Thursday, September 05, 2013

Bombing Syria - still a bad idea

My Senator, Dianne Feinstein, today:

A supporter of the resolution, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), acknowledged that constituent sentiment was "overwhelmingly negative. "They haven't heard what I heard. And I like to believe now, after 20 years, that I have some skill in separating the wheat from the chaff," she said.
She knows where I stand on it - I sent her an email stating my opposition to military action earlier this week. But I didn't say why. Here's why.

1. It's a civil war. It's against international law to attack a country which is not threatening us. Syria obviously isn't.
2. Syria is not a signatory to any chemical weapons treaties and has not broken any international agreements, meaning that their use can't be an excuse to use force.
3. There's considerable doubt as to whether the Assad government (what is this "regime" business anyway? He was elected, if you can call it that, like George W Bush) did authorize a chemical weapons attack, or whether it's a false flag operation by the rebels, who are losing.
4. The rebels have used chemical weapons before. They've also beheaded people, eaten a dead soldier's heart, and terrorized women and secular civilians.
5. The rebels are foreign, not Syrian, so Assad is not "attacking his own people". He's putting down a terrorist attack.
6. The rebels are largely Al Qaeda associated and Islamist. These people are not America's friends.
7. Qatar has spent billions arming the rebels.
8. Qatar's energy push is blocked by Saudi, and so Qatar needs to put in a natural gas pipeline to the coast, but Assad is blocking it.
9. Russia supplies most of Europe with energy through Gazprom's pipeline. It would incensed to lose Gazprom's monopoly to a Qatari pipeline. It obviously supports Assad.
10. Russia has warships in the area and their fingers are on the triggers. It's not impossible that this will spark WW3.
11. Israel would do anything to knock down Hezbollah (Assad's major fighting partners) even if it meant partnering with Al Qaeda, who after all, can't get into Israel, only into the US.
12. Israel have a deal with Russia and Gazprom; but they'd be happier with a pipeline through Syria.
13. General Wesley Clark said years ago that the US had a plan to destabilize the countries of the Mid-East and North Africa, in order to leave Iran without allies and finally take Iran. Yay and all that, but why not, as they say, get more flies with sugar than with vinegar?
14. And the so-called sectarian splits in Islam are crazy. Why would any sane person with only the welfare of the common man in mind do something that appears to be going to war on one party's behalf? (Ans: They wouldn't.)

Is "I know how to separate the wheat from the chaff" a mis-spelling of "I know what Israel wants"? If not, what is the fucking wheat? Let me know and maybe I'll be all over your war. Keeping it a sekrit isn't going to convince me. "I know better than you." Really? The US govt.? Pull the other one.

Maybe 20 years is enough and it's time for another senator.



Qatari involvement



Spiegel - Foreign involvement

More BBC


More Reuters



Paul Craig Roberts on the subject (video)

Wesley Clark on the Middle East plan leading to Iran (video)

Israel National News - Rebels can use gas

Edited to create links. Not very good ones, but links. 09/06/2013

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin
I sometimes mention a product on this blog, and I give a URL to Amazon or similar sites. Just to reassure you, I don't get paid to advertise anything here and I don't get any money from your clicks. Everything I say here is because I feel like saying it.