Friday, September 6, 2013

What Attack On Syria Will Mean | War and Conflict - II - Protests against Syrian Intervention - ABCNews - II - Tyler Durden Opines at ZeroHedge News



If Barack Obama leads America into a war with Syria, there’s something everyone needs to know about this mission that hardly anyone is articulating. This war will not just be with a Syrian regime clinging tenuously to power. It will be a proxy war against Iran.

If it were not for support from Iran, Bashar Assad would probably be out of power already. It would not even be an exaggeration to suggest Syria has become a client state of Iran, as has neighbor Lebanon. Think of Hezbollah as Iran’s terrorist foreign legion. It maybe represent the most significant military power in Syria and Lebanon.

Last week, Iranian officials said if the U.S. launches missile attacks on Assad’s forces (meaning their own), Tehran would respond with missile attacks of its own – on Israel.

This may be a bluff, but it may not be.

I don’t think that comes as a surprise to U.S. war strategists – not at all.

Let me explain the real war behind the war.

You don’t think Obama is losing sleep over a relative handful of victims of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, do you? There are far more children aborted through equally gruesome means every single day in America than were killed by chemical weapons in Syria. And, despite assertions by administration officials, there is no compelling evidence the attacks were conducted by the Syrian regime.

I think what Obama is doing in Syria is part of a devious, one might even say diabolical, master plan for dealing with Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

Iran is likely to react very strongly to any missile attack on Syria, which it now considers virtually its own sovereign territory. It is likely the blowback will come in two forms – missiles and terrorist attacks. Hezbollah has lots of missiles that can target Israel from Lebanon and Syria. It also commands terrorist cells all over the world that can hit American interests. 



In Washington, as Obama addressed the nation from the Rose Garden, anti-war demonstrators chanted and waved placards outside the White House. Across the street, Syrians and Syrian Americans who support U.S. action waved flags from their country and shouted for Assad's ouster.

"The conflict's been going on for, what, almost 2 years now. Estimates are 100,000 Syrian civilians have been killed and all of a sudden the U.S. government has manufactured the excuse of the use of chemical weapons in Syria to use that excuse to intervene in Syria," said Tristan Brosnan, 25, of Washington.

Later, in Los Angeles, about 200 people shouting "Hands off Syria" protested against a possible American strike. They waved signs reading "No More War" and police said they wrote up more than 40 citations after demonstrators sat in street intersections and blocked traffic. Police reported two arrests.

In Boston, more than 200 protesters demonstrated in the Boston Commons against the possible use of American force. They chanted "Don't Bomb Syria!" repeatedly, and at least one speaker said congressional authorization wouldn't make an attack acceptable.

More than two dozen protesters gathered at the Arkansas Capitol to oppose a possible U.S. attack. Some wore T-shirts proclaiming "NO U.S. INTERVENTION IN SYRIA."

"I had friends that died in Iraq, and I don't want more people to die for nothing," said Dominic Box, 23, expressing some of the fears of a war-weary public.

In downtown Chicago, about 40 people walked quietly in the rain, circling a sculpture in Daley Plaza. Some carried signs that read "No War In Syria" and "Shut It Down."


On the contrary, military force should only be used to protect citizens from foreign attack. - Tyler Durden www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-01/guest-post-should-attack-be-launched-against-syria

I answer that the state’s foreign policy ought to be primarily guided by the national interest — and by that I narrowly mean the preservation of the life, bodily integrity, liberty, and property of each of the individuals who reside within the state’s territorial boundaries. Even if definitive proof should eventually arise that Bashir al-Assad authorized the chemical attack, that is part of a civil war in which he is engaged amongst supporters of his government and various groups aiming to depose him. No matter who ultimately emerges victorious in this conflict, those living thousands of miles away will not in any tangible way have their personal safety and possessions affected. The inviolability of Canada’s borders does not stand or fall on whether the Syrian National Council gains power or Al-Assad’s Ba’athist party regime keeps it. At best, events in Syria might impact the price of oil, but influencing that is hardly a rationale for military action, especially as there are so many alternative sources of energy that can be secured more peacefully.
To some, this will seem a terribly selfish and hardhearted approach to foreign policy. No self-respecting nation, they say, can stand by as a foreign government slaughters its own people. But anyone even vaguely familiar with history knows that states commit such crimes on a shockingly regular basis. Were we to always intervene every time a government somewhere in the world violated its citizens’ most basic rights, we would quickly stretch our resources.


No comments: