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

[Karen Aram]

Wayne
 
Absolutely, I agree with you on all counts. 
 
 
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:02:00 +0800
From: ewj at pigsqq.org
To: karenaram at hotmail.com
CC: brussel at illinois.edu; carl at newsfromneptune.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's goal in Syria & Greater Middle East




  
  


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

¨ªn 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 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 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 ¨C 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>
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

> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:49:06 -0500

> To: 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

> 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

        
      
      
      

      
      
    
    
    

    
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
_______________________________________________
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/a7a7c011/attachment.html>