Here's William Rivers Pitt:
The short version of why such a course of action is an invitation to catastrophe: Syria is no paper tiger, and is very much capable of both defending itself as well as attacking American interests in the region if provoked. Syria and Iran are strategic allies and are pledged to each other's mutual defense, which means all the Iranian missile sites in the mountains above the Persian Gulf coast could launch their missiles in retaliation...and those Iranian missiles, by the by, are advanced enough to spoof Aegis radar systems, which means thousands of American service members currently manning our warships in the Gulf could very quickly be delivered into a watery grave.For the people trying to engineer this horror, drawing Iran into war is not a bug. It's a feature. It's Why We Fight.
Remember: If Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, Max Boot, Eliot Abrams and Michael Ledeen all say "Do this!" -- don't do it. If those guys tell you to look both ways before crossing the street, grab a blindfold.
3 comments:
Oh, so Pitt "read somewhere that Obama was a pretty smart guy." Well, that wouldn't have been Pitt himself in days gone by...Pitt was such an Obot brownshirt that he'd have BANNED anyone in Democratic Underground for suggesting that Barack was only "pretty smart." And now he and Mark "O-fluffer" Karlin write tepid apologies for their boyfriend in the White House...it's more hilarious than The Onion. Poor little Obama was "convinced" to do all this wrong by the big meanies and he'd better hurry and smarten up, oh my!!!
Mr. Cannon,
It is typical of Republicans to criticize without offering solutions. In the case of domestic spying, 1. There are people who want to blow us up. 2. I do not want them to blow me up. 3. They have sophisticated techniques to avoid detection prior to blowing me up. 4. What should the government do? With regard to Syria: 1. The Assad regime, over which I doubt Assad has complete control but that is another issue, is a minority, dictatorial, evil regime. 2. The rebels are, apparently, a bunch of thugs allied with terrorist groups. 3. Most of the population would like to get out of the way. 4. Somebody has used chemical weapons. 5. What should we do?
I like your sly reference to "Why We Fight".
This is about money and control of resources.
And Geostrategic interests - which is a fancy way of saying money.
As Smedley Darling Butler said, "War is a Racket".
March, 2007 on "Democracy Now" former General Wesley P. Clark said:
"About ten days after 911, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.
I went downstairs just to say hello to some people on the Joint staff who used to work for me, and one of the Generals called me in.
He said Sir ya 'gotta come in, you gotta come in and talk to me for a second.
I said Well you're too busy.
He no no he says, we've made the decision, we're going to war with Iraq.
This was on, or about, the 20th of September (2001).
I said, we're going to war with Iraq, why?
He said I don't know!
He said I guess they don't know what else to do.
So, I said well did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?
He said no no, there's nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.
He said I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.
And I said are we still going to war with Iraq? And he said oh, it's worse than that.
He said,, he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper, and he said I just got this down from upstairs, meaning the Secretary's of Defense office, today and he said this is a memo that describes how we're gonna to take out seven countries in five years.
Starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off, Iran."
-----------------
Since former General Clark said that, we have taken out:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and we are supporting terrorists and radical Islamists in the contrived civil war in Syria.
It has taken more than five years, but then again quagmires and reality have a way of screwing with PowerPoint inspired timetables.
Still, it is obvious to me that the Grand Chessboard agenda Clark spoke of is still on the table.
The end game being a way to go to war with Iran in order to weaken and box in Russia, and eventually stymie China's influence throughout Eurasia.
IMO the overthrow of those 7 countries is about control of resources, but most importantly, their overthrow is about International Central Banking.
Meaning, as always, it's about m-o-n-e-y.
Post a Comment