8 New Messages
Digest #4802
1
hello by "NealBetty@aol.com"
2
Obama’s Fumbling Incompetence On Syria by "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
3
Despite Russian Intervention, Syrian Concession, Obama To Push For W by "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
4
TheRealNews Syrian news coverage by "Blue Pilgrim" bluepilgrim1
5
Foreign Office parliamentary aide and Tory MP Tobias Elwood - "Brita by "mart unknown"
6
Why Do They Love War So? by "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
7
Leader of Exceptional Nation: U.S. Military Doesn't Do Pinpricks by "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
8
World Won't Buy "Anchor Of Global Security's" Syria War Plans by "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
Messages
1
hello
Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:27 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"NealBetty@aol.com"
http://joshuasheart
____________
That is the sort of English up with which I will not put. -- Winston Churchill
____________
That is the sort of English up with which I will not put. -- Winston Churchill
Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:28 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://antiwar.
Antiwar.com
September 10, 2013
Obama’s Fumbling Incompetence on Syria
John Glaser
In most cases throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve hesitated to criticize the administration for incompetence or ineptitude. In his famously deliberative style, I’ve typically believed President Obama to be cold and calculating in his ruthless and extra-legal drone war. He has been thoughtful in crafting and executing his military expansionism in Asia aimed at containing a rising China. In Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, his despotic use of the Espionage Act, his dramatic swelling of the surveillance state – the president has been severe, unlawful, even dishonest, but seemingly adept.
I can’t say the same for what has happened the past few weeks with Syria. From the moment news hit of the alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21, Obama has been a fumbling, klutzy, shortsighted picture of incompetence. The administration announced an imminent attack on Syria after crossing his ill-conceived “red-line” and moved naval warships to the Mediterranean ready to hit targets in and around Damascus. Then he waited for Britain’s show of support, which he didn’t get. He failed to communicate any persuasive message to any allies and thus had zero international backing. He also lacked backing from the military and intelligence community, as Americans found out through the newspapers. The war plans made little sense to people: it’s a strike to punish but not topple Assad, it’s to uphold the ban on chemical weapons use but it’s not a humanitarian intervention to save the Syrian people, it’s a limited mission that won’t draw us
into another quagmire but we aren’t entertaining any contingency plans for reaction, retaliation, and asymmetrical warfare in response.
So he went to Congress, which thankfully stalled and deliberated and failed to give the president the immediate political support he expected. Still, the administration publicly repeated that the president had the authority to strike without Congress, despite leaks to the press that said he didn’t intend to do so.
Then John Kerry, Obama’s secretary of state and war-monger in chief, let slip a sarcastic remark in a press conference about what Assad would have to do to avert a U.S. strike. Intending to construct a scenario so unlikely that it would highlight Syria’s intransigence, Kerry said Assad would have to hand over his chemical weapons stockpiles to the control of the international community. Only then would the U.S. consider not bombing. To John Kerry’s embarrassed surprise, Russia said it would urge Assad to do exactly that.
Kerry demurred, insisting his comments were rhetorical, not a legitimate diplomatic proposal. But then Syria indicated its willingness to go ahead with this plan if it would “prevent American aggression.” Later that day, Obama went on six cable news stations and said he’d be willing to see this plan through, because he’s always wanted a peaceful resolution instead of war.
The whole process has been a parade of uncoordinated, amateurish, bungled foreign policy-making, unsure of itself the entire way. But I guess mismanagement without war is better than mismanagement after it starts.
That is not to say the party of gaffes, errors, and dangerously improvid
Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy advises the Obama administration to view this accidental diplomatic deal “a foreign policy gift from the gods.” It could potentially rescue them from the doomed war box they idiotically constructed for themselves, he argues. That said, if the deal is successful, it staves off this current crisis of an apparently impending U.S. military strike on Syria. But the civil war goes back to what it was pre-August 21.
The U.S. and its allies will go back to encouraging the rebel opposition and the Russians and Iranians will continue to carefully back the Assad regime, and Syria will continue to destroy itself. And that leaves room for all the more incompetence down the road.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Antiwar.com
September 10, 2013
Obama’s Fumbling Incompetence on Syria
John Glaser
In most cases throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve hesitated to criticize the administration for incompetence or ineptitude. In his famously deliberative style, I’ve typically believed President Obama to be cold and calculating in his ruthless and extra-legal drone war. He has been thoughtful in crafting and executing his military expansionism in Asia aimed at containing a rising China. In Obama’s unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, his despotic use of the Espionage Act, his dramatic swelling of the surveillance state – the president has been severe, unlawful, even dishonest, but seemingly adept.
I can’t say the same for what has happened the past few weeks with Syria. From the moment news hit of the alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21, Obama has been a fumbling, klutzy, shortsighted picture of incompetence. The administration announced an imminent attack on Syria after crossing his ill-conceived “red-line” and moved naval warships to the Mediterranean ready to hit targets in and around Damascus. Then he waited for Britain’s show of support, which he didn’t get. He failed to communicate any persuasive message to any allies and thus had zero international backing. He also lacked backing from the military and intelligence community, as Americans found out through the newspapers. The war plans made little sense to people: it’s a strike to punish but not topple Assad, it’s to uphold the ban on chemical weapons use but it’s not a humanitarian intervention to save the Syrian people, it’s a limited mission that won’t draw us
into another quagmire but we aren’t entertaining any contingency plans for reaction, retaliation, and asymmetrical warfare in response.
So he went to Congress, which thankfully stalled and deliberated and failed to give the president the immediate political support he expected. Still, the administration publicly repeated that the president had the authority to strike without Congress, despite leaks to the press that said he didn’t intend to do so.
Then John Kerry, Obama’s secretary of state and war-monger in chief, let slip a sarcastic remark in a press conference about what Assad would have to do to avert a U.S. strike. Intending to construct a scenario so unlikely that it would highlight Syria’s intransigence, Kerry said Assad would have to hand over his chemical weapons stockpiles to the control of the international community. Only then would the U.S. consider not bombing. To John Kerry’s embarrassed surprise, Russia said it would urge Assad to do exactly that.
Kerry demurred, insisting his comments were rhetorical, not a legitimate diplomatic proposal. But then Syria indicated its willingness to go ahead with this plan if it would “prevent American aggression.” Later that day, Obama went on six cable news stations and said he’d be willing to see this plan through, because he’s always wanted a peaceful resolution instead of war.
The whole process has been a parade of uncoordinated, amateurish, bungled foreign policy-making, unsure of itself the entire way. But I guess mismanagement without war is better than mismanagement after it starts.
That is not to say the party of gaffes, errors, and dangerously improvid
Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy advises the Obama administration to view this accidental diplomatic deal “a foreign policy gift from the gods.” It could potentially rescue them from the doomed war box they idiotically constructed for themselves, he argues. That said, if the deal is successful, it staves off this current crisis of an apparently impending U.S. military strike on Syria. But the civil war goes back to what it was pre-August 21.
The U.S. and its allies will go back to encouraging the rebel opposition and the Russians and Iranians will continue to carefully back the Assad regime, and Syria will continue to destroy itself. And that leaves room for all the more incompetence down the road.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
September 10, 2013
News Analysis: Despite major risks, Obama to push for Syria strike with nationally televised speech
By Matthew Rusling
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Barack Obama is to push hard for a strike on Syria with a nationally broadcast speech Tuesday, despite experts' warnings that military action could entangle the U.S. in a no-win situation.
In recent weeks, Obama announced he would seek Congressional approval for plans to launch a "limited" strike on Syria for the allegations that Damascus unleashed a deadly chemical weapons attack on its own people - crossing the "red line" that Obama has said could trigger U.S. military involvement.
Tuesday'
As part of that effort, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Sunday, during one of his five network television interviews, that U.S. intelligence on the alleged chemical weapons attack is accurate.
But experts say the U.S. risks getting sucked into a quagmire, with many arguing that military action would simply amount to yet another player entering a multi-faction civil war in which no side currently dominates.
Jeffrey Martini, a Middle East analyst with policy research group Rand Corp., told Xinhua that a strike could pull the U.S. into the type of conflict that Washington has so far sought to avoid.
Other experts argued that despite the Obama administration&#
Some wonder what exactly the Obama administration aims to accomplish, as the White House has so far released few details about its military goals if it carries out a strike.
Erica Borghard, an independent expert on U.S. foreign policy, said the Syrian government could easily absorb the damage from a limited strike.
The U.S. also runs the risk of being viewed as a "paper tiger" by anti-American militants, as a limited attack would inflict minimal damage to Damascus and embolden terrorists, some experts and pundits said, citing former President Bill Clinton as an example.
In 1998, two weeks after an al-Qaida attack on two U.S. embassies in Africa, Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at a factory in Sudan and an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan.
But the attacks did little damage and critics argued that the strike simply emboldened al-Qaida'
All this puts Obama in a sticky position, in which he must play the least bad hand in a bad deck. On one hand, not taking action now after so much White House "red line" rhetoric would be a major blow to U.S. credibility worldwide.
But on the other hand, experts say Americans do not want a third war in 12 years, after the brutal conflict in Iraq and a continuing war in Afghanistan that began after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the lead-up to a vote in Congress, Obama may be assured backing from the Democrat-controlled Senate, but the GOP-controlled House will be a tough sell, said Republican strategist Ford O'Connell.
The vote comes in the lead-up to the 2014 mid-term elections, where all House seats will be up for grabs. With the majority of the country opposing a Syria strike, House lawmakers consider a yes vote an electorally risky move.
Support will be easier in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where only 35 seats are open, O'Connell said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
September 10, 2013
News Analysis: Despite major risks, Obama to push for Syria strike with nationally televised speech
By Matthew Rusling
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Barack Obama is to push hard for a strike on Syria with a nationally broadcast speech Tuesday, despite experts' warnings that military action could entangle the U.S. in a no-win situation.
In recent weeks, Obama announced he would seek Congressional approval for plans to launch a "limited" strike on Syria for the allegations that Damascus unleashed a deadly chemical weapons attack on its own people - crossing the "red line" that Obama has said could trigger U.S. military involvement.
Tuesday'
As part of that effort, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Sunday, during one of his five network television interviews, that U.S. intelligence on the alleged chemical weapons attack is accurate.
But experts say the U.S. risks getting sucked into a quagmire, with many arguing that military action would simply amount to yet another player entering a multi-faction civil war in which no side currently dominates.
Jeffrey Martini, a Middle East analyst with policy research group Rand Corp., told Xinhua that a strike could pull the U.S. into the type of conflict that Washington has so far sought to avoid.
Other experts argued that despite the Obama administration&#
Some wonder what exactly the Obama administration aims to accomplish, as the White House has so far released few details about its military goals if it carries out a strike.
Erica Borghard, an independent expert on U.S. foreign policy, said the Syrian government could easily absorb the damage from a limited strike.
The U.S. also runs the risk of being viewed as a "paper tiger" by anti-American militants, as a limited attack would inflict minimal damage to Damascus and embolden terrorists, some experts and pundits said, citing former President Bill Clinton as an example.
In 1998, two weeks after an al-Qaida attack on two U.S. embassies in Africa, Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at a factory in Sudan and an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan.
But the attacks did little damage and critics argued that the strike simply emboldened al-Qaida'
All this puts Obama in a sticky position, in which he must play the least bad hand in a bad deck. On one hand, not taking action now after so much White House "red line" rhetoric would be a major blow to U.S. credibility worldwide.
But on the other hand, experts say Americans do not want a third war in 12 years, after the brutal conflict in Iraq and a continuing war in Afghanistan that began after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the lead-up to a vote in Congress, Obama may be assured backing from the Democrat-controlled Senate, but the GOP-controlled House will be a tough sell, said Republican strategist Ford O'Connell.
The vote comes in the lead-up to the 2014 mid-term elections, where all House seats will be up for grabs. With the majority of the country opposing a Syria strike, House lawmakers consider a yes vote an electorally risky move.
Support will be easier in the Democrat-controlled Senate, where only 35 seats are open, O'Connell said.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Blue Pilgrim" bluepilgrim1
The real news network has had some fairly good coverage of the Syrian
issue. http://therealnews.
Two, today, which are worth watching (or reading transcripts) are
http://therealnews.
Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack
Pt 1: Gareth Porter: US Intelligence on Syria "cherry-
proponents of proposed strike - September 10, 13
and
http://therealnews.
Obama's Syria Strike Driven By Oil Interests, Not Concern Over Gas Attacks
Nafeez Ahmed: US and its regional partners have long term interest
in region's oil and are using gas attacks as pretext for military
action - 2 hours ago
[ yeah -- the 'poison gas' is not what's shot at people but what
could go through a Syrian pipeline!]
A handy list of various stories on the topic are
at
http://therealnews.
The Struggle for Syria ...
Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:24 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
Please distribute widely
*Foreign Office parliamentary aide and Tory MP Tobias Elwood - "Britain
'must have two aircraft carriers to be 'global player' "
*
Jeeze....just what the Brits need for their next illegal war - two new
massive 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at 3-billion-�-plus each - and
equipped with - at further additional cost - a "*multi-
still escalating price-tag"
bellicose demands of the military, one would never guess that Britain is
broke, that there's massive unemployment, along with huge and growing
social inequality and unrest - or that due to "austerity&quo
by the banksters - that Britain is slashing spending on healthcare and
education, that it's gutting and eliminating social programs and that it's
cutting pensions for the old and the sick, due to a bankster-created
supposed "debt and deficit crisis" - (while still slashing taxes for the
rich of course). Hmm??? - mart
------------
www.telegraph.
*The Telegraph
www.telegraph.
*Sept 9, 2013
*
*
Britain 'must have two aircraft carriers to be global player'
Britain must have two working aircraft carriers if it wants to be a global
military player, a Foreign Office parliamentary aide has said.
By Ben Farmer,
Telegraph Defence Correspondent
8:10PM BST 09 Sep 2013*
["*..lack of British carriers during the 2011 Libya campaign had meant that
RAF Tornadoes and Typhoons had been forced to fly a 3,000 mile round trip
from the UK to hit Col Gaddafi�s forces.*"
[ "*Running both carriers would cement Britain�s position as �a global
player with a military power of the first rank*,�]
*
A Government cost-cutting proposal *to mothball or sell one of two carriers
being built would be a poor use of public money, Tobias Ellwood MP said in
a report for a military think tank.
Trying to rely on a single carrier would also undermine the UK�s ability to
cope with international crises.
Mr Ellwood said: �The UK either needs a carrier capability or it does not.
�If it does, then a minimum of two are required in order to have one
permanently available.�
Running both carriers would cement Britain�s position as �a global player
with a military power of the first rank,� he said.
The Government has yet to decide the fate of the two 65,000 ton Queen
Elizabeth class carriers currently being built, but the 2010 defence review
proposed selling one or keeping it mothballed to save money.
Mr Ellwood, in a report for the Royal United Services Institute, said: �A
�3-billion carrier waiting in �suspended animation� in Portsmouth to be
activated has political consequences, as does the selling of a ship at a
loss.
�Neither option is a sensible use of taxpayers� money. Indeed, the latter
should be firmly disregarded.�
He said the lack of British carriers during the 2011 Libya campaign had
meant that RAF Tornadoes and Typhoons had been forced to fly a 3,000 mile
round trip from the UK to hit Col Gaddafi�s forces.
Even when a base became available in Italy, he said air raids were still
four times more expensive than if they had been launched from a carrier in
the Mediterranean.
Mr Ellwood, a former Army officer, said: �The carrier�s agility and
independence means it is likely to be one of the first assets deployed to
any hotspot around the globe.�
He said a single carrier would only be available around 200 days per year
because of maintenance work.
Last week backbenchers on the Public Accounts Committee warned the aircraft
carrier programme faced further spiralling costs.
The project remained a �high risk� because technical problems had not been
resolved and there was potential for �uncontrolled growth� in the final
bill.
The committee also said a decision to change the type of planes to fly from
the carriers had wasted tens of millions of pounds.
The Ministry of Defence had originally opted for jump jet versions of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, then switched to the carrier variant, only to
return to the jump jets again last year when costs soared.
Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary, said no decision would be made on what
to do with the two carriers until the 2015 strategic defence and security
review.
But money saved by reverting to the jump jet F-35s meant there was the
possibility of having two operational carriers.
He said: �Of course there are operational cost implications of holding two
carriers available rather than one, but we will weigh very carefully the
benefits of that and the costs of that in the review.�
------------
*Photo: *"*The UK either needs a carrier capability or it does not' *"
http://i.telegraph.
[image:
http://i.telegraph.
============
Please distribute widely
*Foreign Office parliamentary aide and Tory MP Tobias Elwood - "Britain
'must have two aircraft carriers to be 'global player' "
*
Jeeze....just what the Brits need for their next illegal war - two new
massive 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, at 3-billion-�-plus each - and
equipped with - at further additional cost - a "*multi-
still escalating price-tag"
bellicose demands of the military, one would never guess that Britain is
broke, that there's massive unemployment, along with huge and growing
social inequality and unrest - or that due to "austerity&quo
by the banksters - that Britain is slashing spending on healthcare and
education, that it's gutting and eliminating social programs and that it's
cutting pensions for the old and the sick, due to a bankster-created
supposed "debt and deficit crisis" - (while still slashing taxes for the
rich of course). Hmm??? - mart
------------
www.telegraph.
*The Telegraph
www.telegraph.
*Sept 9, 2013
*
*
Britain 'must have two aircraft carriers to be global player'
Britain must have two working aircraft carriers if it wants to be a global
military player, a Foreign Office parliamentary aide has said.
By Ben Farmer,
Telegraph Defence Correspondent
8:10PM BST 09 Sep 2013*
["*..lack of British carriers during the 2011 Libya campaign had meant that
RAF Tornadoes and Typhoons had been forced to fly a 3,000 mile round trip
from the UK to hit Col Gaddafi�s forces.*"
[ "*Running both carriers would cement Britain�s position as �a global
player with a military power of the first rank*,�]
*
A Government cost-cutting proposal *to mothball or sell one of two carriers
being built would be a poor use of public money, Tobias Ellwood MP said in
a report for a military think tank.
Trying to rely on a single carrier would also undermine the UK�s ability to
cope with international crises.
Mr Ellwood said: �The UK either needs a carrier capability or it does not.
�If it does, then a minimum of two are required in order to have one
permanently available.�
Running both carriers would cement Britain�s position as �a global player
with a military power of the first rank,� he said.
The Government has yet to decide the fate of the two 65,000 ton Queen
Elizabeth class carriers currently being built, but the 2010 defence review
proposed selling one or keeping it mothballed to save money.
Mr Ellwood, in a report for the Royal United Services Institute, said: �A
�3-billion carrier waiting in �suspended animation� in Portsmouth to be
activated has political consequences, as does the selling of a ship at a
loss.
�Neither option is a sensible use of taxpayers� money. Indeed, the latter
should be firmly disregarded.�
He said the lack of British carriers during the 2011 Libya campaign had
meant that RAF Tornadoes and Typhoons had been forced to fly a 3,000 mile
round trip from the UK to hit Col Gaddafi�s forces.
Even when a base became available in Italy, he said air raids were still
four times more expensive than if they had been launched from a carrier in
the Mediterranean.
Mr Ellwood, a former Army officer, said: �The carrier�s agility and
independence means it is likely to be one of the first assets deployed to
any hotspot around the globe.�
He said a single carrier would only be available around 200 days per year
because of maintenance work.
Last week backbenchers on the Public Accounts Committee warned the aircraft
carrier programme faced further spiralling costs.
The project remained a �high risk� because technical problems had not been
resolved and there was potential for �uncontrolled growth� in the final
bill.
The committee also said a decision to change the type of planes to fly from
the carriers had wasted tens of millions of pounds.
The Ministry of Defence had originally opted for jump jet versions of the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, then switched to the carrier variant, only to
return to the jump jets again last year when costs soared.
Philip Hammond, Defence Secretary, said no decision would be made on what
to do with the two carriers until the 2015 strategic defence and security
review.
But money saved by reverting to the jump jet F-35s meant there was the
possibility of having two operational carriers.
He said: �Of course there are operational cost implications of holding two
carriers available rather than one, but we will weigh very carefully the
benefits of that and the costs of that in the review.�
------------
*Photo: *"*The UK either needs a carrier capability or it does not' *"
http://i.telegraph.
[image:
http://i.telegraph.
============
Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:42 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.china.
China.org.cn
September 10, 2013
Why do they love war so?
By Zhao Jinglun
"For what can war but endless war still breed?" - Milton
Barack Obama is feverishly preparing for war against Syria. But why? Al-Assad has crossed the "red line"- he gassed his own people!
Really? In 1988, America'
And in the November 2004 fight for Fallujah, Iraq, the U.S. forces themselves used illegal white phosphorus munitions.
Their moves are hypocritical. Their pretext is to "punish" al-Assad"
John McCain first mentioned the phrase "to help turn the tide of war." There is no war that McCain does not like, and he learned nothing from his five-year sojourn in the Hanoi Hilton. He and Lindsey Graham, another war lover, spoke to reporters after a meeting with Obama, saying they wanted to see Obama articulate a broader strategy, "a goal that over time to degrade Bashar Assad's capabilities, to increase and upgrade the capabilities of the Syrian Free Army and the Free Syrian government so they can reverse the momentum on the battlefield.
They came away encouraged. McCain said that he had urged Obama to think beyond simply punitive strikes against Assad and he indicated that a bigger response is under consideration. "I don't think that it is an accident that the aircraft carrier is moving over in the region," he said.
Helping a friend has a clear precedent. In 1988, in the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraq's defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq and helped Iraq avoid a major defeat.
There is another war lover I should not leave unmentioned: Samantha Power, the Amazon warrior, the Valkyrie, the Hindu goddess and the "reincarnated war hawk". She told an audience at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. that there is "no risk free door number two" in regard to Syria."
She said that the United States must take limited military action against the use of weapons of mass destruction to "deter others in the world who may follow suit." Does she know that another woman warrior before her said something similar and tried to scare the American people with a "mushroom cloud" which turned out to be a lot of smoke? (I am of course talking about Condoleezza Rice.)
Obama is not the first war lover in American history. There is saying that the United States has fought 260 wars since its founding, and fifty in the past half century alone. Of these, large-scale conflicts include: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish War, the First World War, the Second World War, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The First Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghan war and the Libya War (2011).
These wars resulted in huge casualties. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel economics prize winner, the Afghan and Iraq wars cost the United States some six trillion dollars if ongoing medical expenses for veterans are included.
The U.S. "limited strike" against Syria may not last just two days. It may be three…As war is the most unpredictable human enterprise, no one really knows how long America'
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
China.org.cn
September 10, 2013
Why do they love war so?
By Zhao Jinglun
"For what can war but endless war still breed?" - Milton
Barack Obama is feverishly preparing for war against Syria. But why? Al-Assad has crossed the "red line"- he gassed his own people!
Really? In 1988, America'
And in the November 2004 fight for Fallujah, Iraq, the U.S. forces themselves used illegal white phosphorus munitions.
Their moves are hypocritical. Their pretext is to "punish" al-Assad"
John McCain first mentioned the phrase "to help turn the tide of war." There is no war that McCain does not like, and he learned nothing from his five-year sojourn in the Hanoi Hilton. He and Lindsey Graham, another war lover, spoke to reporters after a meeting with Obama, saying they wanted to see Obama articulate a broader strategy, "a goal that over time to degrade Bashar Assad's capabilities, to increase and upgrade the capabilities of the Syrian Free Army and the Free Syrian government so they can reverse the momentum on the battlefield.
They came away encouraged. McCain said that he had urged Obama to think beyond simply punitive strikes against Assad and he indicated that a bigger response is under consideration. "I don't think that it is an accident that the aircraft carrier is moving over in the region," he said.
Helping a friend has a clear precedent. In 1988, in the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraq's defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq and helped Iraq avoid a major defeat.
There is another war lover I should not leave unmentioned: Samantha Power, the Amazon warrior, the Valkyrie, the Hindu goddess and the "reincarnated war hawk". She told an audience at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. that there is "no risk free door number two" in regard to Syria."
She said that the United States must take limited military action against the use of weapons of mass destruction to "deter others in the world who may follow suit." Does she know that another woman warrior before her said something similar and tried to scare the American people with a "mushroom cloud" which turned out to be a lot of smoke? (I am of course talking about Condoleezza Rice.)
Obama is not the first war lover in American history. There is saying that the United States has fought 260 wars since its founding, and fifty in the past half century alone. Of these, large-scale conflicts include: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish War, the First World War, the Second World War, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The First Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghan war and the Libya War (2011).
These wars resulted in huge casualties. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel economics prize winner, the Afghan and Iraq wars cost the United States some six trillion dollars if ongoing medical expenses for veterans are included.
The U.S. "limited strike" against Syria may not last just two days. It may be three…As war is the most unpredictable human enterprise, no one really knows how long America'
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:51 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rickrozoff.
Stop NATO
September 10, 2013 Leader of Exceptional Nation: U.S. Military Doesn't Do Pinpricks
Rick RozoffIn his address to the American people, and by its very nature to the world as well as to the city, President Barack Obama delighted in playing the role of the emperor of the first global domain, omniscient and determined and even capricious in regard to the military at his command - the mightiest in the world, the most formidable in history, as he reminded his viewers - and when he will order it to strike Syria. The commander-in-
pinpricks." Thereby providing the Syrian government, and by unavoidable implication its allies Russia and Iran and the world as whole "a message that no other nation can deliver." After all, as Obama mentioned in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he is the commander-in-
according to Obama, but rather "in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action." The most atrocious aspect of the self-assured, self-centered, self-deluded presentation was his personal boast of his "deeply held preference for peaceful solutions"
Stop NATO
September 10, 2013 Leader of Exceptional Nation: U.S. Military Doesn't Do Pinpricks
Rick RozoffIn his address to the American people, and by its very nature to the world as well as to the city, President Barack Obama delighted in playing the role of the emperor of the first global domain, omniscient and determined and even capricious in regard to the military at his command - the mightiest in the world, the most formidable in history, as he reminded his viewers - and when he will order it to strike Syria. The commander-in-
pinpricks." Thereby providing the Syrian government, and by unavoidable implication its allies Russia and Iran and the world as whole "a message that no other nation can deliver." After all, as Obama mentioned in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he is the commander-in-
according to Obama, but rather "in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action." The most atrocious aspect of the self-assured, self-centered, self-deluded presentation was his personal boast of his "deeply held preference for peaceful solutions"
Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:07 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
September 11, 2013
Commentary: Military strike against Syria, neither strategic nor tactic
BEIJING: On the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11 terrorism attacks against his country, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a rare prime time TV address to another round of pitching on Syria.
After staging two long-lasting and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2011, it could be never known whether the U.S. policymakers get wiser on anti-terror war or potential threats of Syria's chemical weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
Obama has threatened to resort to military action against Syria based on the allegation that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, more Americans and the world community have come to know that military strikes from a flip-flopper posed to stand for "hope and change" may work expediently in presidential campaigns, but it is coordinated international diplomatic efforts that benefits the stability of Middle East in the long run.
Obama's remarks that "America is not the world's policeman" are reflected in the two-year conflict in Syria, the bloodshedding protests in Egypt and the Benghazi tragedy, in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, lost their lives on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks. These actually proved that Washington has not much to play as the world's policeman.
The Obama administration also ought to realize that it was not its military threat that made the Syrian government willing to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal.
It is the diplomatic efforts made by countries like Russia and China, and more importantly, the consequences of a civil war and possible terrorists attacks that lead to the breakthrough.
No one knows better than Obama himself about the situation of his country in its anti-terror war and the conflicts in the Middle East.
As the history of the U.S. targeted strikes had been marred by errors, notably civilian casualties, little support on his Syrian plan inside and outside the country testifies to the cracking of the reputation and credibility of the United States.
The image of "anchor of global security" may be further tarnished by fallouts of military bills, slope to another war, retaliation of extremists and partisan bickering, which all were pointed out in the president'
The rhetorical description and narration of dying kids are quite forceful, but coordinated diplomatic efforts are more strategic.
Also, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the U.S. president cannot be clearer that Americans and the international community won't buy his plan of striking Syria without convincing evidence.
Xinhua News Agency
September 11, 2013
Commentary: Military strike against Syria, neither strategic nor tactic
BEIJING: On the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11 terrorism attacks against his country, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a rare prime time TV address to another round of pitching on Syria.
After staging two long-lasting and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2011, it could be never known whether the U.S. policymakers get wiser on anti-terror war or potential threats of Syria's chemical weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
Obama has threatened to resort to military action against Syria based on the allegation that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, more Americans and the world community have come to know that military strikes from a flip-flopper posed to stand for "hope and change" may work expediently in presidential campaigns, but it is coordinated international diplomatic efforts that benefits the stability of Middle East in the long run.
Obama's remarks that "America is not the world's policeman" are reflected in the two-year conflict in Syria, the bloodshedding protests in Egypt and the Benghazi tragedy, in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, lost their lives on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks. These actually proved that Washington has not much to play as the world's policeman.
The Obama administration also ought to realize that it was not its military threat that made the Syrian government willing to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal.
It is the diplomatic efforts made by countries like Russia and China, and more importantly, the consequences of a civil war and possible terrorists attacks that lead to the breakthrough.
No one knows better than Obama himself about the situation of his country in its anti-terror war and the conflicts in the Middle East.
As the history of the U.S. targeted strikes had been marred by errors, notably civilian casualties, little support on his Syrian plan inside and outside the country testifies to the cracking of the reputation and credibility of the United States.
The image of "anchor of global security" may be further tarnished by fallouts of military bills, slope to another war, retaliation of extremists and partisan bickering, which all were pointed out in the president'
The rhetorical description and narration of dying kids are quite forceful, but coordinated diplomatic efforts are more strategic.
Also, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the U.S. president cannot be clearer that Americans and the international community won't buy his plan of striking Syria without convincing evidence.