I don't want to quote too much from this excellent article. The above is only a small part of what is an insightful take on America's foreign policy. It's worth your time to read it all. It's a giant step up from the dishonest "Assad must go" fairy tale that we hear from Obama.In 2013 these same Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This was an attempt to frame Assad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution.The campaign for regime change in Syria, as in Libya has been presented in terms of human rights. Obviously this isn't the real motive.
In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad however rejected this, and in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government.
But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria in Washington's cross hairs?[1]
If humanitarianism were a consideration for Western leaders then no one would have stood by while over a half million Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda. Or while civilians die in, and refugees flow out of, Syria because of U.S., French, British, German, Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, and Israeli support for ISIS and various other scum fighting a war against the sovereign state of Syria.
Notes
[1] "The Geopolitics of World War III." By SCG, 9/11/14.
4 comments:
I thought there were a few more considerations that Russia had. In fact I think it was a lot of different considerations all combining together. As it is they may have achieved their major objectives in any case. People are less interested in joining Nato in the Ukraine if that means war with Russia. Russia has shown it is willing to defend its citizens even if they are in other countries. A year later they have good enough relations with the Ukraine to continue the types of economic arrangements that had before hand.
I still am not sure what is going on in that industrial strip that I talked about in one of my blogs. But since things are back to normal I assume that includes that important strategic area which helps build Russian warships.
That's true, that Russia had many considerations in deciding to act as it did.
Here my point was only that the U.S. was well aware of Russia's strategic interest in its naval base and that its failure to assure Russia that the U.S. had no desire to limit access to it was a highly significant omission. It's a fair conclusion that the U.S. intended for Russia to lose its base. It was very easy for us to make clear that was not our intent. The contrary view requires us to believe that the U.S. had an attitude of "Oh. That!" if the subject of the base was broached.
As I've also emphasized, Ukraine would now be exactly as it was territorially before Nuland engineered the downfall of the elected government. Who is this fool who played with the lives of others and caused the political disaster that occurred? In her arrogance she assumed that all other states will stand meekly by while the U.S. experiments with "regime change" and undermining Russia.
What exactly has gone on in E. Ukraine has been murky, just as with Syria until recently. I've tried to educate myself more on what is going on in Syria and have achieved a glimmer of understanding. Enough, anyway, to understand that something unclean has been going on there with our blessing and support. I've not paid as much attention to what has taken place in E. Ukraine. I believe that the propaganda version has been that it's an instance of "Russian military adventurism." I believe the Russian military has been involved there in some way but, again, it would not have been had Nuland been put in charge of the Dept. of State motor pool where her talents could have been put to good use. Any Russian presence in E. Ukraine was entirely reactive, I believe.
I'll look at your blog with interest.
Col,
I confess I do not follow "the news", having severed my connection to broadcast/cable/satellite TV back in '87. I have not read anything anywhere about what Assad might have had his ambassador to the U.N. say about who is supporting the rebels - and regime change - in his country. Has he accused the U.S. or others of assisting both the rebels and ISIS? Has he said anything about external attempts to depose a legal ruler of a country being a (an unspoken) declaration of war, something which should call for censure, at the very least, by the U.N.?
I'm not aware of any U.N. initiatives, the absence of which has puzzled me. Assad's not stupid so he must have some reason for not pursuing that option. He's given some good interviews that show him in a good light. I think the Russians have floated the idea of U.S. support for ISIS to good effect.
Post a Comment