[Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater Middle East

Sun Sep 1 14:02:00 UTC 2013

My view of the situation is that the attitude of the US government is at 
the best opportunistic
in the Syrian crisis, but I really would suspect that the US is quite 
complicit in precipitating the crisis
ín various ways including direct manipulation.

Actually I know nothing about Assad at all.

One could hardly say that Obama is not a dictator in his actions,
although he is also a puppet.

On 09/01/13 20:45, Karen Aram wrote:
> Morton
>
> My analysis of the statement/article is not that it necessarily 
> supports US military action but it would support other forms of 
> intervention.
> There are many here and elsewhere who support the *uprising* 
> against the Assad Government, he is a Dictator worthy of being 
> overthrown. Because many of us are opposed to US military intervention 
> does not mean we support the Assad regime. Therefore there are many 
> statements which may give the impression that a strike or action 
> by western powers might be welcomed but that doesn't mean military 
> action.
> It should be *diplomatic* action. See the below request to Pres. 
> Obama, from Anna Galland of Moveon.org an organization 
> supporting democrats.
>
>  "We urge you to show real leadership in protecting the people of 
> Syria with a more creative, effective, and prudent approach than 
> military action.
>
>     * Galvanize world leaders to demand a multilateral cease-fire
>     * Arrange to evacuate people who choose to flee harm's way
>     * Care for the evacuees
>     * Assist with re-settlement once the civil war has ended
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: brussel at illinois.edu
> To: carl at newsfromneptune.com
> CC: karenaram at hotmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater Middle East
> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 03:42:12 +0000
>
> Did you overlook this, Carl?  Here's a quote from that article:
>
> "The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict 
> that has increasingly taken on genocidal 
> <http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/Syria_13_04_26_Alert_Update_Revised.pdf> characteristics. 
> The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now 
> confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom 
> have been killed by Assad’s troops. An estimated 4.5 million people 
> have been displaced from their homes. International observers have 
> overwhelmingly confirmed 
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/syria-crisis-un-rights-idUSL6E8JFA3220120815> Assad’s 
> complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against 
> humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, 
> and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear."
>
> --mkb
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:30 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>     I don't think the article "takes for granted Obama's assertions
>     with respect to responsibility for the gas attack," viz.
>
>     "Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians,
>     including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical
>     attack, is real – but remain divided on whether it
>     involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad’s
>     arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to
>     the rebels."
>
>     The point of the article is the nature and goal of US policy in
>     the region. It's not a matter of "keeping America safe from
>     terrorism."
>
>     The clearer that goal is, the better the chance of convincing
>     Americans to oppose U.S. intervention in Syria.  --CGE
>
>
>     On Aug 31, 2013, at 7:07 PM, "Brussel, Morton K"
>     <brussel at illinois.edu <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
>         It is unclear to me whether this article is for or against
>         incipient U.S. intervention in Syria. Moreover, it contains
>         several unverified assertions and takes for granted Obama's
>         assertions with respect to responsibility for the gas attack,
>         if that is what it was. Which should render one suspicious.
>
>         --mkb
>
>         On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Karen Aram wrote:
>
>             I just read the same article on Alternet, excellent. It
>             clearly spells out what the potential bombing of Syria is
>             really about and for how long they have planned it.
>
>             > From: carl at newsfromneptune.com
>             <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>
>             > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:49:06 -0500
>             > To: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>             <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>             > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater
>             Middle East
>             >
>             >
>             http://www.popularresistance.org/syria-intervention-plan-fueled-by-oil-not-chemical-weapons-concerns/
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > Peace-discuss mailing list
>             > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>             <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>             > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>             _______________________________________________
>             Peace-discuss mailing list
>             Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>             <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>             https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130901/61261a00/attachment-0001.html>