Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
America has been leading a crusade against the grain of the world for over two hundred years. We have caused or have been a part of the dismantling of 11 empires; all of which catered to anti-democratic organization and encouraged conflict. We haven't encouraged democracy because we care about them. We haven't freed water ways because others needed their trade routes. And we haven't globalized the world because we want everyone outside our borders to live in peace. Our crusade has been self serving. Democracy, free trade, and economic globalization go a long way to preserving us. With over 120 democracies being created since 1900, the rest of the world merely benefits from our crusade.
We did everything we could to avoid having to go to Europe to deal with their first Civil War. Afterwards, as the most powrful nation on earth, we created the League of Nations to give Europeans a way to express themselves without war. They failed. It took us until 1944 to physically acknowledge that we had to involve ourselves with Europe's health again. Afterwards, as the most powerful nation in history, we created the United Nations. Having learned from Europe's handling of the League of Nations, this time we stayed. But both times we struggled with our trades between the allies and the central/axis powers. Were it not for the exodus of European colonial powers across the world and the Soviet Union rushing in to strangle health, we would have went right back to isolation. With the Middle East representing the world's last unhealthy region and with global populations becoming more and more globalized and connected, perhaps the day will come when we can go back and embrace a bit of isolationism again. But in the mean time, we are stuck either ignoring the problems until they evolve into global catastrophe that kills more Americans or we deal with the frustrating problems as they arise and complain about whether of not it's our business.
We live in a world where the rest have been determined to drag us all to hell over their idealisms, selfish intentions, apathies, and conquering motivations. Such things are less likely today to drag us into global warfare, but this is only because we have encouraged democracies and the globalization of trade, economy and populations.
‘BBC uses fake photo of old Iraq massacre for Houla Syria massacre’; Propaganda for NATO war?
"This May, 2012, the British state-run broadcaster BBC has been caught passing off an old photo from Iraq in 2003 for the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla.
"In a report published hours after the massacre, the network used an old photo of dead Iraqi children taken in Al Mussayyib that was first published over nine years ago and presented it as a photo of victims of the recent massacre of civilians in the town of Houla in western Syria, The Telegraph reported.
"The photo shows a child jumping over the dead bodies of hundreds of Iraqi children who have been transferred from a mass grave to be identified.
More NeoCon warmongering falsehoods, this time from the British press. The Guardian has also been instrumental in blaming Assad for killings perpetrated by U.S. armed militias, so that the Pentagons unending quest for control of the worlds oil supply goes forward.
Read more: ‘BBC uses fake photo of old Iraq massacre for Houla Syria massacre’; Propaganda for NATO war?*|*NewsRescue!
My sentiments about the entire mid east mess-
Nothing wrong with a good old fashioned condemnation. It cleanses the soul. Its essentially meaningless, but we don't want to look cold about mass genocide in today's politically correct world. Our condemnations are worded as if these mid east atrocities have never happened before. Although they have been going on and in many cases far worse for millenniums.
It's really ok for our heads of state to say bad country, baaad country.... but when we do, and then "talk" of potential and or possible retribution, we really should start backing up our words more. But now comes the real killer, how?... Or should I say, when, where, how and why would be good as well.
I for one am not against "action" political, economic or good old fashioned military beat down. Any of these should have some meaning to them and have actual effectiveness. I was never against military action in Iraq, but quickly became opposed to what our military action came to be. Opponents to military action were and are wrong in thinking that we cannot win by military action simply because. We have not and are not done well because of what, and how our military action is and was.
If we perhaps went with good old fashioned military strategy we would do far better than we have and are currently doing. For whatever reason, we have largely abandoned this starting with Korea and then went even further down this flawed new ideology with Vietnam. GHWB was about the only smart one when dealing with Iraq in the 1st Iraq conflict. Knock the piss out of them then GTFO. It worked pretty damn well. Too bad that his predecessor and then his son did not follow good old fashioned military strategy, which includes not tipping your friggen hand as to what we are about to do. Imagine the surprise of a grandmaster of chess if he were to announce his strategy and tell his opponent the moves he is about to make and then having his opponent be fully prepared for his moves.... Of course then some pencil neck lib analyst crawls out of his cubicle, and proudly announces that it is an unwinnable situation. He is partly correct, the strategy used makes it an unwinnable strategy, but the military option itself is not an unwinnable one if implemented correctly. And by that I mean not only the actual engagement strategy, but the where and when as well.
Political and economic sanctions also need to be made far more effective. Condemnations are meaningless and not taken seriously if the peaceful options carry no weight. I myself would be plenty satisfied if the U.S. took serious non military actions to avoid the military options. The problem is we don't, and then get into military engagements, Libya would be a perfect example. We had no serious political or economic sanctions, and then get involved with military actions of a country which at the time posed no threat to the U.S. whatsoever. And it cost the U.S. lots of money to do so and unnecessarily dispersed our armed forces for a conflict that even though led to the end of khadafi, the region itself is in no way better off. The people of Libya are hardly better off, and whatever we have been currently doing in the region itself, Syrian people are not going to see a better life. Only the Syrian people have the power to make their lives better. We can offer an end to genocide and atrocities if asked. IF.... the actions of a nations government against its people do not in any way effect or threaten the United States and our assistance is not asked for, we should not spend our resources doing so.
NATO’s death squads responsible for Houla massacre: Analyst
A prominent political analyst says that NATO-backed armed gangs have been behind the recent killing of civilians in the Syrian town of Houla.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Webster Tarpley to further discuss the issue.
What follows is a rough transcript of the interview.
Press TV: Dr. Tarpley, the statements coming from the Western sources of the Houla massacre seem to be a mix of realities and speculations. I mean, we have the UN human rights office saying that during the massacre the government was shelling the neighborhood.
I mean, how could the military have been shelling the place if it had its own forces on the ground there?
Tarpley: I think you will find that the Western accounts are coherent with a major NATO war provocation. All honest observers know that the fundamental problem in Syria is the presence of NATO death squads that have been brought in, in large numbers, armed, fomented by the NATO states and this is now taking on a certain momentum of its own.
This is not the first time that the NATO people have tried to get a large scale massacre that they could try to inflame public opinion with.
However, I would say three on the ground eyewitness reports that I verified myself. First one comes from Fides; Fides is an Italian-Roman Catholic missionary News Service and they point to the fact that what the reality of the Houla massacre is that these fighters, right extremists, al-Qaeda or Salafi, whatever they were; came in and started targeting the Armenian Christians and the roman Catholics, the Franciscans and some others. This is one package.
Then we have a Belgian website with an author called Vox Clamantis which describes, in detail, how it was done that the hospital in Houla was burned down and the people that had been taking refuge in it were systematically massacred from up-close by the death squads not by the government.
Then, we have the Russian journalist operating in Syria, Anhar Kochneva. You can look at some of the work that she has put on the Internet where you have actual eyewitnesses speaking in Arabic and it is translated into Russian but there is also a text which you can translate into English if you want to or some other languages, which simulates the same thing.
They say that they are being oppressed by these death squads in effect and that they are angry with Kofi Annan and with Qatar for enabling this.
So if you put it all together.., there is yet a further element which is that there has been an attempt, it is gruesome and it is macabre, but to procure cadavers.
The NATO side, the death squads they sponsor have been attempting to build up a stock of cadavers that they could then use in this way.
The model for this of course is what Himmler, Heydrich and Gerbils did at the Gleiwitz video station in Germany on the Polish border to provoke war with Poland in August-September 1939.
This is exactly the same method that is now being used by NATO in Syria.
Press TV: With that said, who would benefit from killing women and innocent children in Syria?
PressTV - NATO?s death squads responsible for Houla massacre: Analyst
Sorry, double post.
Last edited by katsung47; 06-11-12 at 08:59 PM.
They constantly arm and escalate from Yemen, Syria, Libya onward and are every bit the ruthless killers that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz were.
Anyone who believes otherwise is lying to themselves.
Could it be that the liberal stereotype is inaccurate?
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
Syrian Rebels Responsible For Houla Massacre: Report
By John Rosenthal
"It was, in the words of U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan, the “tipping point” in the Syria conflict: a savage massacre of over 90 people, predominantly women and children, for which the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed by virtually the entirety of the Western media. Within days of the first reports of the Houla massacre, the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, and several other Western countries announced that they were expelling Syria’s ambassadors in protest.
"But according to a new report in Germany’s leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the Houla massacre was in fact committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants ..."
"According to the article’s sources, the massacre occurred after rebel forces attacked three army-controlled roadblocks outside of Houla. The roadblocks had been set up to protect nearby Alawi majority villages from attacks by Sunni militias. The rebel attacks provoked a call for reinforcements by the besieged army units. Syrian army and rebel forces are reported to have engaged in battle for some 90 minutes, during which time “dozens of soldiers and rebels” were killed."
"According to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Manar (05 March 2012), the armed insurrection is led by a collection of Western-sponsored criminals, C.I.A. assets, Israeli terrorists, blackwater mercenaries and bribed army deserters. "
Last edited by Kane; 06-15-12 at 05:31 PM.