Talk about history repeating itself! Folks we're being lied to. This whole thing now has reached a level of absurdity that it is really hard to match in history. It's ludicrous. I don't know what other descriptor to use, really.
I've been reading, and reading, and reading; multiple sources, The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Economists, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal,The Nation, TruthDig, AlterNet, and many other sources.
I did the same when the drums of war against Iraq began to sound louder and louder entrancing much of the population into a state of mind-numbing jingoism. But one does not have to do that much reading and research to clearly see how preposterous the reasons given by the Administration to start an illegal war of aggression are.
The parallels with Iraq are eerie. Here's what a group of distinguished former intelligence professionals wrote in a letter to General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Presumably, there has not been enough time to give Sen. Levin’s committee an equivalent assessment of the implications of the new option described by the President Wednesday evening as a “tailored, limited” response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that he has been told was carried out by Syrian government forces. President Obama said, without elaboration, that a retaliatory strike is “needed … to protect U.S. security.”
It is precisely this kind of unsupported claim (so embarrassingly reminiscent of the spurious ones used more than a decade ago to “justify” attacks on Iraq) that needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis by both the Pentagon and Congress BEFORE the President orders military action. For some unexplained reason of urgency, that order may come within the next day or two. With no wish to prejudge the results of analysis presumably under way, we feel it our responsibility to tell you now that, speaking out of several hundred years of collective experience in intelligence and national security matters, we strongly believe that the President’s reference to a military strike on Syria being “needed to protect U.S. security” cannot bear close scrutiny.
No one has been able to present convincing evidence that Assad ordered the chemical weapons attack, but even if he did, what would launching a so-called "limited" military strike do? What would be accomplished?
Here's what policy analyst Phyllis Bennis had to say in the aptly named article "Moral Obscenities in Syria," published by The Nation:
Kerry seems to believe that this moral obscenity requires military action in response. Graham and McCain said so earlier. But he’s wrong. It’s likely that it was a chemical agent of some sort that led to mass sickness and many deaths in the Damascus suburb. And maybe it was the Syrian regime that was responsible for it. The questions that would then need to be asked, the questions “even if,” have to start with “So what should we do?”
Does anyone really believe that a military strike on an alleged chemical weapons factory would help the Syrian people, would save any lives, would help bring an end to this horrific civil war? What’s the best we could hope for, that a cruise missile strike would actually succeed, would accurately find its target and explode a warehouse full of chemical agents into airborne clouds of death?
And here's another question... It has been reported that Assad is moving his stockpile of chemical weapons to different locations. What would happen if our missiles strike a target that happens to have chemical weapons and that causes thousands of people to die?
This situation is not only "embarrassing" but barbaric. Of course, the whole thing is predicated upon a false dichotomy (which is usually how propaganda is presented). Here's what Ms. Bennis wrote about it:
The US government is creating a false dichotomy—it’s either a military strike, or we let them get away with it. No one is talking about any other kind of international accountability, nothing like the International Criminal Court. Last month, the White House “law group” noted that arming the rebels might violate international law. Do they think a cruise missile strike is okay? We heard President Obama a couple of days ago refer to international law. He said “if the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it … and those are considerations that we have to take into account.”
Like Iraq, this is just another mad rush to war (based on false pretenses).
And what's truly offensive is the used of words like "limited action." Let's turn it around... Here's what Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) had to say about that, as reported by The Huffington Post:
One of NPR's inside-the-box hosts of "All Things Considered" on August 30 asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the Obama administration's claim that missile strikes on Syria would be "a limited action" and not "war." Congresswoman Lofgren replied: "I think that anyone who argues that shooting missiles and dropping bombs on another country is not an act of war has got some further education warranted. If somebody shot cruise missiles at Washington for only one day, we would still consider it an act of war, wouldn't we?"
The emphasis is mine
We've seen this movie before--actually, quite a few times. Contact Congress and demand they abide by the will of the people: NO WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST SYRIA.
P.S. I welcome spirited debate about this topic, and I'm especially interested in hearing from people who do not agree with my position. However, I will not engage in discussion with people who write personal insults, or engage in disruptive behavior. I ask other serious people to do the same. To learn more about this subject, please visit the following links:
New Community Guidelines /
The 15 Rules of Web Disruption /
Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression /
Disinformation: How It Works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook