Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Monday, September 02, 2013

Drone Nation



There remains a great deal more to be said about Syria and other issues. But right now, I'd like to direct your attention to this superb, shattering documentary. It's not short -- around 50 minutes in length -- but I guarantee that if you give it a chance, you'll be hooked.

And outraged.
Comments:
Thanks...I'm tempted to watch all the other parts, but maybe not tonight.

I heard that John Kerry went on FIVE morning shows to sell this war.

I'm out of words tonight.
 
I expected little good out of Obama. But Kerry has tarnished himself in his efforts for this president.

So did Hillary.

A long time ago, I predicted that Barack Obama would go down in history as the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party. He has been better than expected in some areas, but in others, he has been even worse than thought possible.
 
What are we now standing in, post what's supposed to be the pullback from attacking Syria?

Watch what's said about Russia as well as Iran.

The prospect of an arrival of Russian warships may be making a difference. We're talking about a small fleet, but one with an amphibious capability, possibly carrying 2000 marines.

Sounding for all the world like Michael Ledeen, is MI6 guy and hasbaranik David Blair, chief foreign correspondent at the Torygraph setting the pace, in this piece?

"Whatever happens in the next few weeks, one lesson is already clear: the axis between Russia, Iran and President Bashar al-Assad is deciding the course of events in Syria"

"So whether it comes to weapons, cash or boots on the ground, either Russia or Iran will actually deliver."

"If, following Britain's abdication, Mr Obama does not deliver, then the field will be left clear for the Russia-Iran-Assad axis."

If the matter of mass slaughter were not so serious, Blair's piece would have its comical side, carrying as it does a strapline asserting that "Dictatorships thrive on propaganda triumphs, however brief or illusory, so Syria's regime was quick to hail an "American retreat".

Funny how it's always the other side which has the 'regimes' and the 'propaganda' - and 'cash' and 'boots' too.

(Blair is an MI6 appointment; his exploits include channelling fake documents suggesting that George Galloway took money from Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists; and he's been helped by the Zionazi Melanie Phillips.)
 
All I can say, b, is that the three-party axis you cite seems slightly less maniacal -- perhaps more than slightly -- than the other side.
 
I am finding it very hard to get my head around the idea that the US Congress might stand up to those who, on the basis of 'intelligence' supplied by Israel, are pushing for large-scale US bombing of Syria.

There may not be a game of 11D chess afoot, but...surely AIPAC isn't being shown the door? If this is a US UDI, where are the other signs?
 
b, it's hardly a done deal. But there's an interesting coalition of forces here. Many of the Democratic congressfolk represent constituents who still resent the Iraq war. They know that Hillary's vote to authorize force cost her the presidency. Meanwhile, many Republicans are simply in the habit of playing The Opposite Game with Obama. Whatever he wants, they want the opposite.

I would still bet money that Obama will get his authorization. But we do have a chance, here...
 
The figure of only 9% of the population supporting a US attack on Syria is highly encouraging.

I wonder if what has happened isn't that the Israelis didn't plan for the Russian response, and told the US and UK to hold back, por ahora, while the propaganda gets sorted out. The emergence of a theme of executive responsibility to the legislature is pretty weird at this time.

The French government seems to have been given a different script. There doesn't seem to be much scope for the warmongering British tabloid press to call them 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' this time, or for anti-war protestors to hold up banners in Trafalgar Square saying 'Vive La France', as they did in 2003 when France made clear they would veto the attack on Iraq. I doubt that the French position is explained solely by Syria being their former stomping ground.

Actual military movements towards the eastern Mediterannean by the US, UK, Russia and France seem still to be in course. I hope the anti-war protests focus on this, and on the need to reverse these movements without delay.

 
I mean 'Mediterranean' - I hate it when a typo makes it look like I can't spell!!!
 
Much of the discourse about legislative non-support or support for a western attack is designed to slip us the under-table message that war backed by Congress or Parliament is lawful.

But even if the Syrian government kills 100,000 people with chemical weapons and the US Congress and UK Parliament support a western military attack, that attack would STILL be unlawful without an unvetoed UN Security Council resolution.
 
I would still bet money that Obama will get his authorization. But we do have a chance, here...

I think he'll get it, too, but I don't think it will matter either way. Kerry has made it clear that the Administration intends to proceed regardless of whether or not Congress approves.

You knew he was a war criminal when you voted for him.
 
Well, it's looking like a safe bet that Obama gets the congressional approval. Boehner's on board. But here's the worst part. The media is framing this entire "story" on whether Obama gets what he wants and how the Republicans can save face. Sickening.

As opposed to, you know, who did or did not unleash chemical weapons, and whether chemical weapons are any more or less horrific than drone-bombing, and whether we as a people need to be unleashing weapons around the globe instead of taking care of our own and setting a better example around the globe.



 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind