Why Americans are Saying 'No'

Bush justified intervention on Weapons of Mass Destruction, but a deep philosophical belief that Democracy should spread throughout the world. It was the principle of the Neoconservative Doctrine. And in the Liberal Interventionist Model, the close cousins of the Neocons, Obama advocates use of force on Human Rights. Both fail to reveal underlying strategy because it's a broader goal of what Mr. Kissinger would call Realpolitik.

As a Neoconservative, I firmly believe intervention is our duty as the World Leader. There is Good & Evil at work. I have disdain for the UN Channels, but recognize it's an element of statecraft. We need to build a Coalition of the Willing & create a 'Game Change' for the Rebels. It's our moral obligation, it's Our Calling. Evil cannot prevail.

 

I agree. We fought wars, but for what purpose? We invaded a country, killed 100,000's of people, turns out for the wrong reasons. We can't trust our government anymore because of the Patriot Act and Obama seeming to be a liberal, but continuing many of the Bush policies. The only thing I would like to add is that we created a new Lost Generation. We don't know what to do anymore, who we can trust. It's like when France invaded the Ruhr Valley in Germany in the early 1920's. We could have gone to war, but instead we wanted peace. Or you could also think of it like this. There was next to no government in the economy, a laissez faire economy. People wanted the government for certain things, such as the TVA, but other than that, there was nothing. It actually helps to explain a lot.

 

Excellent. So no Syrian invasion. I did not participate in those threads.

Interesting that you view Ben Laden's reason for 911 - given in his October 2004 video - as being untrue. I on the other hand, having immersed myself in the recent history of the Levant, don't find it difficult to believe, as he stated, that it was because of the USA's support for illegal actions against Arabs in the ME.

 

Much too glib. Totally unsupported.

Sorry .... rejected.

Let's start with the 1980s shelling by the US navy of Beirut. No .... wait .... let us start with the US supplying Israel with cluster bombs.

 

If he is sympathetic to Muslim causes he should probably come up with better ways of showing it. You know, with all the killing of Muslims he does. Some Muslims may misunderstand his good intentions due to drones killing their kids and all. I am sure mosques all around the world are rejoicing in his acts of love.

 

"Courageous leaders who were unafraid to 'go it alone' " if you ask most Republican leaders)

So am I, it has been typical Republian policy since Obama was elected, damned if he did, damned if he didn't

Only because Obama gave them the chance by waiting for Congressional approval. Gunslinger Republicans would have already tried and failed two weeks ago and now be saying how we are being "forced" to intervene even more. I've said this before. Obama has turned a noose designed specifically for his own neck into more rope for the Republicans to hang themselves with, and, if you go by this board, they are not disappointing.

If the Republicans turn around now and try to criticize Obama for accepting a Russian idea I think most Americans will see right through it. They will be fatally wounded in 2014 and die in 2016.

 

Well muslims are notorious for killing other muslims...

 

Not to defend Bush, but while he didn't get U.N approval, he had a much larger coalition than simply France(as is the case in the Syrian case, as the British Public/Parliament have deemed the war not worth fighting). I don't think the Republicans are criticizing Obama on the part of accepting the offer, but on the account that his political standing, and thereby the political standing of the American Empire has been significantly weakened as a result.

Which is a very valid criticism(one that you don't seem to understand completely). After saying he'd turn away from Bush-style politics, he has droned the innocent villages of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, killing more civilians than terrorist targets. He has pronounced the belief that he can kill American suspects without a trial or due process. After engaging in Libya without consulting congress and by not engaging with the U.N up until this point, he has utterly destroyed our credibility.

Bush did it damage, Obama finished it. Keeping the ships in position while being "diplomatic" is no different than a threat. And it's not a guarantee that the U.S would draw back after the chemical weapons were placed under INTL. Control.

This has all been handled, very, very poorly and it's impossible for it not to reflect on Obama's foreign policy record.

 

You like many others fail to see that so called the Obama administration just continued the Middle East Strategy from the previous U.S. government. There is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both serve the same masters. The goals and objectives are clearly stated. We're talking only cosmetic changes here.

Even better source on the current situation in the Middle East.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Brookings: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change

Bear in mind that both John Kerry and William Hague are members of Council on Foreign Affairs.


http://www.cfr.org/syria/brookings-saving-syria-assessing-options-regime-change/p27868

 

Video after video has been posted on You Tube which shows plenty of evidence to support the claim that it is the al-Nusra rebels who conducted those sarin terrorist attacks. I have posted several already but that's the latest one:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hsmzqOo_Ceg


This time Americans are armed with the TRUTH so that there is no basis for intervention in Syria. Of course, had Bush still been in office we would likely see a different viewpoint from Republicans but that's another matter.



BUT WATCH FOR ANOTHER ''FALSE FLAG'' SUCH AS A STAGED 'TERRORIST' ATTACK SUPPOSEDLY BY ASSAD WHICH WILL BE USED AS ANOTHER PRETEXT FOR WAR.

 

---------------

Had a Republican been in the White House the right wingers would be beating the drums for another war, fail to pay for it, and then blame Democrats for causing it.

 

I agree with much of what you've said , but lets not ignore how profitable both Iraq + Afghan wars have been for many US Corporations i.e. Armaments industry + Contractors :

"Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war Eight days after the invasion of Iraq on March 19 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy defence secretary and a leading proponent of the war, told a Congressional committee: “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2eaLb281r

Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

Who were Nos. 2 and 3?

Agility Logistics (KSE:AGLTY) of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts.


As private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels, the amount of corruption ballooned, even if most contractors performed their duties as expected.

According to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion. Disciplined soldiers that would traditionally do many of the tasks are commissioned by private and publicly listed companies.

Even without the graft, the costs of paying for these services are higher than paying governement employees or soldiers to do them because of the profit motive involved. No-bid contracting - when companies get to name their price with no competing bid - didn't lower legitimate expenses.

(Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post.)

Even though the military has largely pulled out of Iraq, private contractors remain on the ground and continue to reap U.S. government contracts. For example, the U.S. State Department estimates that taxpayers will dole out $3 billion to private guards for the government's sprawling embassy in Baghdad.

-----
Much more here read
"The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers

The history of American war profiteering is rife with egregious examples of incompetence, fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement, bribery and misconduct. As war historian Stuart Brandes has suggested, each new war is infected with new forms of war profiteering. Iraq is no exception. From criminal mismanagement of Iraq's oil revenues to armed private security contractors operating with virtual impunity, this war has created opportunities for an appalling amount of corruption. What follows is a list of some of the worst Iraq war profiteers who have bilked American taxpayers and undermined the military's mission.

http://www.alternet.org/story/41083/the_10_most_brazen_war_profiteers


.....

 

Practically Obama devalue the Nobel Prize. Though this dubious prize has already been devalued by Martti Ahtisaari in his role of Yugoslavia problems.

 

Have we forgotten the centuries of mass slaughter + atrocities so-called "Christians" perpetrated against each other ?

...

 

Over her we give peerages and knighthoods to child rapists.

Top that.

 

Yet another third world civil war is not our problem. If the world were concerned about middle easterners and such gassing each other, they would have done something. Sure, Assad can give up his chemicals, but nothing is stopping him or anyone else there from buying more. Surrendering a stockpile is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Nobody is really doing anything and thus show that nobody really cares about middle easterners or muslims in general. For their "honor" and their "god", let them kill each other. They do not matter to anyone other than themselves.....well, maybe they matter a little to those, like Russia, who supply them with weapons, in which case their fighting is encouraged.

 

Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago

Israel is believed to have secretly developed a range of chemical weapons in the 1960s and 70s as further defense against an attack by the surrounding enemy states, according to a report in Foreign Policy, which quotes a "secret 1983 CIA intelligence estimate."

The CIA document, Foreign Policy says, states that US satellites in 1982 found "a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility... at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert." Furthermore, the document is claimed to have said, "Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."

The CIA document purportedly goes on to say that, "While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents, several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents... with suitable delivery systems."

The article claims that the research and development of these weapons is being carried out at what it brands the "secretive" Israel Institute for Biological Research, located in Nes Ziona, a short distance south of Tel Aviv.

According to Foreign Policy, Work on the project was stepped up following the near disaster of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when attacking Arab armies caught the state by surprise on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

The report also claims that in January 1976, US intelligence was led to believe that Israel conducted a "possible test" of chemical weapons in the Negev desert. The report quotes a US air force intelligence officer, who says that the US National Security Agency intercepted communications which proved that Israel Air Force bombers conducted simulated chemical weapons delivery missions at a bombing range in the Negev.

The author of the report also claims to have identified a possible site for the storage of chemical weapons in the Negev. After intensive research on Google Maps, the writer surmised that "imagery search found what I believe is the location of the Israeli nerve agent production facility and its associated chemical weapons storage area in a desolate and virtually uninhabited area of the Negev Desert just east of the village of al-Kilab, which is only 10 miles west of the outskirts of the city of Dimona."

The report comes as the United States government is currently seeking domestic and international consensus for truncated military action against the Syrian regime over its alleged recent use of chemical weapons on its own population

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Report-CIA-believes-Israel-acquired-chemical-weapons-decades-ago-325706

 

I was tolerant to Israeli politics until events nowadays in Syria just blew up. Now I see all this Jewish insolence and greed effect.

 

1 and 2 I agree with you. On 3, we have to understand that Arab nations are not a homogeneous entity. All they really share in common is faith and language. Politically they have many differences.

 

So not only do they flip the bird at the NPT(and expect Iran to not pursue anything nuclear), they too, thumb and circumvent the Chemical Weapons Resolution.
Those millions of dollars of lobbying pay off extremely well, and it's really annoying.

 

I dont know what "plenty of evidence" you supplied but in this movie, Todd Pierce talked about motive and how wrong it is to go to war when you are not certain, he didnt say it was rebels he said there are so many factions out there and it could be one on them, plenty of evidence ? not here.

 

Hussein Obama is a kind and decent man who has more brains than you ever will.

 

Going from what I've seen this past week, you are by no means alone.

I've refreshingly had people who had no previous interest in anything political, suddenly start to awaken and ask questions, as you have done.

Hilariously, even when you lay it all out(to the other side), they still deny it. It's like walking into a room, seeing a man stab another man in the back, then when you challenge his actions he indignantly responds by denying any responsibility or wrong doing.

There are lots of foreign and politcal lobby groups in the US.

However, it was the Jewish lobby groups and ONLY the Jewish lobby groups that showed their true hand, and URGED that another country be bombed, and for no clear reason.

I know not of a Chinese lobby, a Catholic lobby, a Protestant lobby, or a Buddist lobby that spent the past few weeks drooling like rabid dogs, for the US to bomb a foreign country, for no apparent reasons.

I did however hear the head of the RC Church come out and speak out against it.

I did however note that in some polls, up to 90% of Americans were dead set against it. And I did note that this objection was reflected by people in Britain, France, all over really.

Except in Israel, where two thirds of those polled wanted SOMEONE ELSE to bomb Syria, for no reason other than to give the edge back to the sorts of foreign insurgents that cut the heart from a Syria soldier...and took a bite.

I saw no collective of Catholic Priests or Protestant ministers writing and URGING for Syria to be bombed. Just Rabbi's.
I then get told that all of the above do not 'represent all Jews'.

*Sigh*. Don't you just get tired of this logical fallacy? It's almost as if we are expected to include the individual names of every low level Jew who may actually not be for such things. How are we to know that there are so many Jews apparently against such things, if in fact I do not see them speaking out en masse, to even prove their existence?

I mean, if the majority of 'ordinary Jews' (if some here are to be believed), are so anti Israel, where are they?

I've seen a relatively small number of Jews that claim they are against the state of Israel, but their objection appears to be born out of theological grounds, and nothing to do with morality, ethics, or politics.

I've seen and heard some Jews appear to speak against Israel, but their motives(if you go on listening to their argument), is rooted in it being 'bad for the Jews'. Not bad for everyone. Not born out of morality and ethics. What's 'bad for the Jews'.

 

It's that famous Jewish chutzpah, as they say.

This is also worth a passing mention..

ISRAEL has sold at least dollars 2bn ( pounds 1.3bn) to dollars 3bn of hi-tech military equipment to China, seriously undermining US efforts to limit the sale of advanced weapons to the Chinese. A Senate report due out later this week says the Israeli exports include military technology developed by the US, and which Washington expressly forbids from being exported to China.

Officials accompanying Israel's Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, on a visit to China confirmed that Israel had done deals but would not elaborate. The CIA told the committee the Chinese were seeking from Israel technologies that Western firms were unwilling to provide.

Those sold by Israel are said by specialists to include technology for the Python - the Israeli version of the US Sparrow air-to-air missile - and technology developed for the US-financed Lavi jet, which the Israelis cancelled some years ago.

The US is also concerned that Israel may have passed on technology for the Arrow anti-missile missile, a joint US-Israel project, which is based on the Patriot missile used in the Gulf war.

The Israeli Defence Ministry director-general, David Ivri, accompanying Mr Rabin in China, said in response to the Senate report: 'There are security relations (between Israel and China) but I cannot relate either to numbers or the substance of deals themselves.' Morton Miller, a former state department analyst, said the real figure for sale of Israeli arms to China was between dollars 8bn and dollars 10bn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html

 

I think that's a step up though(and as much as we can expect from them). I don't expect morality or decency from a people who would barricade minorities and steal their land, after going through the same thing in NS Germany.

But if they see it "as bad for the Jews", then maybe, just maybe they'll change their behavior. Who cares to what reason it is, as long as they get off their arrogant "God chosen people" mantra for using every other government but their own to solve problems.