Syria About US Bowing To Saudi Oil Masters — AGAIN?

Pieces Of The Puzzle: The Anatomy Of A ‘Created’ Crisis

 

The Defense Calls It ‘Conspiracy Theory;’ The Prosecution Calls It ‘Circumstantial Evidence

 

This post is connected to ‘Spirits and Types’ and ‘AGENDAS.’   It is a post that will be called ‘conspiracy theory’ by those who refuse to see what is really going on, or who have a vested interest in actually protecting the hidden agenda.  However, if we were prosecutors, what follows would be called ‘circumstantial evidence.’  But there is a third option.  If we were philosophers, and we were looking from a purely logical perspective, the following could be seen as support for an inductive argument.  This is important because inductive reasoning is crucial to many aspects of society, our legal system, mathematics and even science.  Without it, we could not function the way we do.  So, please, keep all of this in mind as you consider the following possibilities in connection to Obama’s saber rattling toward Syria.

 

We start with this story:

 

Kerry: Arab Countries Have Offered to Pay for Syria Invasion

 

Secretary of State John Kerry said Arab countries have offered to pay for a full invasion of Syria to oust President Bashar Assad.”

 

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.”

Read the rest, it’s good :-)

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Syria About US Bowing To Saudi Oil Masters — AGAIN?

  1. Our involvement in Syria must be for reasons other than what we the “American Public” are being told.

    13: So what could we possibly gain from an attack on Syria?

    Even if he wanted to, could Assad meet our demands? He could, of course, abdicate, but this would probably not stop the war both because his likely successor would be someone in the inner circle of his regime and because the rebels form no cohesive group. The likely result would be something like what happened after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a vicious civil war among competing factions.

    No one, of course, can know what would happen then. My hunch is that Syria, like Afghanistan, would be torn apart not only into large chunks such as the Kurds in the northeast but even neighborhood by neighborhood as in the Iraqi cities. Muslims would take revenge on Alawis and Christians who would be fighting for their lives. More millions would be driven out of their homes. Food would be desperately short, and disease probably rampant. If we are worried about a haven for terrorists or drug traffickers, Syria would be hard to beat. And if we are concerned about a sinkhole for American treasure, Syria would compete well with Iraq and Afghanistan. It would probably be difficult or even impossible to avoid “boots on the ground” there. So we are talking about casualties, wounded people, and perhaps wastage of another several trillion dollars which we don’t have to spend and which, if we had, we need to use in our own country for better heath, education, creation of jobs and rebuilding of our infrastructure.

    Finally, if the missile attacks do succeed in “degrading” the Syrian government, it may read the signs as indicating that fighting the war is acceptable so long as chemical weapons are not employed. They may regard it as a sort of license to go ahead in this wasting war. Thus, the action will have accomplished little. Thus, as General Zinni points out, America will likely find itself saddled with another long-term, very expensive and perhaps unwinnable war. We need to remind ourselves what Afghanistan did – bankrupting the Soviet Union – and what Iraq cost us — about 4,500 American dead, over 100,000 wounded, many of whom will never recover, and perhaps $6 trillion.

    Can we afford to repeat those mistakes?

    The above is from an article in The Atlantic, Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk
    By William R. Polk, who has a long history of analysis on these type of events.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor-day-syria-reader-part-2-william-polk/279255/

    Worth the read for perspective. Time to end this nonsense.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s