Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 19, 2013
US preparing for war in Syria, top US general says
President Barack Obama is considering using military force in Syria, and the Pentagon has prepared various scenarios for possible United States intervention.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Obama administration is deliberating whether or not it should use the brute of the US military in Syria during a Thursday morning Senate hearing.
Gen. Dempsey said the administration was considering using “kinetic strikes” in Syria and said “issue is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government,” the Associated Press reported from Washington.
Dempsey, 61, is the highest ranking officer in the US military and has been nominated by Pres. Obama to serve a second term in that role. The Senate Armed Services Committee questioned him Thursday morning as part of the nominating process when Dempsey briefly discussed the situation in Syria.
Last month, the Obama administration concluded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons during the ongoing battles. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said, “The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete.”
Pres. Obama said previously that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and likely trigger American intervention. When the White House concluded Assad had relied on chemical warfare, Rhodes said, “both the political and the military opposition . . . is and will be receiving US assistance.”
That claim was met with skepticism, though. The Syrian Foreign Ministry called Obama’s claims a “caravan of lies.” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, later presented to the UN evidence supplied to his government that suggested the Syrian opposition fighters used chemical weapons.
With regards to foreign intervention, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said, “Providing arms to either side would not address this current situation.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and his father, former congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) have also cautioned the White House against aiding Syrian rebels.
“You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” by aiding Syrian rebels, Sen. Paul said in May.
On his part, the retired lawmaker from Texas insisted that the administration’s lead up to possible intervention is “identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq War.”
That isn’t to say the GOP is entirely opposed to taking any action. Although directly using the American military — either through boots-on-the-ground or unmanned aircraft — has been rarely discussed in public, Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two long-time leaders within the Republican party, have been relentless with efforts to equip opposition fighters.
“I don’t care what it takes,” Graham told Foreign Policy’s The Cable earlier this year. “If the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem.”
Other US officials have previously said Washington is considering implementing a no-fly zone above Syria, and last month the Pentagon left a fleet of F-16 fighter planes and its Patriot anti-missile system on the border of neighboring Jordan following a routine military drill.
15 Comments on "US preparing for war in Syria, top US general says"
BillT on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 12:57 am
Nothing new here. The Empire cannot allow some small country to give it the finger. Problem is … how far will Russia go to keep them from winning? And, how quickly will the rest of the ME erupt when it happens?
dissident on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 1:04 am
Looks like the vaunted FSA is fizzling in its quest to establish a Sharia hell hole. So it’s time for the self-anointed protectors of freedom and democracy to save their hides. Why does the US hate the freedom of Syrians so much?
GregT on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 1:19 am
When did US warmongering ever have anything to do with freedom and democracy? An economically, and politically stable middle east, is not in the best interests of the US, or Israel.
Plantagenet on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 1:30 am
Has Syria attacked the US? Has the UN approved military strikes on Syria?
What possible reason does Obama have to start a war with Syria?
DC on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 1:39 am
‘Obama’ himself, the man? has no reason to start a war on Syria. Obama, the current corporate-approved figurehead puppet of the US corporate war-machine, has many reasons to go to war. That is to say, their wishes and desires, are *his* wishes and desires, whether he approves personally or not. Whether he approves or not is immaterial, he will wage war if thats what he is ordered to do, and so will his successor and so on, until the empire finally collapses and can terrorize the world no more.
GregT on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 2:53 am
And when the Empire collapses, those in power will move on to the next empire, and they will take all of their riches with them.
James on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 4:19 am
Didn’t Russia and China explicitly tell the U.S. to stay out of Syria? Welcome to WW III.
rollin on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 11:54 am
The Russian media sounds a bit frantic about the US getting involved. Russia and Iran have been aiding the Syrian government with money and weapons, so US involvement would put a damper on their activities.
Just more Russian propaganda.
Arthur on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 3:18 pm
At the moment there is only one real terrorist on this planet: the AIPAC dominated Washington maffia.
http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/07/17/aipac-cowboys-up-for-war-with-iran/
Maybe those Americans with three digit IQs will start to understand the process the Germans went through between 1922-1933. The Germans won, well initially.
Or the Russians between 1905-1922. This people got outright decapitated.
Now America is next. And the rest of the world.
Advice to Russia: do not bite. Russia and China did not bite either in the case of Iraq and what a magnificent victory it was for the rest of the world. The Washington gang can inflict far more damage onto itself than Russia or China can do to the US. Never engage in direct battle, let them invade your territory. Iraq has shown that is where the US is vulnerable. Russia and China should provide weapons to all those who want to fight but not engage in direct confronting the US. If the US intervenes, Assad will be history, just like Saddam… but it will be another Phyrrus victory and Syria will in the end be handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria will be ethnically cleansed and the Middle East handed over to Turkey and ‘house of Saud’ will fall. The zionist fools will find out the hard way what it will be like for Israel to be surrounded by fundamentalist muslims rather that Syrian secularists. All these jihadists + Erdogan want the Caliphate and the US is going to hand it over to them. And it will be the end of Israel.
Arthur on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 3:21 pm
“And when the Empire collapses, those in power will move on to the next empire, and they will take all of their riches with them.”
Antarctica?
“Didn’t Russia and China explicitly tell the U.S. to stay out of Syria? Welcome to WW III.”
No, not really. But they declared they will not provide any more services in the security councel.
GregT on Fri, 19th Jul 2013 5:46 pm
China?
http://www.jewwatch.com/china.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/18/chinese-tv-series-lauds-israel-the-alliance-between-china-and-zionism/
http://atrueott.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/chinas-real-agenda-and-power-exposed/
Arthur on Sat, 20th Jul 2013 5:52 am
Yes, China had its share of zionist advisors to help the Chinese communist party implement the most criminal system of government in world history. Meanwhile China has removed portraits of Marx and Lenin as a sign that the leading zionist role is receding. The white world has become subjugated to the Lobby because 1) they look white and thus can blend in and 2) the fatal link between Christianity, the religion of the West and historic Israel. These conditions are absent in China. I consider modern China as communist in name only, autocratic nationalist would be more accurate, meaning essentially hostily to the essence of the zionist political program of world conquest. The zionists lost Russia, China and now gradually Turkey, reversing the zionist lead Ataturk revolution post WW1. Europe was always too strong spiritually to be taken over by them, witnessing ca 100 pogroms in the past centuries, the last one in Nazi Germany. Heck, even the British were able to kick them out for centuries when they were still Catholic. It is true that continental Europe was conquered by the zionist conspiracy aka WW2, but the winning alliance is long gone, after Russia managed to throw of the zionist yoke in 1953. Now the US and UK are the last bastions of zionist power and that ‘special relationsship’ is piling mistake upon mistake lately (9/11, Iraq, Syria). But the most fatal event eroding zionist power globally is the rise of the internet since 1995, making null and void the essential element of the zionist grand strategy, namely media ownership. Just read the unmoderated comments section of RT.com to see that every second comment refers to J-power. No, the zionist flea is not going to jump on the Chinese dog. I foresee total implosion of zionist power worldwide after the implosion of the US, followed by a regrouping of the European world in Europe and North-America, where the political and cultural center of gravity will move back to Europe, where it had been home for five centuries.
GregT on Sat, 20th Jul 2013 6:54 am
Arthur,
So who do you think is mainly responsible for Chinese industrialism, and who do you think is capitalizing on the same?
Arthur on Sat, 20th Jul 2013 7:07 am
You cannot see industrialism as something essentially ‘zionist’. Industrialism is a politically neutral development aimed at raising wealth levels and is aspired by most nations.
GregT on Sun, 21st Jul 2013 1:32 am
Let me rephrase the question. Who is in control of most of the large corporations that have moved operations from the US to China?