence of rejecting sovereignty and declaring governments unfit
to rule through a mixture of expediency and opportunity. Powerful
states with poor human rights records -- Russia and China included --
look at what happened in Libya and see disaster, not freedom. And they
are taking steps to avoid it.
In a broader sense, too, the renewed focus on intervention, especially
considering what happened in Libya, could have pernicious
consequences. Qaddafi famously gave up his nuclear weapons program in
2003. That he was later overthrown right after the U.S. re-established
diplomatic ties with Triploi isn't broadly seen as a victory for
diplomacy and denuclearization, but rather a textbook case of why
nuclear weapons are fantastic invasion insurance. That may be one
reason (among many others) why Iran seems so unwilling to contemplate
abandoning its own nuclear weapons program -- it believes that nuclear
weapons will prevent a capricious and unpredictable West from invading
or intervening in its internal affairs.
In a vacuum, intervening to prevent mass killings in Libya made sense.
Libya, however, did not (and does not) exist in a vacuum. It has both
internal and regional politics. So does Syria. The failure to gain
international buy-in to do something -- not necessarily militarily but
some response -- to the atrocities there is a direct consequence of
interventionists ignoring politics in their rush to do good.
Unfortunately, the people of Syria are now paying the price, and will
continue to do so.
bmo...@nyx.net
Feb 7, 2012, 7:42:24 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 7, 12:49 am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
> people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
> bunch of defenseless women and children.
Lemme guess, LoYawn. You'll defend David Koresh too. Did you know they
> Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
> people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
> bunch of defenseless women and children.
were armed to the teeth?
> In that case, the Branch
> Davidians were not even supported or instigated by any foreign
> elements. When she laid blame alone on Assad, she conveniently and
> systematically hid the fact that actually 55% of Syrians, comprising
> the majority of the population, support Assad's government as well as
> its current response to the various armed groups.
condemnation of Assad. But you don't give a fuck. You just want to
bash the US because you are a hateful little man masquerading as a
peace activist.
> Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively driving
> the Syrian uprising.
If only you could see yourself objectively. You're like an eighth
grade debater.
lo yeeOn
Feb 8, 2012, 6:41:12 PM2/8/12
to
In article <537671e3-0ae6-4b6c...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 4:49 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> In article
><3efa0098-634a-4d9f-b13e-dc404ee5f...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>.> >to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>.> >Why seek UN approval ?
>>
>
>.> With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also
>.> sought a UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after
>.> seeing that it would not get one (largely because of the
>opposition
>.> of France under President Chirac). So they sought a coalition
>.> of the willing. And that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is
>trying
>.> to do right now after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN
>.> Security Council.
>
>Well, without UN approval for a regime change in Syria, it
>will NOT be legal for the USA and others to invade Syria.
>Of course, the USA using NATO and others could still do so
>without UN approval...the result will not be like Lybia...it will
>be far worse than Iraq.
>The USA will be fighting against NOT Assad alone, it will
>also be fighting against Iran, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Russia,
>and most of the Arab world (those who support Assad now).
>
>In Iraq, the USA had killed almost a million civilians. In Syria
>I expect the US would employ the same "shock and awe" tactics
>using high attitude bombings to kill a massive number of
>Syrian civilians (could be much more than a million...including
>those stupid protesters who support the USA's call for
>a regime change)...to soften Syria for the invasion.
>
>US will have initial success...same as in Iraq. Assad will be
>defeated and killed.
>But after his death a guerrilla war will ensure... a war between
>the Muslims (Allah's warriors, the Muslim freedom fighters) and
>the USA...
>Eventually, the USA will be driven out of Syria and the Muslims
>will establish a Islam state under Sharia laws in Syria.
>Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan...the Muslims will be the final
>victors.
>
>If the USA and NATO choose to withdraw immediately after
>Assad is dead, the result will be the same. Syria will become
>an Islamic under Sharia law...Just like what happened in Egypt
>and what is happening now in Libya.
>
>The Muslim leaders, whoever they are, will turn against the
>USA just like the Muslims in Egypt.
>
>If the US generals are GO players...they would see that
>the USA has been surrounded ....out played by the Muslims
>in the Middle East.
Many experts agree with your assessment. Notice that the UK is not
going to do anything this year to jeopardize its hosting of the Summer
Olympics.
The real question is:
will the US be willing to rely on the Turks, the Qataris, and the
French who never won any war of importance in a "lead from behind"
campaign against Syria?
Notice that even the Israelis are not keen on participating in a war
to oust Assad for the very reason that Assad and his father have been
smart politicians and stayed cool to keep the Syrian-Israeli border
quiet for more than four decades. You might accuse the Assads for
being iron-fisted leaders; but they have kept Syria stable for all
these decades which has also made Israel breathe easy.
And I think Obama has enough intelligence to not want to jeopardize
his reelection campaign. So, Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues are just
doing the only thing they can do, namely _face-saving_! They pretend
that it was the evil Chinese and Russian who are responsible for her
diplomatic train-wreck. And they are emitting a lot of hot air in a
vain attempt to deflect world attention from the fiasco of their
brinksmanship and the ensuing failed reckless gamble.
Mrs. Clinton won't be remembered as a good US Secretary of State.
She is too much of an ambitious politician who is thinking for her
presidential run 4 years from now. She probablythought she could pull
a fast one by rushing a vote on Syria at the UNSC. I saw a BBC photo
showing Susan Rice grabbing the Chinese UN representative whose name I
can't recall at the moment as if she was begging him to not cast a no
vote. The photo showed Rice's Chinese counterpart looking away with a
bland face. The image is telling. Hillary lost and reaped what she'd
sown. Diplomacy should never be conducted by a reckless gambler. And
I hope her presidential ambition will be permanently doomed because
the US as well as the rest of the world can't afford too much more
war.
lo yeeOn
========
>If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead to invade Syria
>without UN approval... it can do so. Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
"diplomatic train-wreck" is the term BBC diplomatic correspondent
Jonathan Marcus used to describe the latest action at the UN. (see
attachment below.)
Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to overthrow
Assad's government in Syria.
The only difference is that there would not be an overt presence of US
military personnel on the ground like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at
first. But that might just be for the duration of Obama's reelection
campaign.
Now Lebanon's Hezbollah had warned (before Mrs. Clinton's rallying
call for the willing to fight) that it would retaliate by firing its
missile arsenal into Israel if and when Syria is attacked by foreign
forces.
And because Syria is more or less the last of the frontier before US
military forces will engage Iran in an existential battle for the
latter and before China's western front will be directly threatened
through Pakistan, the consequences of Mrs. Clinton's rallying call to
arms will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
uprising has been more or less incited by the West. In fact when
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 4:49 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> In article
><3efa0098-634a-4d9f-b13e-dc404ee5f...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>.> >If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead
>> baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>.> >to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>.> >Why seek UN approval ?
>>
>
>.> With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also
>.> sought a UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after
>.> seeing that it would not get one (largely because of the
>opposition
>.> of France under President Chirac). So they sought a coalition
>.> of the willing. And that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is
>trying
>.> to do right now after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN
>.> Security Council.
>
>Well, without UN approval for a regime change in Syria, it
>will NOT be legal for the USA and others to invade Syria.
>Of course, the USA using NATO and others could still do so
>without UN approval...the result will not be like Lybia...it will
>be far worse than Iraq.
>The USA will be fighting against NOT Assad alone, it will
>also be fighting against Iran, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Russia,
>and most of the Arab world (those who support Assad now).
>
>In Iraq, the USA had killed almost a million civilians. In Syria
>I expect the US would employ the same "shock and awe" tactics
>using high attitude bombings to kill a massive number of
>Syrian civilians (could be much more than a million...including
>those stupid protesters who support the USA's call for
>a regime change)...to soften Syria for the invasion.
>
>US will have initial success...same as in Iraq. Assad will be
>defeated and killed.
>But after his death a guerrilla war will ensure... a war between
>the Muslims (Allah's warriors, the Muslim freedom fighters) and
>the USA...
>Eventually, the USA will be driven out of Syria and the Muslims
>will establish a Islam state under Sharia laws in Syria.
>Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan...the Muslims will be the final
>victors.
>
>If the USA and NATO choose to withdraw immediately after
>Assad is dead, the result will be the same. Syria will become
>an Islamic under Sharia law...Just like what happened in Egypt
>and what is happening now in Libya.
>
>The Muslim leaders, whoever they are, will turn against the
>USA just like the Muslims in Egypt.
>
>If the US generals are GO players...they would see that
>the USA has been surrounded ....out played by the Muslims
>in the Middle East.
Many experts agree with your assessment. Notice that the UK is not
going to do anything this year to jeopardize its hosting of the Summer
Olympics.
The real question is:
will the US be willing to rely on the Turks, the Qataris, and the
French who never won any war of importance in a "lead from behind"
campaign against Syria?
Notice that even the Israelis are not keen on participating in a war
to oust Assad for the very reason that Assad and his father have been
smart politicians and stayed cool to keep the Syrian-Israeli border
quiet for more than four decades. You might accuse the Assads for
being iron-fisted leaders; but they have kept Syria stable for all
these decades which has also made Israel breathe easy.
And I think Obama has enough intelligence to not want to jeopardize
his reelection campaign. So, Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues are just
doing the only thing they can do, namely _face-saving_! They pretend
that it was the evil Chinese and Russian who are responsible for her
diplomatic train-wreck. And they are emitting a lot of hot air in a
vain attempt to deflect world attention from the fiasco of their
brinksmanship and the ensuing failed reckless gamble.
Mrs. Clinton won't be remembered as a good US Secretary of State.
She is too much of an ambitious politician who is thinking for her
presidential run 4 years from now. She probablythought she could pull
a fast one by rushing a vote on Syria at the UNSC. I saw a BBC photo
showing Susan Rice grabbing the Chinese UN representative whose name I
can't recall at the moment as if she was begging him to not cast a no
vote. The photo showed Rice's Chinese counterpart looking away with a
bland face. The image is telling. Hillary lost and reaped what she'd
sown. Diplomacy should never be conducted by a reckless gambler. And
I hope her presidential ambition will be permanently doomed because
the US as well as the rest of the world can't afford too much more
war.
lo yeeOn
========
>If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead to invade Syria
>without UN approval... it can do so. Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
"diplomatic train-wreck" is the term BBC diplomatic correspondent
Jonathan Marcus used to describe the latest action at the UN. (see
attachment below.)
Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to overthrow
Assad's government in Syria.
The only difference is that there would not be an overt presence of US
military personnel on the ground like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at
first. But that might just be for the duration of Obama's reelection
campaign.
Now Lebanon's Hezbollah had warned (before Mrs. Clinton's rallying
call for the willing to fight) that it would retaliate by firing its
missile arsenal into Israel if and when Syria is attacked by foreign
forces.
And because Syria is more or less the last of the frontier before US
military forces will engage Iran in an existential battle for the
latter and before China's western front will be directly threatened
arms will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
lo yeeOn
Feb 9, 2012, 2:02:31 AM2/9/12
to
In article <2a3a1b10-9882-4a0a...@g27g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Second Amendment spells out the right for US citizens to bear arms for
self-defense. Obviously, David Koresh was naive - he bought into the
mainstream propaganda that we the citizens have a lot of rights.
That mainstream propaganda about all of our rights is just patently
not true. Koresh thought he could protect the scores of children and
women he swore to protect. But the women and children were
fire-bombed to death by federal agents under President Clinton,
Hillary's husband.
Now you seemed to argue that because "they were armed to the teeth",
the killing of these women and children were justified. But then when
Assad's soldiers fought and killed armed insurgents who actually
killed a lot of soldiers (in fact some 2,000 of them) through
terrorist acts like bombing the buses which carry them and you wanted
others to sing your "Assad is evil" song. How transparent is your
propaganda work for the neocons!!!
>> In that case, the Branch Davidians were not even supported or
>> instigated by any foreign elements. When she laid blame alone on
>> Assad, she conveniently and systematically hid the fact that
>> actually 55% of Syrians, comprising the majority of the population,
>> support Assad's government as well as its current response to the
>> various armed groups.
>
>Your rant would be more convincing if you would say even one word in
>condemnation of Assad. But you don't give a fuck. You just want to
>bash the US because you are a hateful little man masquerading as a
>peace activist.
First of all the poll statistics of 55% Syrians support Assad and his
response to the uprising is no "rant". And it is no secret that from
Obama and Jay Carney at the White House down to Hillary Clinton, Susan
Rice, and Victoria Nuland at the State Department, to the mainstream
media have been systematically suppressing this fact and instead
always use the phrase "Assad kills his people"!
It's no secret because they just repeat the same phrase everyday so
it's all over the record.
It is the same falsehood every time they talk about Syria. And again,
it is no "rant" because it's 100% veritable fact. So, why should I
condemn Assad to help you out? Why should I bolster your neocon
bosses to help them execute another bloody regime change like what
happened in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Why should I pour gasoline
on a fire and cause more damage to Mother Earth and killing more of
her children? Why should I follow your despicable agenda?
And---"hateful little man"? You sound a lot more hateful than anyone
else who posts in these newsgroups. You hate so many people. And
your persistent tracking of my posts and venomous spewing each time
provides better evidence of your own "hateful" little self.
I'm certainly not masquerading anything because anybody who looks at
what happened to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan can tell you that the
destruction and loss of life is many-fold greater through our invasion
and occupation wars and the NATO-backed regime change than Qaddafi,
Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban have ever been known to have done
(or even could have done).
Remember that Tariq Aziz said the American/British aggression "killed
Iraq", not just a few people, but the entire country.
Anyway you look at it, it is better to have peace than war.
And if you're not gunning for war, then we can all take turns to
condemn tyrants around the world. But unfortunately, the condemnation
you and your ilk call for are meant to start one war after another.
So, no condemnation, no thanks!
But since you're so full of shit, I'll repeat the above:
Your argued that because "they were armed to the teeth" - referring to
the Branch Davidians - the killing of these women and children were
justified. But then when Assad's soldiers killed armed insurgents who
had actually killed a lot of soldiers through terrorist acts like
bombing the buses which carried them - in fact some 2,000 of them have
been reported killed - to keep order, you wanted others to sing your
"Assad is evil" song. You are despicable.
Like the Russians are saying: Assad is not my friend. But I have no
grounds to condemn him. It's better not to start another war.
Congressman Paul opposes military intervention into Syria to remove
the president. He opposes overt statements and actions intended to
pressure President Assad into stepping down and he opposes covert
actions to remove him or aid in that goal. Congressman Paul states
that the goal of the US military is to defend the US, not the middle
east.
I wholeheartedly agree with Paul's foreign policy stand. America has
had enough wars already. America has done enough harm to the world
already. And the Middle Class America is falling into the unthinkable
poverty-level class; yet you're foaming your mouth talking about how
Iran "is a threat even without nukes".
You obviously are working for that 1% who don't give a damn about even
the vast majority of the American people. What a shame!
Notice that some US politicians' (unlike Ron Paul) call for US covert
operations in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere after Hillary Clinton's
"diplomatic train wreck" at the UNSC. But one commentator was quoted
as saying "Such grandstanding produced a bemused response from one
retired US official, who told the National `Everything that Mitt
Romney said we should be doing - tough sanctions, covert action and
pressuring the international community - are all of the things we are
actually doing."
Now, someone who is in the know is saying that we incited the Syrian
unrest.
And the Atlantic article entitled "Syria and the Pernicious
Consequences of Our Libya Intervention" which I attached in my
original follow-up (to baldeagle's post) and which I will once again
attach below because of its relevance does tell why it was so wrong to
force the bloody regime change in Libya and how it has made our other
"wolf" stories impotent!
Our hegemony agenda has been made transparent by our own expedient lie
last time. That may be a good thing in the long run; but don't blame
the messenger who is merely pointing to the painful truth! Rather,
blame the liars who made their own rhetoric impotent and their
apologists who insist or pretend that no lies have been made to
perpetrate their killings and war crimes.
But what I have cited above is just the beginning of why people are
saying our foreign policy is responsible for the unrest in Syria.
Read on!
>
>> Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively
>> driving the Syrian uprising.
>
>You sure? Or are you just spewing more shit?
Since you're so desperate and are trying to grasp at straws, I'll
humor you some. Besides, it will probably be educational for others
who haven't got a chance to inform themselves about the pernicious
consequences of the US foreign policy. Just look at some of the
recent examples:
The NGO scandal in Egypt which has been posted by myself and others
should provide a window into similar activities in other countries
around the world.
What happened in Libya last year is a classic case of subversion by
western powers - all the covert operations that went on there before
and during the country's uprisings and eventual destruction which have
come to light since.
In Pakistan, we've learned of American spy Raymond Davis assassinating
Pakistanis in cold blood in broad daylight and getting away with it.
We've also learned of such egregious acts as drone assassinations of
citizens.
A lot of subversive activities took place in Latin America which
explains why we're so unpopular among our neighbors.
In these newsgroups, the subject of US subversive activities in China
monks is nothing new. The traitor/war-lover Liu Xiaobo and the phony
Da Lama and his gangs have been well-paid by the NED and its various
NGO grantees.
Syria? Read on . . .
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-nato-syria-edmonds-709/
[December 13, 2011] Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, formerly a
translator with the FBI, wrote over the weekend that American
soldiers are among the NATO troops that have mysteriously and
suddenly landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border. According to
her, several sources internationally have confirmed the news,
although the US media has been instructed to temporarily censor
itself from reporting the news.
Additionally, Edmonds says that American and NATO forces are
training Turkish troops as well, to possibly launch a strike from
the north of Syria.
Edmonds writes that an Iraqi journalist based out of London has
confirmed that US forces that vacated the Ain al-Assad Air Base in
Iraq last week did in fact leave the country as part of President
Obama's drawdown of troops, but rather than return home, the
soldiers were transferred into Jordan during the late hours of
Thursday evening. Another source, writes Edmonds, informs her that
"soldiers who speak languages other than Arabic" have been moving
through Jordan mere miles from the country's border with
Syria. Troops believed to be NATO/American-affiliated have been
spotted between the King Hussein Air Base in al-Mafraq and the
Jordanian village of Albaej and its vicinity. Source RT.
Edmonds also said that NATO troops have been training in the area
outside of Syria since May, and that the U.S. press was prohibited
from reporting until this report came out.
[She also quoted a report from The DEBKA File: <snipped>]
But this piece written by Chossudovsky last fall is an eye opener:
"the dubious credentials of US ambassador to damascus, robert ford
Death Squads in Syria? (extracts)"
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Aug 16 2011
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/the-dubious-credentials-of-us-ambassador-to-damascus-robert-ford/
US Ambassador Robert Ford arrived in Damascus in late Jan 2011 at the
height of the protest movement in Egypt. The previous US Ambassador to
Syria was recalled by Washington following the 2005 assassination of
former Prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was blamed without evidence
on the government of Bashar Al Assad. The author was in Damascus on
Jan 27 2011 when Washington's envoy presented his credentials to the
Al Assad government. At the outset of my visit to Syria in Jan 2011, I
reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the
role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I
did not, however, foresee that this process would be implemented
within less than two months following the instatement of Robert Ford
as US Ambassador to Syria. The reinstatement of a US ambassador in
Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Ford as US ambassador,
bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in
mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad. Ford was the man
for the job. As "Number Two" at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005)
under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte, he played a key role in
implementing the Pentagon's "Iraq Salvador Options". The latter
consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces
modelled on the experience of Central America.
The Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab
protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US
State Dept as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment
for Democracy) to selected pro-US opposition groups. Known and
documented, the US State Dept "has been been funding opponents of
Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006". (CBC, Apr 18 2011) The
protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the "Arab
Spring", presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest
movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the
Mashriq. The fact of the matter is that these various country
initiatives were closely timed and coordinated. (Chossudovsky, Jan 29
2011) There is reason to believe that events in Syria, however, were
planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime
change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia. The
outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa
was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt. It is
worth noting that the US Embassy in various countries has played a
central role in supporting opposition groups. In Egypt, for instance,
the Apr 6 Youth Movement was supported directly by the US embassy in
Cairo.
Since his arrival in Damascus in late Jan 2011, Ford played a central
role in laying the groundwork as well as establishing contacts with
opposition groups. A functioning US embassy in Damascus was seen as a
precondition for carrying out a process of political destabilization
leading to "regime change". Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was US
representative in Jan 2004 to the Shi'ite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf
was the stronghold of the Mahdi army. A few months later he was
appointed "Number Two Man" (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs)
at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of Negroponte's tenure as
US Ambassador to Iraq (Jun 2004-Apr 2005). Ford subsequently served
under Negroponte's successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment
as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006. Negroponte's mandate as US
ambassador to Iraq (together with Ford) was to coordinate out of the
US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups
in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the
resistance movement. Ford as "Number Two" (Minister Counsellor for
Political Affairs) at the US Embassy played a central role in this
endeavor.
To understand Robert Ford's mandate in both Baghdad and subsequently
in Damascus, it is important to reflect briefly on the history of US
covert operations and the central role played by John Negroponte.
Negroponte had served as US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.
As Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, he played a key role in supporting and
supervising the Nicaraguan Contra mercenaries who were based in
Honduras. The cross border Contra attacks into Nicaragua claimed some
50,000 civilian lives. During the same period, Negroponte was
instrumental in setting up the Honduran military death squads,
operating with Washington support's [they] assassinated hundreds of
opponents of the US-backed regime." (Vann, Nov 2011) Negroponte also
brought into the team one of his former collaborators Colonel James
Steele (ret) from his Honduras heyday. (Jamail, Antiwar.com, Jan 7
2007) Negroponte described Robert Ford while at the embassy in
Baghdad, as "one of these very tireless people who didn't mind putting
on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet
contacts." Ford is fluent in both Arabic and Turkish. He was
dispatched by Negroponte to undertake strategic contacts. (Newsweek,
Jan 8 2005) The plan had the support of the US-appointed Iraqi
government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Under Negroponte's helm at
the US Embassy in Baghdad, a wave of covert civilian killings and
targeted assassinations was unleashed. Engineers, medical doctors,
scientists and intellectuals were also targeted. The objective was to
create factional divisions between Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurds and
Christians, as well as weed out civilian support for the Iraqi
resistance. The Christian community was one of the main targets of the
assassination program. The Pentagon's objective also consisted in
training an Iraqi Army, Police and Security Forces, which would carry
out a homegrown "counter-insurgency" program (unofficially) on behalf
of the US. While conditions in Syria are markedly different to those
in Iraq, Ford's stint as "Number Two Man" at the US Embassy in Baghdad
has a direct bearing on the nature of his activities in Syria
including his contacts with opposition groups.
In early July, Ford travelled to Hama and had meetings with members of
the protest movement (WaPo, Jul 12 2011). Reports confirm that Ford
had numerous contacts with opposition groups both before and after his
July trip to Hama. In a recent statement (Aug 4), he confirmed that
the embassy will continue "reaching out" to opposition groups in
defiance of the Syrian authorities. New CIA head Petraeus, who led the
MNSTC "Counter-insurgency" program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination
with Negroponte, is slated to play a key intelligence role in relation
to Syria, including covert support to opposition forces and "freedom
fighters" , the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces,
etc. These tasks would be carried out in liaison with Ford. Both men
worked together in Iraq; they were part of Negroponte's extended team
in Baghdad in 2004-2005.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 7:08 am and
is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this
entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a
response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
After Libya The West Plots Attacking Iran And Syria
By Dr. Sawraj Singh
Saturday, November 12th, 2011
http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=11660
After murdering Gaddafi, the West is plotting to attack Iran and Syria
and repeat its performance in Libya. However, the situations in Iran
and Syria are very different than Libya. Iran in particular may prove
to be very dangerous and probably fatal for the West. Iran has a much
evolved and highly organized religious hierarchy. The religious
institutions are very deeply rooted in the people. The West already
had two major confrontations with Iran after the Islamic revolution.
The first, when the students occupied the American embassy and took
hostages. The second, when America incited Saddam to attack Iran. In
both of these situations, Iran was able to withstand the western
onslaught. Now, the West is using the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) report as an excuse to attack Iran. The IAEA's report
raises serious concerns about Iran's nuclear capability and its
ability to make nuclear weapons. However, Iran has called this report
prejudiced and biased. Iran says that the agency is very much
influenced and controlled by America and it is neither independent nor
impartial. France has already called for severe and crippling
sanctions on Iran. However, Russia and China will not allow these
sanctions. The West has not ruled out a military strike against Iran.
Russia has warned the West against attacking Iran and said that an
attack on Iran can lead to extremely serious and dangerous
consequences for the West.
What are some of the options which Iran may exert? Iran can disrupt
the shipping lanes. This can severely affect the oil supply of the
world, particularly of the western countries. This can worsen the
current economic crisis and block any chance of recovery. Iran, along
with its allies, can launch an all-out attack on Israel, severely
crippling and weakening Israel. This can very adversely affect the
American influence in the Middle East. Iran can unleash suicidal
attacks on American interests all over the world, which can severely
drain the American resources and hasten America's downfall as the only
superpower of the world. Iran probably has more than a million suicide
bomber volunteers. Iran can encourage its allies in Iraq to attack or
take the Americans as hostages. Similarly, Iran can encourage attacks
on Americans in Afghanistan. Russia has warned the West of very
serious consequences if it attacks Iran.
As opposed to Libya, Syria is very strategically located in the Middle
East, it borders Israel. The turmoil in Syria can easily spill over to
Israel. Israel has already lost Egypt as a friend. The West is divided
over Israel. America feels very strongly for Israel. However, this
feeling is not shared by its European allies. This became clear in a
recent conversation between Obama and Sarkozy. Sarkozy, not knowing
that his microphone was on, called the Israeli Prime Minister
(Benjamin Netanyahu) a liar. A conflict in the Middle East can further
deepen the Atlantic divide, thereby weakening further the American
control over the world.
An attack on Iran or Syria can prove to be a lose-lose situation for
America. After the miserable defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, a defeat
in the Middle East or Iran can, for all practical purposes, end the
American era in the world. The stakes are very high for America. It
should think a hundred times before attacking Iran or Syria. Not only
can America sustain very serious wounds, but it can also prove very
damaging for the rest of the world.
Whether it is the IAEA, United Nations, World Bank, or the
International Monetary Fund, all of these institutions are based upon
inequality and injustice. All of these institutions need to be
fundamentally reformed to reflect the new realities of the world. The
West should give up arrogance and join the global community to find
the answers and solutions to the problems and challenges facing
mankind and the world.
Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State
Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington
Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at
sawra...@hotmail.com or 509-962-3652.
Syria is just an axis for American evil to spin
Seema Mustafa | Saturday, October 29, 2011
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_syria-is-just-an-axis-for-american-evil-to-spin_1604444
There is clearly some truth to the assertions by retired US general
Wesley Clark as far back as 2007 that were heard but generally
disregarded. Clark, did not mince his words in interviews and at
public meetings at that time, when he spoke of a US plan to "take out"
seven countries, "starting with Iraq, Libya and Syria" and going on to
Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan, before finishing with Iran in five years.
He said a Pentagon official showed him a memo to this effect just
before the invasion of Iraq. And when he asked him why are we doing
this, the official said "I don't know."
Clark went on to ask repeatedly: "What is our aim, what is our
purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in the region."
Clark pointed out that Bush and his team had effected a policy coup
without a national debate. "They wanted us to destabilise the Middle
East, turn it down, make it under our control," he said. But then his
voice was drowned by the jingoistic drums of the US national media.
Bush might have gone since then, but clearly the policies being
pursued by President Barack Obama are no different. The attack on
Libya proves that with Muammar Gaddafi being "taken out" by the US and
NATO forces riding on the back of what the world press has described
as the Arab Spring. A genuine people's movement in Egypt that has
unfortunately, not yielded much, except for the departure of the
ageing Hosni Mubarak, has been cashed into by the US policy makers to
unleash a wave of terror in the Middle East.
Libya became the testing field for US and Europe's military hardware
companies, as they have been advertising their prowess in killing
pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya in a bid to secure international defence
contracts.
Syria is apparently the next target on the US list. Work is in
progress to create a case for intervention. What would be described as
small insurgencies in the Indian context, are being blown out of all
proportion by the world's embedded media as the US and Europe prepares
for full scale intervention. Fortunately, the sophistication and
education of the Syrians has made them close ranks against foreign
interference.
While recognising the mistakes and follies of the Bashar al Assad
government, the Syrians seem to have decided not to make this an
issue, for the moment at least, and to work together to keep the
Americans from destroying Syria. This is one of the primary reasons
why the Opposition in cities like Homs is remaining isolated and even
petering out as in Deraa. The other, of course, is use of brutal force
by the regime, but this alone would not have worked in Syria in the
present circumstances, if the people were not willing to hold off the
"resistance" that they do not want to be exploited by foreign powers.
Syria was part of George W Bush' "axis of evils" and remains so in the
Obama book as well. A highly civilised country has been placed under
debilitating sanctions just because, unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
now Turkey, it has refused to march to another government's tune. It
has taken a fairly independent stand on Palestine and Israel, like
Iraq and Iran, and has a far less repressive government than Saudi
Arabia for instance, that remains a close and trusted US ally. In fact
Saudi Arabia has been unabashedly supporting Sunni Wahabi propaganda
to cut into the strong secularism of the Syrian state. And currently
the US and NATO are supporting the Islamists in Syria, even as they
claim to be fighting the trend for the consumption of their citizens
at home.
The US, judging from what has happened in Iraq and the kind of forces
that are being encouraged in Libya, seems to be working on a carefully
calculated plan to Balkanise the Middle East by splitting the
countries into ethnic and religious mini-states. This, it hopes, will
give it full control of the rich hydro carbon resources in the region,
and also allow Israel levels of comfort. It is no secret that Israel
that has imprisoned the Palestinians into the two mutually hostile and
isolated areas of Gaza and the West Bank, had/has been worried about
Iraq that is now neutered, Libya that seems to be now coming under
pliable hands, Syria that France has already declared to be next on
the agenda, and Iran that is a constant thorn in the US foreign policy
turf.
A great deal will now depend on what Russia and China do, but of
course the war on Iraq was launched without the US even bothering for
a UNSC clearance.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <537671e3-0ae6-4b6c...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
through Pakistan, the consequences of Mrs. Clinton's rallying call to
arms will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
uprising has been more or less incited by the West. In fact when
. . .
bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>On Feb 7, 12:49 am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
>> people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
>> bunch of defenseless women and children.
>
>Lemme guess, LoYawn. You'll defend David Koresh too. Did you know they
>were armed to the teeth?
The bottom line is David Koresh did not kill anybody! Besides, the
>On Feb 7, 12:49 am, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
>> people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
>> bunch of defenseless women and children.
>
>Lemme guess, LoYawn. You'll defend David Koresh too. Did you know they
>were armed to the teeth?
Second Amendment spells out the right for US citizens to bear arms for
self-defense. Obviously, David Koresh was naive - he bought into the
mainstream propaganda that we the citizens have a lot of rights.
That mainstream propaganda about all of our rights is just patently
not true. Koresh thought he could protect the scores of children and
women he swore to protect. But the women and children were
fire-bombed to death by federal agents under President Clinton,
Hillary's husband.
Now you seemed to argue that because "they were armed to the teeth",
the killing of these women and children were justified. But then when
Assad's soldiers fought and killed armed insurgents who actually
killed a lot of soldiers (in fact some 2,000 of them) through
terrorist acts like bombing the buses which carry them and you wanted
others to sing your "Assad is evil" song. How transparent is your
propaganda work for the neocons!!!
>> In that case, the Branch Davidians were not even supported or
>> instigated by any foreign elements. When she laid blame alone on
>> Assad, she conveniently and systematically hid the fact that
>> actually 55% of Syrians, comprising the majority of the population,
>> support Assad's government as well as its current response to the
>> various armed groups.
>
>Your rant would be more convincing if you would say even one word in
>condemnation of Assad. But you don't give a fuck. You just want to
>bash the US because you are a hateful little man masquerading as a
>peace activist.
response to the uprising is no "rant". And it is no secret that from
Obama and Jay Carney at the White House down to Hillary Clinton, Susan
Rice, and Victoria Nuland at the State Department, to the mainstream
media have been systematically suppressing this fact and instead
always use the phrase "Assad kills his people"!
It's no secret because they just repeat the same phrase everyday so
it's all over the record.
It is the same falsehood every time they talk about Syria. And again,
it is no "rant" because it's 100% veritable fact. So, why should I
condemn Assad to help you out? Why should I bolster your neocon
bosses to help them execute another bloody regime change like what
happened in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Why should I pour gasoline
on a fire and cause more damage to Mother Earth and killing more of
her children? Why should I follow your despicable agenda?
And---"hateful little man"? You sound a lot more hateful than anyone
else who posts in these newsgroups. You hate so many people. And
your persistent tracking of my posts and venomous spewing each time
provides better evidence of your own "hateful" little self.
I'm certainly not masquerading anything because anybody who looks at
what happened to Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan can tell you that the
destruction and loss of life is many-fold greater through our invasion
and occupation wars and the NATO-backed regime change than Qaddafi,
Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban have ever been known to have done
(or even could have done).
Remember that Tariq Aziz said the American/British aggression "killed
Iraq", not just a few people, but the entire country.
Anyway you look at it, it is better to have peace than war.
And if you're not gunning for war, then we can all take turns to
condemn tyrants around the world. But unfortunately, the condemnation
you and your ilk call for are meant to start one war after another.
So, no condemnation, no thanks!
But since you're so full of shit, I'll repeat the above:
Your argued that because "they were armed to the teeth" - referring to
the Branch Davidians - the killing of these women and children were
justified. But then when Assad's soldiers killed armed insurgents who
had actually killed a lot of soldiers through terrorist acts like
bombing the buses which carried them - in fact some 2,000 of them have
been reported killed - to keep order, you wanted others to sing your
"Assad is evil" song. You are despicable.
Like the Russians are saying: Assad is not my friend. But I have no
grounds to condemn him. It's better not to start another war.
Congressman Paul opposes military intervention into Syria to remove
the president. He opposes overt statements and actions intended to
pressure President Assad into stepping down and he opposes covert
actions to remove him or aid in that goal. Congressman Paul states
that the goal of the US military is to defend the US, not the middle
east.
I wholeheartedly agree with Paul's foreign policy stand. America has
had enough wars already. America has done enough harm to the world
already. And the Middle Class America is falling into the unthinkable
poverty-level class; yet you're foaming your mouth talking about how
Iran "is a threat even without nukes".
You obviously are working for that 1% who don't give a damn about even
the vast majority of the American people. What a shame!
Notice that some US politicians' (unlike Ron Paul) call for US covert
operations in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere after Hillary Clinton's
"diplomatic train wreck" at the UNSC. But one commentator was quoted
as saying "Such grandstanding produced a bemused response from one
retired US official, who told the National `Everything that Mitt
Romney said we should be doing - tough sanctions, covert action and
pressuring the international community - are all of the things we are
actually doing."
Now, someone who is in the know is saying that we incited the Syrian
unrest.
And the Atlantic article entitled "Syria and the Pernicious
Consequences of Our Libya Intervention" which I attached in my
original follow-up (to baldeagle's post) and which I will once again
attach below because of its relevance does tell why it was so wrong to
force the bloody regime change in Libya and how it has made our other
"wolf" stories impotent!
Our hegemony agenda has been made transparent by our own expedient lie
last time. That may be a good thing in the long run; but don't blame
the messenger who is merely pointing to the painful truth! Rather,
blame the liars who made their own rhetoric impotent and their
apologists who insist or pretend that no lies have been made to
perpetrate their killings and war crimes.
But what I have cited above is just the beginning of why people are
saying our foreign policy is responsible for the unrest in Syria.
Read on!
>
>> Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively
>> driving the Syrian uprising.
>
>You sure? Or are you just spewing more shit?
humor you some. Besides, it will probably be educational for others
who haven't got a chance to inform themselves about the pernicious
consequences of the US foreign policy. Just look at some of the
recent examples:
The NGO scandal in Egypt which has been posted by myself and others
should provide a window into similar activities in other countries
around the world.
What happened in Libya last year is a classic case of subversion by
western powers - all the covert operations that went on there before
and during the country's uprisings and eventual destruction which have
come to light since.
In Pakistan, we've learned of American spy Raymond Davis assassinating
Pakistanis in cold blood in broad daylight and getting away with it.
We've also learned of such egregious acts as drone assassinations of
citizens.
A lot of subversive activities took place in Latin America which
explains why we're so unpopular among our neighbors.
In these newsgroups, the subject of US subversive activities in China
monks is nothing new. The traitor/war-lover Liu Xiaobo and the phony
Da Lama and his gangs have been well-paid by the NED and its various
NGO grantees.
Syria? Read on . . .
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-nato-syria-edmonds-709/
[December 13, 2011] Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, formerly a
translator with the FBI, wrote over the weekend that American
soldiers are among the NATO troops that have mysteriously and
suddenly landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border. According to
her, several sources internationally have confirmed the news,
although the US media has been instructed to temporarily censor
itself from reporting the news.
Additionally, Edmonds says that American and NATO forces are
training Turkish troops as well, to possibly launch a strike from
the north of Syria.
Edmonds writes that an Iraqi journalist based out of London has
confirmed that US forces that vacated the Ain al-Assad Air Base in
Iraq last week did in fact leave the country as part of President
Obama's drawdown of troops, but rather than return home, the
soldiers were transferred into Jordan during the late hours of
Thursday evening. Another source, writes Edmonds, informs her that
"soldiers who speak languages other than Arabic" have been moving
through Jordan mere miles from the country's border with
Syria. Troops believed to be NATO/American-affiliated have been
spotted between the King Hussein Air Base in al-Mafraq and the
Jordanian village of Albaej and its vicinity. Source RT.
Edmonds also said that NATO troops have been training in the area
outside of Syria since May, and that the U.S. press was prohibited
from reporting until this report came out.
[She also quoted a report from The DEBKA File: <snipped>]
But this piece written by Chossudovsky last fall is an eye opener:
"the dubious credentials of US ambassador to damascus, robert ford
Death Squads in Syria? (extracts)"
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Aug 16 2011
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/the-dubious-credentials-of-us-ambassador-to-damascus-robert-ford/
US Ambassador Robert Ford arrived in Damascus in late Jan 2011 at the
height of the protest movement in Egypt. The previous US Ambassador to
Syria was recalled by Washington following the 2005 assassination of
former Prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was blamed without evidence
on the government of Bashar Al Assad. The author was in Damascus on
Jan 27 2011 when Washington's envoy presented his credentials to the
Al Assad government. At the outset of my visit to Syria in Jan 2011, I
reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the
role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I
did not, however, foresee that this process would be implemented
within less than two months following the instatement of Robert Ford
as US Ambassador to Syria. The reinstatement of a US ambassador in
Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Ford as US ambassador,
bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in
mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad. Ford was the man
for the job. As "Number Two" at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005)
under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte, he played a key role in
implementing the Pentagon's "Iraq Salvador Options". The latter
consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces
modelled on the experience of Central America.
The Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab
protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US
State Dept as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment
for Democracy) to selected pro-US opposition groups. Known and
documented, the US State Dept "has been been funding opponents of
Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006". (CBC, Apr 18 2011) The
protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the "Arab
Spring", presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest
movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the
Mashriq. The fact of the matter is that these various country
initiatives were closely timed and coordinated. (Chossudovsky, Jan 29
2011) There is reason to believe that events in Syria, however, were
planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime
change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia. The
outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa
was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt. It is
worth noting that the US Embassy in various countries has played a
central role in supporting opposition groups. In Egypt, for instance,
the Apr 6 Youth Movement was supported directly by the US embassy in
Cairo.
Since his arrival in Damascus in late Jan 2011, Ford played a central
role in laying the groundwork as well as establishing contacts with
opposition groups. A functioning US embassy in Damascus was seen as a
precondition for carrying out a process of political destabilization
leading to "regime change". Ford is no ordinary diplomat. He was US
representative in Jan 2004 to the Shi'ite city of Najaf in Iraq. Najaf
was the stronghold of the Mahdi army. A few months later he was
appointed "Number Two Man" (Minister Counsellor for Political Affairs)
at the US embassy in Baghdad at the outset of Negroponte's tenure as
US Ambassador to Iraq (Jun 2004-Apr 2005). Ford subsequently served
under Negroponte's successor Zalmay Khalilzad prior to his appointment
as Ambassador to Algeria in 2006. Negroponte's mandate as US
ambassador to Iraq (together with Ford) was to coordinate out of the
US embassy, the covert support to death squads and paramilitary groups
in Iraq with a view to fomenting sectarian violence and weakening the
resistance movement. Ford as "Number Two" (Minister Counsellor for
Political Affairs) at the US Embassy played a central role in this
endeavor.
To understand Robert Ford's mandate in both Baghdad and subsequently
in Damascus, it is important to reflect briefly on the history of US
covert operations and the central role played by John Negroponte.
Negroponte had served as US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.
As Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, he played a key role in supporting and
supervising the Nicaraguan Contra mercenaries who were based in
Honduras. The cross border Contra attacks into Nicaragua claimed some
50,000 civilian lives. During the same period, Negroponte was
instrumental in setting up the Honduran military death squads,
operating with Washington support's [they] assassinated hundreds of
opponents of the US-backed regime." (Vann, Nov 2011) Negroponte also
brought into the team one of his former collaborators Colonel James
Steele (ret) from his Honduras heyday. (Jamail, Antiwar.com, Jan 7
2007) Negroponte described Robert Ford while at the embassy in
Baghdad, as "one of these very tireless people who didn't mind putting
on his flak jacket and helmet and going out of the Green Zone to meet
contacts." Ford is fluent in both Arabic and Turkish. He was
dispatched by Negroponte to undertake strategic contacts. (Newsweek,
Jan 8 2005) The plan had the support of the US-appointed Iraqi
government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Under Negroponte's helm at
the US Embassy in Baghdad, a wave of covert civilian killings and
targeted assassinations was unleashed. Engineers, medical doctors,
scientists and intellectuals were also targeted. The objective was to
create factional divisions between Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurds and
Christians, as well as weed out civilian support for the Iraqi
resistance. The Christian community was one of the main targets of the
assassination program. The Pentagon's objective also consisted in
training an Iraqi Army, Police and Security Forces, which would carry
out a homegrown "counter-insurgency" program (unofficially) on behalf
of the US. While conditions in Syria are markedly different to those
in Iraq, Ford's stint as "Number Two Man" at the US Embassy in Baghdad
has a direct bearing on the nature of his activities in Syria
including his contacts with opposition groups.
In early July, Ford travelled to Hama and had meetings with members of
the protest movement (WaPo, Jul 12 2011). Reports confirm that Ford
had numerous contacts with opposition groups both before and after his
July trip to Hama. In a recent statement (Aug 4), he confirmed that
the embassy will continue "reaching out" to opposition groups in
defiance of the Syrian authorities. New CIA head Petraeus, who led the
MNSTC "Counter-insurgency" program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination
with Negroponte, is slated to play a key intelligence role in relation
to Syria, including covert support to opposition forces and "freedom
fighters" , the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces,
etc. These tasks would be carried out in liaison with Ford. Both men
worked together in Iraq; they were part of Negroponte's extended team
in Baghdad in 2004-2005.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 7:08 am and
is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this
entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a
response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
After Libya The West Plots Attacking Iran And Syria
By Dr. Sawraj Singh
Saturday, November 12th, 2011
http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=11660
After murdering Gaddafi, the West is plotting to attack Iran and Syria
and repeat its performance in Libya. However, the situations in Iran
and Syria are very different than Libya. Iran in particular may prove
to be very dangerous and probably fatal for the West. Iran has a much
evolved and highly organized religious hierarchy. The religious
institutions are very deeply rooted in the people. The West already
had two major confrontations with Iran after the Islamic revolution.
The first, when the students occupied the American embassy and took
hostages. The second, when America incited Saddam to attack Iran. In
both of these situations, Iran was able to withstand the western
onslaught. Now, the West is using the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) report as an excuse to attack Iran. The IAEA's report
raises serious concerns about Iran's nuclear capability and its
ability to make nuclear weapons. However, Iran has called this report
prejudiced and biased. Iran says that the agency is very much
influenced and controlled by America and it is neither independent nor
impartial. France has already called for severe and crippling
sanctions on Iran. However, Russia and China will not allow these
sanctions. The West has not ruled out a military strike against Iran.
Russia has warned the West against attacking Iran and said that an
attack on Iran can lead to extremely serious and dangerous
consequences for the West.
What are some of the options which Iran may exert? Iran can disrupt
the shipping lanes. This can severely affect the oil supply of the
world, particularly of the western countries. This can worsen the
current economic crisis and block any chance of recovery. Iran, along
with its allies, can launch an all-out attack on Israel, severely
crippling and weakening Israel. This can very adversely affect the
American influence in the Middle East. Iran can unleash suicidal
attacks on American interests all over the world, which can severely
drain the American resources and hasten America's downfall as the only
superpower of the world. Iran probably has more than a million suicide
bomber volunteers. Iran can encourage its allies in Iraq to attack or
take the Americans as hostages. Similarly, Iran can encourage attacks
on Americans in Afghanistan. Russia has warned the West of very
serious consequences if it attacks Iran.
As opposed to Libya, Syria is very strategically located in the Middle
East, it borders Israel. The turmoil in Syria can easily spill over to
Israel. Israel has already lost Egypt as a friend. The West is divided
over Israel. America feels very strongly for Israel. However, this
feeling is not shared by its European allies. This became clear in a
recent conversation between Obama and Sarkozy. Sarkozy, not knowing
that his microphone was on, called the Israeli Prime Minister
(Benjamin Netanyahu) a liar. A conflict in the Middle East can further
deepen the Atlantic divide, thereby weakening further the American
control over the world.
An attack on Iran or Syria can prove to be a lose-lose situation for
America. After the miserable defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan, a defeat
in the Middle East or Iran can, for all practical purposes, end the
American era in the world. The stakes are very high for America. It
should think a hundred times before attacking Iran or Syria. Not only
can America sustain very serious wounds, but it can also prove very
damaging for the rest of the world.
Whether it is the IAEA, United Nations, World Bank, or the
International Monetary Fund, all of these institutions are based upon
inequality and injustice. All of these institutions need to be
fundamentally reformed to reflect the new realities of the world. The
West should give up arrogance and join the global community to find
the answers and solutions to the problems and challenges facing
mankind and the world.
Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State
Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington
Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at
sawra...@hotmail.com or 509-962-3652.
Syria is just an axis for American evil to spin
Seema Mustafa | Saturday, October 29, 2011
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_syria-is-just-an-axis-for-american-evil-to-spin_1604444
There is clearly some truth to the assertions by retired US general
Wesley Clark as far back as 2007 that were heard but generally
disregarded. Clark, did not mince his words in interviews and at
public meetings at that time, when he spoke of a US plan to "take out"
seven countries, "starting with Iraq, Libya and Syria" and going on to
Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan, before finishing with Iran in five years.
He said a Pentagon official showed him a memo to this effect just
before the invasion of Iraq. And when he asked him why are we doing
this, the official said "I don't know."
Clark went on to ask repeatedly: "What is our aim, what is our
purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in the region."
Clark pointed out that Bush and his team had effected a policy coup
without a national debate. "They wanted us to destabilise the Middle
East, turn it down, make it under our control," he said. But then his
voice was drowned by the jingoistic drums of the US national media.
Bush might have gone since then, but clearly the policies being
pursued by President Barack Obama are no different. The attack on
Libya proves that with Muammar Gaddafi being "taken out" by the US and
NATO forces riding on the back of what the world press has described
as the Arab Spring. A genuine people's movement in Egypt that has
unfortunately, not yielded much, except for the departure of the
ageing Hosni Mubarak, has been cashed into by the US policy makers to
unleash a wave of terror in the Middle East.
Libya became the testing field for US and Europe's military hardware
companies, as they have been advertising their prowess in killing
pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya in a bid to secure international defence
contracts.
Syria is apparently the next target on the US list. Work is in
progress to create a case for intervention. What would be described as
small insurgencies in the Indian context, are being blown out of all
proportion by the world's embedded media as the US and Europe prepares
for full scale intervention. Fortunately, the sophistication and
education of the Syrians has made them close ranks against foreign
interference.
While recognising the mistakes and follies of the Bashar al Assad
government, the Syrians seem to have decided not to make this an
issue, for the moment at least, and to work together to keep the
Americans from destroying Syria. This is one of the primary reasons
why the Opposition in cities like Homs is remaining isolated and even
petering out as in Deraa. The other, of course, is use of brutal force
by the regime, but this alone would not have worked in Syria in the
present circumstances, if the people were not willing to hold off the
"resistance" that they do not want to be exploited by foreign powers.
Syria was part of George W Bush' "axis of evils" and remains so in the
Obama book as well. A highly civilised country has been placed under
debilitating sanctions just because, unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
now Turkey, it has refused to march to another government's tune. It
has taken a fairly independent stand on Palestine and Israel, like
Iraq and Iran, and has a far less repressive government than Saudi
Arabia for instance, that remains a close and trusted US ally. In fact
Saudi Arabia has been unabashedly supporting Sunni Wahabi propaganda
to cut into the strong secularism of the Syrian state. And currently
the US and NATO are supporting the Islamists in Syria, even as they
claim to be fighting the trend for the consumption of their citizens
at home.
The US, judging from what has happened in Iraq and the kind of forces
that are being encouraged in Libya, seems to be working on a carefully
calculated plan to Balkanise the Middle East by splitting the
countries into ethnic and religious mini-states. This, it hopes, will
give it full control of the rich hydro carbon resources in the region,
and also allow Israel levels of comfort. It is no secret that Israel
that has imprisoned the Palestinians into the two mutually hostile and
isolated areas of Gaza and the West Bank, had/has been worried about
Iraq that is now neutered, Libya that seems to be now coming under
pliable hands, Syria that France has already declared to be next on
the agenda, and Iran that is a constant thorn in the US foreign policy
turf.
A great deal will now depend on what Russia and China do, but of
course the war on Iraq was launched without the US even bothering for
a UNSC clearance.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <537671e3-0ae6-4b6c...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
arms will be ponderous. Those under threat will be fighting
"claw, tooth and nail" as Annie Dillard put it.
It will be an existential battle for those who would be aggressed
upon.
Don't forget that as some of you have already pointed out, the Syrian
Clinton and her colleagues were saying over and over again that Assad
was killing the Syrian people, it was more than disingenuous.
was killing the Syrian people, it was more than disingenuous.
Mrs. Clinton's husband Bill killed his own people, namely the American
people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
bunch of defenseless women and children. In that case, the Branch
people when he sent Federal agents to fire-bomb Waco and killed a
Davidians were not even supported or instigated by any foreign
elements. When she laid blame alone on Assad, she conveniently and
systematically hid the fact that actually 55% of Syrians, comprising
the majority of the population, support Assad's government as well as
its current response to the various armed groups.
elements. When she laid blame alone on Assad, she conveniently and
systematically hid the fact that actually 55% of Syrians, comprising
the majority of the population, support Assad's government as well as
its current response to the various armed groups.
Again, don't forget US foreign policy is behind and actively driving
the Syrian uprising.
the Syrian uprising.
And don't forget that Russia and China have been lied to last year
vis-a-vis Libya. You get burned once, you will react "twice-shy" to
similar stimuli. They haven't forgotten that experience - in fact
they have repeatedly reminded the world how they were lied to.
How arrogant Clinton must have been then to think that Russia and
China would just meekly roll over again and the United Nations would
forever cease to function or as long as she is our chief diplomat?
And Clinton must be either very arrogant or very dumb to think that
the Chinese and the Russians aren't worried that they would themselves
eventually meet the same tragic fate as Libya has, if they remain in a
state of slumber and continue to let the aggressor advance eastward
toward them.
I say Russia and China have actually finally done something right. (I
was very unhappy about their spineless response to a perfectly clear
aggression last year.) But I am frankly amazed to see a reprise of
the idea of a coalition of the willing to fight in the Middle East
again, so soon after the Iraq war fiasco. It sounds so desperate and
so obviously a confession of a diplomatic defeat!
lo yeeOn
========
1) U.S. floats coalition against Syria
February 5, 2012 3:49 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371692/u.s-floats-coalition-against-syria/
<snip>
vis-a-vis Libya. You get burned once, you will react "twice-shy" to
similar stimuli. They haven't forgotten that experience - in fact
they have repeatedly reminded the world how they were lied to.
How arrogant Clinton must have been then to think that Russia and
China would just meekly roll over again and the United Nations would
forever cease to function or as long as she is our chief diplomat?
And Clinton must be either very arrogant or very dumb to think that
the Chinese and the Russians aren't worried that they would themselves
eventually meet the same tragic fate as Libya has, if they remain in a
state of slumber and continue to let the aggressor advance eastward
toward them.
I say Russia and China have actually finally done something right. (I
was very unhappy about their spineless response to a perfectly clear
aggression last year.) But I am frankly amazed to see a reprise of
the idea of a coalition of the willing to fight in the Middle East
again, so soon after the Iraq war fiasco. It sounds so desperate and
so obviously a confession of a diplomatic defeat!
lo yeeOn
========
1) U.S. floats coalition against Syria
February 5, 2012 3:49 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57371692/u.s-floats-coalition-against-syria/
. . .
lo yeeOn
Feb 9, 2012, 2:52:51 AM2/9/12
to
In article <3efa0098-634a-4d9f...@sk8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
them before they went off to war. It's still the same way with the
warriors today. They prefer a facade of legitimacy as they spill
blood and slaughter people.
During the Bush years, they avoided the embarassment of being publicly
rebuffed by France.
Now under Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a calculation and decided to make a
gamble on reckless brinksmanship. When she was told that the text she
wanted for the resolution was unacceptable, she rejected the avenue of
further negotiation and rushed a vote on a Saturday morning, a highly
unusual move. And she lost the gamble.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus called Mrs. Clinton's
UNSC defeat a "DIPLOMATIC TRAIN-WRECK". (His article is attached
below.)
Now Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to
overthrow Assad's government in Syria amidst a noisy chorus of
condemnation of the Russian and Chinese stand.
Regarding Mrs. Clinton's call for a coalition of the willing, the only
baldeagle <forc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>On Feb 6, 3:02 am, rst0 <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 12:24 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>If the US wanted to do the same in Syria ...go ahead
>to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
Even the warriors in the old days preferred that the priests blessed
>to invade Syria without UN approval... it can do so.
>Why seek UN approval ?
With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the US under Bush also sought a
UN resolution at first but abandoned the effort after seeing that it
would not get one (largely because of the opposition of France under
President Chirac). So they sought a coalition of the willing. And
that's nearly exactly what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do right now
after her "diplomatic train-wreck" at the UN Security Council.
them before they went off to war. It's still the same way with the
warriors today. They prefer a facade of legitimacy as they spill
blood and slaughter people.
During the Bush years, they avoided the embarassment of being publicly
rebuffed by France.
Now under Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a calculation and decided to make a
gamble on reckless brinksmanship. When she was told that the text she
wanted for the resolution was unacceptable, she rejected the avenue of
further negotiation and rushed a vote on a Saturday morning, a highly
unusual move. And she lost the gamble.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus called Mrs. Clinton's
UNSC defeat a "DIPLOMATIC TRAIN-WRECK". (His article is attached
below.)
Now Mrs. Clinton is calling for a coalition of the willing to
overthrow Assad's government in Syria amidst a noisy chorus of
condemnation of the Russian and Chinese stand.
Regarding Mrs. Clinton's call for a coalition of the willing, the only
j kwab
Feb 22, 2012, 10:15:55 PM2/22/12
to
>
> Lemme guess, LoYawn. You'll defend David Koresh too. Did you know they
> were armed to the teeth?
>
The govt falsely accused Koresh of having a meth lab, but this
> Lemme guess, LoYawn. You'll defend David Koresh too. Did you know they
> were armed to the teeth?
>
distinction enabled them to bring in military tanks. Koresh was
selling weapons as a way to make money. Lots of people make money from
selling weapons, though it's not really nothing compared to real arms
dealers of the military industrial complex. No citizen shouldn't own
pocket knives, in some states sling shots are illegal, but if you are
the govt military, torture, bio weapons, drones, tazer people who look
at you wrong, the sky is the limit.
The local sheriff knew Koresh well, and if the Feds wanted to ask
Koresh anything about weapons he had, he could have easily set up a
meeting and asked him. Instead they storm raided the compound without
any notice. The truth is the govt caused the compound to burn to the
ground (though they of course tried to blame it on the people in the
compound) and killed everyone inside including women and children.
Sure they had weapons and they where a sort of odd religious group,
but that's part of why they where targeted.
rst0
Feb 23, 2012, 12:14:53 AM2/23/12
to
you.
0 new messages