The conscience of the west?

Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

The conscience of the west?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Can anyone name someone who has been against all the ME wars and the current Syria disaster? I can only really think of one man.

Image

That's gotta make some people uncomfortable. When Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter can filet your fish you've reached the deep end of stupid.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/just-whose-war-is-this/
Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.
Ads by Google

Win a 2 lb. Silver CoinEnter Now to Win This Gigantic Silver Coin Worth More Than $700! IndependentLivingBullion.com
Do You Carry Concealed?Know Your Rights & Get Your Free Concealed Carry Report Today! USConcealedCarry.net/Free-Report

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in ’42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama’s war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off – war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a “shot across the bow,” John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday’s New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with 2 million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland’s Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad’s regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that “red line” on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad’s regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our “slam-dunk” case?

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria’s use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Juggernaut Nihilism
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Juggernaut Nihilism »

Not wanting to kill brown people makes you a crazy racist... or at least an anti-Semite if those brown people happen to be rivals of Israel.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

The conscience of the west?

Post by Endovelico »

"...In New York, US Ambassador to the United Nations Samatha Power made withering comments about Russia's role on the world stage on Thursday. Indicating that the US was prepared to move ahead without a Security Council resolution, she said that "Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities..."
Funny! Who has been blocking for years any condemnation of Israel by the Security Council for its crimes against humanity?...
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11750
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Can anyone name someone who has been against all the ME wars and the current Syria disaster? I can only really think of one man.

Image

That's gotta make some people uncomfortable. When Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter can filet your fish you've reached the deep end of stupid.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/just-whose-war-is-this/
Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.
Ads by Google

Win a 2 lb. Silver CoinEnter Now to Win This Gigantic Silver Coin Worth More Than $700! IndependentLivingBullion.com
Do You Carry Concealed?Know Your Rights & Get Your Free Concealed Carry Report Today! USConcealedCarry.net/Free-Report

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in ’42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama’s war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off – war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a “shot across the bow,” John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday’s New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with 2 million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland’s Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad’s regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that “red line” on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad’s regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our “slam-dunk” case?

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria’s use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.


.


Symbol of a good American .. all others sell themselves for money





.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Endovelico »

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want
By Robert H. Scales, Friday, September 6, 12:06 AM

[Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College]

The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.

Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.

Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.

Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.

Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.

Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”

Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Also Ron & Rand Paul and others oppose the Mess called Syria

Post by monster_gardener »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:Can anyone name someone who has been against all the ME wars and the current Syria disaster? I can only really think of one man.

Image

That's gotta make some people uncomfortable. When Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter can filet your fish you've reached the deep end of stupid.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/just-whose-war-is-this/
Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.
Ads by Google

Win a 2 lb. Silver CoinEnter Now to Win This Gigantic Silver Coin Worth More Than $700! IndependentLivingBullion.com
Do You Carry Concealed?Know Your Rights & Get Your Free Concealed Carry Report Today! USConcealedCarry.net/Free-Report

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in ’42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama’s war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off – war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a “shot across the bow,” John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday’s New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with 2 million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland’s Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad’s regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that “red line” on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad’s regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our “slam-dunk” case?

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria’s use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.


.


Symbol of a good American .. all others sell themselves for money





.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Mr. Perfect & Azari,

IMHO Ron and Rand Paul also deserve honorable mention especially Rand on Syria...........

And depending on the poll the 80 to 90+ percent of Uz who don't want this one.........


Syria is such a mess: simultaneously foe of Israel, tool of Iran, and protector of the ME Christians....... :shock: :roll:

Some make a case for a more through attack that would get rid of Assad as Iran's tool .........

But that is NOT what Arrogant, Lazy, Lying, Duty Station Deserting, MOUTHY, Son of a Bitch Eater Obama wants to do........

Seems to just want to back up his hasty red lined :twisted: mouth.........

With an attack that will kill Syrians but not really change the situation for the better....... If such a thing exists.........

And there seems to be little or no confidence that Obama would or even could give orders to do that......

He seems to be such an incompetent...........

As bad or WORSE than Bush W.

Add Russia into the mix...........

Best to vote for the awful status quo and play for time.......... *

* Till we get Space Colonies.......
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Also Ron & Rand Paul and others oppose the Mess called S

Post by Mr. Perfect »

monster_gardener wrote: He seems to be such an incompetent...........

As bad or WORSE than Bush W.
Far worse.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Enki »

I've always liked that about Pat Buchanan.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6237
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Buchanan and Kucinich. That's my ticket next election.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27549
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Typhoon »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Buchanan and Kucinich. That's my ticket next election.
It would almost be worth becoming a naturalized American to be able to vote for that ticket.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Image
Mr P and folks,

I am looking forward to the Republican peaceniks holding a rally outside the White House. Get together some acoustic guitars and a couple of tambourines and it should make great TV. :) Oh, and make sure there are a few Russian flags in the crowd.

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It will be quite difficult to find room amongst all the other citizens protesting also.
Censorship isn't necessary
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:It will be quite difficult to find room amongst all the other citizens protesting also.
Mr P,

Will you be on guitar or tambourine? ;)

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31978/

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Guitar. I've been playing for decades now.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11750
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.




Ralph Nader : .. Dear President Obama :



.

Dear President Obama:

Little did your school boy chums in Hawaii, watching you race up and down the basketball court, know how prescient they were when they nicknamed you "Barry O'Bomber."

Little did your fellow Harvard Law Review editors, who elected you to lead that venerable journal, ever imagine that you could be a president who chronically violates the Constitution, federal statutes, international treaties and the separation of power at depths equal to or beyond the George W. Bush regime.

Nor would many of the voters who elected you in 2008 have conceived that your foreign policy would rely so much on brute military force at the expense of systemically waging peace. Certainly, voters who knew your background as a child of third world countries, a community organizer, a scholar of constitutional law and a critic of the Bush/Cheney years, never would have expected you to favor the giant warfare state so pleasing to the military industrial complex.

Now, as if having learned nothing from the devastating and costly aftermaths of the military invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, you're beating the combustible drums to attack Syria -- a country that is no threat to the U.S. and is embroiled in complex civil wars under a brutal regime.

This time, however, you may have pushed for too many acts of war. Public opinion and sizable numbers of members of both parties in Congress are opposed. These lawmakers oppose bombing Syria in spite of your corralling the cowardly leaders of both parties in the Congress.

Thus far, your chief achievement on the Syrian front has been support for your position from al-Qaeda affiliates fighting in Syria, the pro-Israeli government lobby, AIPAC, your chief nemesis in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, and Dick Cheney. This is quite a gathering and a telling commentary on your ecumenical talents. Assuming the veracity of your declarations regarding the regime's resort to chemical warfare (first introduced into the Middle East by Winston Churchill's Royal Air Force's plastering of Iraqi tribesmen in the nineteen twenties), your motley support group is oblivious to the uncontrollable consequences that might stem from bombing Syria. One domestic consequence may be that Speaker Boehner expects to exact concessions from you on domestic issues before Congress in return for giving you such high visibility bipartisan cover.

Your argument for shelling Syria is to maintain "international credibility" in drawing that "red line" regardless, it seems, of the loss of innocent Syrian civilian life, causalities to our foreign service and armed forces in that wider region, and retaliation against the fearful Christian population in Syria (one in seven Syrians are Christian). But the more fundamental credibilities are to our Constitution, to the neglected necessities of the American people, and to the red line of observing international law and the UN Charter (which prohibit unilateral bombing in this situation).

There is another burgeoning cost -- that of the militarization of the State Department whose original charter invests it with the responsibility of diplomacy. Instead, Mr. Obama you have shaped the State Department into a belligerent "force projector" first under Generalissima Clinton and now under Generalissimo Kerry. The sidelined foreign service officers, who have knowledge and conflict avoidance experience, are left with reinforced fortress-like embassies as befits our Empire reputation abroad.

Secretary John Kerry descended to gibberish when, under questioning this week by a House Committee member, he asserted that your proposed attack was "not war" because there would be "no boots on the ground." In Kerry's view, bombing a country with missiles and air force bombers is not an act of war.

It is instructive to note how government autocracy feeds on itself. Start with unjustified government secrecy garnished by the words "national security." That leads to secret laws, secret evidence, secret courts, secret prisons, secret prisoners, secret relationships with selected members of Congress, denial of standing for any citizen to file suit, secret drone strikes, secret incursions into other nations and all this directed by a president who alone decides when to be secret prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. What a Republic, what a democracy, what a passive people we have become!

Voices of reason and experience have urged the proper path away from the metastasizing war that is plaguing Syria. As proposed by former President, Jimmy Carter, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and other seasoned diplomats and retired military, vigorous leadership by you is needed for an international peace conference with all parties at the table, including the countries supplying weapons to the various adversaries in Syria.

Mr. Obama, you may benefit from reading the writings of Coleman McCarthy, a leading advocate of peace studies in our schools and universities. He gives numerous examples of how waging peace avoided war and civil strife over the past 100 years.

Crowding out attention to America's serious domestic problems by yet another military adventure (opposed by many military officials), yet another attack on another small, non-threatening Muslim country by the powerful Christian nation (as many Muslims see it) is aggression camouflaging sheer madness.

Please, before you recklessly flout Congress, absorb the wisdom of the World Peace Foundation's Alex de Waal and Bridget Conley-Zilkic. Writing in the New York Times, they strongly condemn the use of nerve gas in Syria, brand the perpetrators as war criminals to be tried by an international war crimes tribunal and then declare:

"But it is folly to think that airstrikes can be limited: they are ill-conceived as punishment, fail to protect civilians and, most important, hinder peacemaking.... Punishment, protection and peace must be joined... An American assault on Syria would be an act of desperation with incalculable consequences. To borrow once more from Sir William Harcourt [the British parliamentarian who argued against British intervention in our Civil War (which cost 750,000 American lives)]: 'We are asked to go we know not whither, in order to do we know not what.'"

If and when the people and Congress turn you down this month, there will be one silver lining. Only a Right/Left coalition can stop this warring. Such convergence is strengthening monthly in the House of Representatives to stop future war crimes and the injurious blowback against America of the wreckages from Empire.

History teaches that Empires always devour themselves.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

.



:)



.
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Guitar. I've been playing for decades now.
Mr P,

Yes, I remember that. I believe that you make solid electrics?

Alex.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Endovelico »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
Ralph Nader : .. Dear President Obama :.
My own contribution through the White House site:
Dear Mr. President,

As from 1945 we have seen hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed by two atomic bombs dropped by the US on Japan. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese people being killed by American explosives, napalm, phosphorus, chemical agents. Thousands of Arab, Afghan and Pakistani innocent people being killed, to this very day, as so-called "collateral damage". No one has ever been brought to justice for any of those crimes. And now you are preparing to bomb, and kill maybe hundreds or thousands of Syrians, most of them innocent of any crime, as punishment for CW attacks, the authors of which are not known for sure.

Can't you see the hypocrisy of such action? Doesn't it strike you as improper for the US to take the roles of judge and executioner for actions which are but a tiny fraction of similar actions carried out by the US for the last 68 years? Especially as nothing can come out of such retaliation, besides the death of more innocent people?

I was thrilled when you were elected President of the US, hoping an African-American would be so much more sensitive to the evils of war. What I see is just another American doing all the things many other Americans have done in the past, in complete disrespect for international law and insensitive to the suffering they cause.

May God forgive you.
Simple Minded

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Simple Minded »

Endovelico wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
Ralph Nader : .. Dear President Obama :.
My own contribution through the White House site:
Dear Mr. President,

As from 1945 we have seen hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed by two atomic bombs dropped by the US on Japan. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese people being killed by American explosives, napalm, phosphorus, chemical agents. Thousands of Arab, Afghan and Pakistani innocent people being killed, to this very day, as so-called "collateral damage". No one has ever been brought to justice for any of those crimes. And now you are preparing to bomb, and kill maybe hundreds or thousands of Syrians, most of them innocent of any crime, as punishment for CW attacks, the authors of which are not known for sure.

Can't you see the hypocrisy of such action? Doesn't it strike you as improper for the US to take the roles of judge and executioner for actions which are but a tiny fraction of similar actions carried out by the US for the last 68 years? Especially as nothing can come out of such retaliation, besides the death of more innocent people?

I was thrilled when you were elected President of the US, hoping an African-American would be so much more sensitive to the evils of war. What I see is just another American doing all the things many other Americans have done in the past, in complete disrespect for international law and insensitive to the suffering they cause.

May God forgive you.
Very well said Endo. Thank you for writing.

Thankfully, I suspect that the number of Merikans who would label you as "RACIST!" for blaspheming their god is considerably smaller today than it was 4 years, 2 years, or even 1 year ago.

Never good when people consider their govt representatives as deities.......
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11750
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Ibrahim »

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:Not wanting to kill brown people makes you a crazy racist... or at least an anti-Semite if those brown people happen to be rivals of Israel.
Pat Buchanan's racism and anti-Semitism are distinct from his isolationism.

He's the first conservative I remember to play the "if I say all this racist sh!t you whiny liberals will just accuse me of racism" card, and that's got to count for something in American political history.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
Bill Maher
.
In the end Bill Maher will support anything baramba does. Forked tongue leftist.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Parodite »

Ok, so Buchanan doesn't want the US start another miscalculated military adventure in the ME. Which is really a good idea given the recent failures, but not really a marvel of insight or foresight. It is rather obvious, is it not? Any fire brigade knows you should have a very good plan when a wild fire breaks out that potentially can grow big. You don't just empty a few buckets of water to "prove" that you care, or run in like madmen with water spraying hoses at random - it only kills many fire fighters. Bravo Buchanan for this lesson in 101 common sense. Don't do stupid things. Check.

But then he turns all hysteric. Blaming Jews for him blaming Jews if the US would do stupid things. And to him there is no doubt about it: nothing can be done to still save some in Syria. It all is not worth it. He knows exactly what will happen.. and it will be way too expensive too! So don't even think you should try. Just make sure that if something is tried and it fails big time, the Jewish Zionist lobbies will be blamed. Make them responsible for US failure. And "why are you so f*cking surprised that people hate you when you drag the USA into another stupid and costly war?" Sicko.

Of course Buchanan knows what sells. And he is selling it. Just stay home and don't bother. And when things go wrong, blame the Jews.

All that Americans want is a stable supply of oil from abroad and a warm home sweet home watching a sitcom with a hamburger and a pint of beer on the table. You can still have your American dream at home while abroad the nightmares rage.

So far the "conscience" of Buchanan.

Image
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11750
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Parodite wrote:.


But then he turns all hysteric. Blaming Jews for him blaming Jews if the US would do stupid things. And to him there is no doubt about it: nothing can be done to still save some in Syria. It all is not worth it. He knows exactly what will happen.. and it will be way too expensive too! So don't even think you should try. Just make sure that if something is tried and it fails big time, the Jewish Zionist lobbies will be blamed. Make them responsible for US failure. And "why are you so f*cking surprised that people hate you when you drag the USA into another stupid and costly war?" Sicko.

Of course Buchanan knows what sells. And he is selling it. Just stay home and don't bother. And when things go wrong, blame the Jews.

All that Americans want is a stable supply of oil from abroad and a warm home sweet home watching a sitcom with a hamburger and a pint of beer on the table. You can still have your American dream at home while abroad the nightmares rage.

So far the "conscience" of Buchanan.

Image


.


What's wrong with you ?

Parodite, don't you think now time to stop shoe-shining the Zionists ? ?


2 top Pentagon (ex)chiefs, Gates and Panetta, say Hände weg von Syria .. but .. the Zionist say America should attack Syria, AIPAC and American Jews seconding it, pushin & pushin


Haven't you realized by now American people are pissed off ? ? ? America Joe no idi*ot

Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:.

Not wanting to kill brown people makes you a crazy racist... or at least an anti-Semite if those brown people happen to be rivals of Israel.

.
:lol: :lol:


and

Parodite,

You should study a bit history .. study (ask if you need help :) ) why Europeans and Russians and and and, all, are anti Semite, why those things happened to Jews in Europe .. and .. why, on the other hand, Jews (meaning Hebrew tribe) lived in peace and prosperity in ME for 1000s of yrs ? ?

Study a bit history .. and .. be honest to yourself



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11750
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: The conscience of the west?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


LOLOLOL.jpg
LOLOLOL.jpg (65.3 KiB) Viewed 1297 times




Setting Stage for Showdown With U.S.




:lol: :lol: .. Parodite, you gettin it ? ? ?





.
Post Reply