12 New Messages
Digest #4790
Messages
Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
August 29, 2013
Strikes on Syria will shatter Obama's legacy
By Clifford Kiracofe
====
In the last few days, Obama has spoken of the US as the so-called "indispensable nation," a phrase first used by Madeleine Albright, former president Bill Clinton'
Rice is a protégé of Albright and is a passionate advocate of the use of military force in humanitarian intervention situations as is Power. Power has a very close personal relationship with Obama. The Kosovo case now is invoked by White House advisors.
The 1999 Kosovo intervention by the US and NATO was done outside the UN process in order to avoid problems with the Security Council. Thus, the use of this precedent is convenient for Washington today as a way of preparing global public opinion for military action against the Syrian government.
====
Will the West further destabilize the Middle East by launching military strikes against Syria? The debate in Washington is not only impacted by chemical weapons "red lines," but also by the issue of US President Barack Obama's "legacy.
In Washington, pro-war and pro-peace factions in both the Republican and Democratic parties are lining up on Syria. Although the US public is strongly opposed to more US intervention, the pro-war faction could care less.
The spectacle in Washington today pits the US military which is reluctant to intervene in Syria against the pro-war forces in the Congress and in the media, which are pressured by the pro-Israel lobby.
What about Obama's legacy?
Obama's inner circle is fixated on his historical legacy now that he is in his second and final term of office. His inner circle is focused on foreign policy for legacy making. So the White House spins the foreign policy legacy presenting the president as ending two wars.
But critics say former president George W. Bush's Iraq War, unnecessary in the first place, was needlessly prolonged by Obama. They also say that the Obama escalation in Afghanistan was counterproductive and delayed a timely US exit.
Today White House advisors face a worsening scandal with the Benghazi affair, a failed Arab-Israeli peace process, and a complex and bloody situation in Syria. In short, the Middle East is a disaster zone due to US policy.
The Syrian situation just worsened thanks to chemical weapons use. Although it is not yet clear which side used the chemical weapons, pro-war European and US politicians are inclined to use the recent incident as a pretext for military strikes against Syrian government targets.
On the other hand, General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly warned the Congress and the public that direct US military action against Syria could be highly destabilizing and could even help US' terrorist enemies.
Not only is the US military cautious but both active and retired senior British military leaders are reportedly opposed to any destabilizing use of force. On top of this, very senior active and retired Israeli military and intelligence leaders are also said to oppose any military strikes.
In spite of the caution of military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials, it is the pro-war politicians who are driving the move toward expanded military intervention and war. These politicians, in turn, are under the strong ideological and financial influence of the pro-Israel lobby whether in Washington, London, or Paris.
What is the situation now in Washington?
Obama reorganized his national security team after his reelection. Susan Rice, his former ambassador to the UN, was appointed as national security advisor. Samantha Power, an academic human rights advocate, replaced Rice as ambassador to the UN.
Both Rice and Power are proponents of humanitarian interventionism and the associated doctrine of responsibility to protect.
In the last few days, Obama has spoken of the US as the so-called "indispensable nation," a phrase first used by Madeleine Albright, former president Bill Clinton'
Rice is a protégé of Albright and is a passionate advocate of the use of military force in humanitarian intervention situations as is Power. Power has a very close personal relationship with Obama. The Kosovo case now is invoked by White House advisors.
The 1999 Kosovo intervention by the US and NATO was done outside the UN process in order to avoid problems with the Security Council. Thus, the use of this precedent is convenient for Washington today as a way of preparing global public opinion for military action against the Syrian government.
Should Obama use direct military forces against Syria his foreign policy legacy will be further undermined and the region will be further destabilized.
The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Global Times
August 29, 2013
Strikes on Syria will shatter Obama's legacy
By Clifford Kiracofe
====
In the last few days, Obama has spoken of the US as the so-called "indispensable nation," a phrase first used by Madeleine Albright, former president Bill Clinton'
Rice is a protégé of Albright and is a passionate advocate of the use of military force in humanitarian intervention situations as is Power. Power has a very close personal relationship with Obama. The Kosovo case now is invoked by White House advisors.
The 1999 Kosovo intervention by the US and NATO was done outside the UN process in order to avoid problems with the Security Council. Thus, the use of this precedent is convenient for Washington today as a way of preparing global public opinion for military action against the Syrian government.
====
Will the West further destabilize the Middle East by launching military strikes against Syria? The debate in Washington is not only impacted by chemical weapons "red lines," but also by the issue of US President Barack Obama's "legacy.
In Washington, pro-war and pro-peace factions in both the Republican and Democratic parties are lining up on Syria. Although the US public is strongly opposed to more US intervention, the pro-war faction could care less.
The spectacle in Washington today pits the US military which is reluctant to intervene in Syria against the pro-war forces in the Congress and in the media, which are pressured by the pro-Israel lobby.
What about Obama's legacy?
Obama's inner circle is fixated on his historical legacy now that he is in his second and final term of office. His inner circle is focused on foreign policy for legacy making. So the White House spins the foreign policy legacy presenting the president as ending two wars.
But critics say former president George W. Bush's Iraq War, unnecessary in the first place, was needlessly prolonged by Obama. They also say that the Obama escalation in Afghanistan was counterproductive and delayed a timely US exit.
Today White House advisors face a worsening scandal with the Benghazi affair, a failed Arab-Israeli peace process, and a complex and bloody situation in Syria. In short, the Middle East is a disaster zone due to US policy.
The Syrian situation just worsened thanks to chemical weapons use. Although it is not yet clear which side used the chemical weapons, pro-war European and US politicians are inclined to use the recent incident as a pretext for military strikes against Syrian government targets.
On the other hand, General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly warned the Congress and the public that direct US military action against Syria could be highly destabilizing and could even help US' terrorist enemies.
Not only is the US military cautious but both active and retired senior British military leaders are reportedly opposed to any destabilizing use of force. On top of this, very senior active and retired Israeli military and intelligence leaders are also said to oppose any military strikes.
In spite of the caution of military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials, it is the pro-war politicians who are driving the move toward expanded military intervention and war. These politicians, in turn, are under the strong ideological and financial influence of the pro-Israel lobby whether in Washington, London, or Paris.
What is the situation now in Washington?
Obama reorganized his national security team after his reelection. Susan Rice, his former ambassador to the UN, was appointed as national security advisor. Samantha Power, an academic human rights advocate, replaced Rice as ambassador to the UN.
Both Rice and Power are proponents of humanitarian interventionism and the associated doctrine of responsibility to protect.
In the last few days, Obama has spoken of the US as the so-called "indispensable nation," a phrase first used by Madeleine Albright, former president Bill Clinton'
Rice is a protégé of Albright and is a passionate advocate of the use of military force in humanitarian intervention situations as is Power. Power has a very close personal relationship with Obama. The Kosovo case now is invoked by White House advisors.
The 1999 Kosovo intervention by the US and NATO was done outside the UN process in order to avoid problems with the Security Council. Thus, the use of this precedent is convenient for Washington today as a way of preparing global public opinion for military action against the Syrian government.
Should Obama use direct military forces against Syria his foreign policy legacy will be further undermined and the region will be further destabilized.
The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
*Important! Please Distribute Widely
*
*1) United Front! - South American Nations Resoundingly Reject As Illegal,
Any U.S. & NATO Military Intervention in Syria.
2) Moving To War! - UK Moves Typhoon Fighter Jets to Base In Cyprus*.
------------
*1) South American Countries Reject Military Intervention *
www.plenglish.
*
**
Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
Aug. 29. 2013**
South American Countries Reject Military Intervention*
*
Buenos Aires, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina)* The threat of a military intervention
of United States and its allies in Syria , under pretext
of an alleged use of chemical weapons by that country'
resounding rejection of the South American countries.
Argentine, leading the UN Security Council, expressed in a communiqué, "
along with all Latin America, have emphasized the principle of no military
intervention from abroad.
The government of Cristina Fernandez pledged for an investigation set in
motion by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon that provides "conclusive
results"
The text issued by the foreign ministry emphasized that the foreign
military intervention as an automatic response to the use of chemical
weapons without having security of its use and who used it, means a defeat
of the multilateral system and disregard of its legal system.
"We reiterated the concept that the United Nations will not be efficient
while the powerful believe that only the weak can accomplish with its
resolutions"
He assured that the seriousness of this situation should admit the
possibility of a humanitarian intervention without goals or military means
and with the UN mandate.
Similarly, President Nicolas Maduro, on behalf of the government and
Venezuelan people, "rejects and condemns, firmly and categorically, any
attempt from the imperialist powers, to interfere
in Syrian territory militarily.
Maduro considered that Washington and countries member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization "have armed and trained terrorist squads in
Syria, aimed at interfering and keeping control
of the country."
It is expected that the Seventh Summit of Head of States of the Union of
South American Nations that will be held on Friday in Suriname, the
countries of the bloc will express themselves son the issue.
------------
*2) UK Sends Typhoon Fighters to Air Base in Cyprus
*
www.plenglish.
*Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
Aug. 29. 2013
UK Sends Typhoon Fighters to Air Base in Cyprus*
*London, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina) *Amid the tension over the preparation of a
possible aggression against Syria, the United Kingdom announced today six
Typhoon fighters will be sent to its air base in Cyprus, in the
Mediterranean Sea.
According to a communiqué issued by the Ministry of Defense, "this is just
a preventive and cautious measure to guarantee the protection of UK
interests and the defense of sovereign zones of our base amid a moment of
increasing tension in the region."
A military contingency plan against Syria and the arguments defended by the
David Cameron administration will be voted on today at the House of
Commons, while the Labour Party representation are expected to reject them.
Contrary to what the Government wants, the vote will not be final and will
require other discussion next week.
============
*Important! Please Distribute Widely
*
*1) United Front! - South American Nations Resoundingly Reject As Illegal,
Any U.S. & NATO Military Intervention in Syria.
2) Moving To War! - UK Moves Typhoon Fighter Jets to Base In Cyprus*.
------------
*1) South American Countries Reject Military Intervention *
www.plenglish.
*
**
Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
Aug. 29. 2013**
South American Countries Reject Military Intervention*
*
Buenos Aires, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina)* The threat of a military intervention
of United States and its allies in Syria , under pretext
of an alleged use of chemical weapons by that country'
resounding rejection of the South American countries.
Argentine, leading the UN Security Council, expressed in a communiqué, "
along with all Latin America, have emphasized the principle of no military
intervention from abroad.
The government of Cristina Fernandez pledged for an investigation set in
motion by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon that provides "conclusive
results"
The text issued by the foreign ministry emphasized that the foreign
military intervention as an automatic response to the use of chemical
weapons without having security of its use and who used it, means a defeat
of the multilateral system and disregard of its legal system.
"We reiterated the concept that the United Nations will not be efficient
while the powerful believe that only the weak can accomplish with its
resolutions"
He assured that the seriousness of this situation should admit the
possibility of a humanitarian intervention without goals or military means
and with the UN mandate.
Similarly, President Nicolas Maduro, on behalf of the government and
Venezuelan people, "rejects and condemns, firmly and categorically, any
attempt from the imperialist powers, to interfere
in Syrian territory militarily.
Maduro considered that Washington and countries member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization "have armed and trained terrorist squads in
Syria, aimed at interfering and keeping control
of the country."
It is expected that the Seventh Summit of Head of States of the Union of
South American Nations that will be held on Friday in Suriname, the
countries of the bloc will express themselves son the issue.
------------
*2) UK Sends Typhoon Fighters to Air Base in Cyprus
*
www.plenglish.
*Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
Aug. 29. 2013
UK Sends Typhoon Fighters to Air Base in Cyprus*
*London, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina) *Amid the tension over the preparation of a
possible aggression against Syria, the United Kingdom announced today six
Typhoon fighters will be sent to its air base in Cyprus, in the
Mediterranean Sea.
According to a communiqué issued by the Ministry of Defense, "this is just
a preventive and cautious measure to guarantee the protection of UK
interests and the defense of sovereign zones of our base amid a moment of
increasing tension in the region."
A military contingency plan against Syria and the arguments defended by the
David Cameron administration will be voted on today at the House of
Commons, while the Labour Party representation are expected to reject them.
Contrary to what the Government wants, the vote will not be final and will
require other discussion next week.
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
Please Distribute Widely
*Attack on Syria Seeks Hegemony over Russia and China*
------------
www.plenglish.
*Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
*
*Aug. 29, 2013*
*
**Attack on Syria Seeks Hegemony over
Russia and China*
*By Jorge Petinaud
Prensa Latina*
*
Moscow, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina) *Russian sociologist Leonid Savin said on
Thursday that the immediate objective of an attack on Syria by the West is
to control the world'&#
long term, to impose its hegemony on Russia and China.
The final goal is the unconditional surrender of all countries, including
Russia and China, to the interests of the United States
and its European allies, said the university professor, who also
leads the Euro-Asian International Movement.
Savin explained that this policy includes the organization of energy flows
to Europe.
The conflict against the Syrian State, promoted by neighboring countries
interested in taking their gas and oil pipes to Europe through that
territory, started just after Bashar al-Assad'
statements about what he called the four-sea strategy, the expert
said.
However, there is another more global plan aimed at unifying
the world space. That is what we call aggressive globalization, imposed
tooth and nail by the members of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), added the scholar.
Savin considers that in order to achieve those goals, Washington
and its allies have no scruples and are capable of fabricating any pretexts.
It is evident that behind such provocations over the chemical weapons, shot
by mercenaries but of which they accuse al-Assad'
another effort to destabilize the situation and encourage the West to
intervene, the Russian sociologist pointed
out.
The opponents opened fire at the UN representatives, who went
to Damascus to investigate the use of chemical weapons, which is another
example of the hidden tentacles behind the virulent media campaign against
Syria, he pointed out.
To my mind, he noted, it is an action carried out by the network organized
and supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia with support from the United States
and its accomplices.
The political analyst stressed that the violent actions being prepared by
the United States and its NATO partners against Syria are part of
a strategy to besiege Russia.
All our political scientists and experts in Russia agree that the
next target after Syria will be Iran, and later, perhaps using other
methods, Russia, he noted.
Savin warned about the big conflict in the making due to the
irresponsibility of those who try to impose strong-arm positions.
As an ally of Syria, Iran will back up Damascus in the response to
the attacks on its territory, which is a violation of Syria's territorial
sovereignty, and other forces such as Hezbollah, for example, will
try to respond, he predicted.
Unfortunately, the aggression by the United States and its allies
can create a hotbed in the entire region, said the Russian
researcher.
============
Please Distribute Widely
*Attack on Syria Seeks Hegemony over Russia and China*
------------
www.plenglish.
*Prensa Latina
www.plenglish.
*
*Aug. 29, 2013*
*
**Attack on Syria Seeks Hegemony over
Russia and China*
*By Jorge Petinaud
Prensa Latina*
*
Moscow, Aug 29 (Prensa Latina) *Russian sociologist Leonid Savin said on
Thursday that the immediate objective of an attack on Syria by the West is
to control the world'&#
long term, to impose its hegemony on Russia and China.
The final goal is the unconditional surrender of all countries, including
Russia and China, to the interests of the United States
and its European allies, said the university professor, who also
leads the Euro-Asian International Movement.
Savin explained that this policy includes the organization of energy flows
to Europe.
The conflict against the Syrian State, promoted by neighboring countries
interested in taking their gas and oil pipes to Europe through that
territory, started just after Bashar al-Assad'
statements about what he called the four-sea strategy, the expert
said.
However, there is another more global plan aimed at unifying
the world space. That is what we call aggressive globalization, imposed
tooth and nail by the members of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), added the scholar.
Savin considers that in order to achieve those goals, Washington
and its allies have no scruples and are capable of fabricating any pretexts.
It is evident that behind such provocations over the chemical weapons, shot
by mercenaries but of which they accuse al-Assad'
another effort to destabilize the situation and encourage the West to
intervene, the Russian sociologist pointed
out.
The opponents opened fire at the UN representatives, who went
to Damascus to investigate the use of chemical weapons, which is another
example of the hidden tentacles behind the virulent media campaign against
Syria, he pointed out.
To my mind, he noted, it is an action carried out by the network organized
and supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia with support from the United States
and its accomplices.
The political analyst stressed that the violent actions being prepared by
the United States and its NATO partners against Syria are part of
a strategy to besiege Russia.
All our political scientists and experts in Russia agree that the
next target after Syria will be Iran, and later, perhaps using other
methods, Russia, he noted.
Savin warned about the big conflict in the making due to the
irresponsibility of those who try to impose strong-arm positions.
As an ally of Syria, Iran will back up Damascus in the response to
the attacks on its territory, which is a violation of Syria's territorial
sovereignty, and other forces such as Hezbollah, for example, will
try to respond, he predicted.
Unfortunately, the aggression by the United States and its allies
can create a hotbed in the entire region, said the Russian
researcher.
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
Please Distribute Widely
*(Reuters) "Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises"*
Bravo Russia! Hope springs eternal that U.S and NATO aggression
against Syria may still be stopped - mart
------------
http://ca.news.
*Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises
Reutors, via Yahoo Canada News
*
*Aug 29, 2013
*
*
By Timothy Heritage*
*
MOSCOW (Reuters) - *Russia is sending two warships to the east
Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied
this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers
prepare for military action against Syria.
Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying
Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from
the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet
in the "coming days".
Any strengthening of the navy's presence could fuel tension, especially as
the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the
Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which is blames
on Syrian government forces.
"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to
make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference
to the events in Syria.
It was not clear when the vessels would arrive but Interfax said the Moskva
missile cruiser was currently in the North Atlantic and would set sail in
the next few days.
President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect
national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia
cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western
ports.
The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but
gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation
and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy
official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.
The reason for the discrepancy in the reports by Interfax and RIA was not
clear but confusion has at times surrounded previous Russian deployments in
the Mediterranean because of the secrecy involved. The Defence Ministry
declined comment.
Washington accuses Syrian government forces of carrying out last week's
chemical weapons attack and has made clear it could soon launch a military
strike.
Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military
intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions
at the U.N. Security Council.
Defense experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by
Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches,
particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems although
they might never be used for this.
"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than
a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike
militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.
"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that
is the primary intent."
Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and
three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent
naval deployment there since Soviet times.
(Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, editing by Elizabeth Piper)
============
Please Distribute Widely
*(Reuters) "Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises"*
Bravo Russia! Hope springs eternal that U.S and NATO aggression
against Syria may still be stopped - mart
------------
http://ca.news.
*Russia sends warships to Mediterranean as Syria tension rises
Reutors, via Yahoo Canada News
*
*Aug 29, 2013
*
*
By Timothy Heritage*
*
MOSCOW (Reuters) - *Russia is sending two warships to the east
Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied
this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers
prepare for military action against Syria.
Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying
Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from
the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet
in the "coming days".
Any strengthening of the navy's presence could fuel tension, especially as
the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the
Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which is blames
on Syrian government forces.
"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to
make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference
to the events in Syria.
It was not clear when the vessels would arrive but Interfax said the Moskva
missile cruiser was currently in the North Atlantic and would set sail in
the next few days.
President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect
national security interests and is not a threat to any nation. Russia
cooperates with NATO navies against piracy and its ships call at Western
ports.
The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but
gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation
and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy
official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.
The reason for the discrepancy in the reports by Interfax and RIA was not
clear but confusion has at times surrounded previous Russian deployments in
the Mediterranean because of the secrecy involved. The Defence Ministry
declined comment.
Washington accuses Syrian government forces of carrying out last week's
chemical weapons attack and has made clear it could soon launch a military
strike.
Russia is one of Assad's biggest arms suppliers. It opposes any military
intervention in Syria and has shielded Damascus against further sanctions
at the U.N. Security Council.
Defense experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by
Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches,
particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems although
they might never be used for this.
"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than
a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike
militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.
"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that
is the primary intent."
Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and
three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent
naval deployment there since Soviet times.
(Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, editing by Elizabeth Piper)
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"kenfreeland2010" kenfreeland2010
Rick,
Why not design a STOP NATO t-shirt and sell them online?
Peace,
Ken
Why not design a STOP NATO t-shirt and sell them online?
Peace,
Ken
Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.aco.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
August 29, 2013
Exercise Brilliant Arrow update
Story by Eline B. Johansen, Norwegian Air Force
The Norwegian 339 squadron is partaking in Exercise Brilliant Arrow 2013 (BAW13) with three Bell 412 helicopters. During most of their missions these helicopters cooperate with ground forces.
On Tuesday, 27 August 2013, around noon two helicopters conducted a simulated airdrop to resupply special ground forces. In the BAW13 scenario, the helicopters had to fly over enemy territory to accomplish their mission.
For many of its missions during BAW13, the three helicopters of 339 squadron are cooperating with other air assets of participating nations. During the upcoming standby period of the NATO Response Force in 2014, they have to be prepared for any kind of situation.
"A helicopter in itself isn't of much use in air-to-air-combat,†says one of the operators, "today has gone very well, and this is excellent practice for us.â€Â Â
In the BAW13 scenario, the helicopters have hostile fighters against them at all times. Therefore they depend on protection by their own fighters, and have to communicate and cooperate with them.
Other scenarios include Combat Search and Rescue (CSaR) missions where helicopters have to locate and rescue a pilot in a hostile area over land and over sea. This skill will also be trained during BAW13 in the central region of Norway until 5 September 2013.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
August 29, 2013
Exercise Brilliant Arrow update
Story by Eline B. Johansen, Norwegian Air Force
The Norwegian 339 squadron is partaking in Exercise Brilliant Arrow 2013 (BAW13) with three Bell 412 helicopters. During most of their missions these helicopters cooperate with ground forces.
On Tuesday, 27 August 2013, around noon two helicopters conducted a simulated airdrop to resupply special ground forces. In the BAW13 scenario, the helicopters had to fly over enemy territory to accomplish their mission.
For many of its missions during BAW13, the three helicopters of 339 squadron are cooperating with other air assets of participating nations. During the upcoming standby period of the NATO Response Force in 2014, they have to be prepared for any kind of situation.
"A helicopter in itself isn't of much use in air-to-air-combat,†says one of the operators, "today has gone very well, and this is excellent practice for us.â€Â Â
In the BAW13 scenario, the helicopters have hostile fighters against them at all times. Therefore they depend on protection by their own fighters, and have to communicate and cooperate with them.
Other scenarios include Combat Search and Rescue (CSaR) missions where helicopters have to locate and rescue a pilot in a hostile area over land and over sea. This skill will also be trained during BAW13 in the central region of Norway until 5 September 2013.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
I*mportant! Please Distribute Widely
1) (Reuters) "Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons
"
*
*2) (Reuters Video) - " Syria's Information Minister: "We have never used
chemical weapons in any shape or form"*
------------
*1) "Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons"
*
http://ca.news.
*Reuters, via Yahoo Canada News
http://ca.news.
Wed, 28 Aug, 2013*
*Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons*
*
DAMASCUS (Reuters - Wed, 28 Aug, 2013) *- Syria's deputy foreign minister
said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped
"terrorists&qu
soon use them against Europe.
Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal
Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence
that "armed terrorist groups" had used sarin gas in all the sites of
alleged attacks.
"We repeat that the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical
weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France,
and this has to stop," he said. "This means these chemical weapons will
soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe," he added.
------------
*2) Video - "Syria&#
weapons in any shape or form"
Reuters, via Yahoo Canada News
http://ca.news.
Aug 25, 2013
Video - (Reuters - Aug 25, 2013) " Syria's Information Minister: "We have
never used chemical weapons in any shape or form"*
*Video - Syria denies allegations it used chemical weapons on civilians in
a Damascus suburb and announces it will allow United Nations chemical
weapons inspectors to visit Ghouta. Deborah Gembara reports.*
*
*
*Click here to view:*
yahoo.com/video/
============
I*mportant! Please Distribute Widely
1) (Reuters) "Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons
"
*
*2) (Reuters Video) - " Syria's Information Minister: "We have never used
chemical weapons in any shape or form"*
------------
*1) "Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons"
*
http://ca.news.
*Reuters, via Yahoo Canada News
http://ca.news.
Wed, 28 Aug, 2013*
*Syria says terrorists will strike Europe with chemical weapons*
*
DAMASCUS (Reuters - Wed, 28 Aug, 2013) *- Syria's deputy foreign minister
said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped
"terrorists&qu
soon use them against Europe.
Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal
Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence
that "armed terrorist groups" had used sarin gas in all the sites of
alleged attacks.
"We repeat that the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical
weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France,
and this has to stop," he said. "This means these chemical weapons will
soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe," he added.
------------
*2) Video - "Syria&#
weapons in any shape or form"
Reuters, via Yahoo Canada News
http://ca.news.
Aug 25, 2013
Video - (Reuters - Aug 25, 2013) " Syria's Information Minister: "We have
never used chemical weapons in any shape or form"*
*Video - Syria denies allegations it used chemical weapons on civilians in
a Damascus suburb and announces it will allow United Nations chemical
weapons inspectors to visit Ghouta. Deborah Gembara reports.*
*
*
*Click here to view:*
yahoo.com/video/
============
Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://voiceofrussi
Voice of Russia
August 29, 2013
Attack on Syria may cause massive damage to the US
John Robles
The United States of America and its leader Barrack Hussein Obama have spent billions of dollars in Syria, at a time when US taxpayers are suffering, attempting to bring about a change of regime. The money has been spent funding al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists to destabilize the country, groups that they have parroted time and time again as being the number one enemies of the American people.
Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens they will obtusely carry it out without regard for the consequences and without forward planning.
I would put forward that the goal of the United States is not to remove President Bashar Al-Assad, just as it is not to protect the Syrian people. As for Al-Assad he offered to step down multiple times in the past and if the true goal was simply removing him, they could have assassinated him years ago. Unless the CIA has grown completely incompetent that is.
As for the Syrian people, it is clear that all of the bloodshed and loss of life in the country has been caused because of, and almost exclusively by, the terrorist elements that the United States has been training, funding, arming and importing.
So if they do not want to remove Assad what do they want? Now this is part of the secret geopolitical agenda they seek for the Middle East. I would put forward that the real goal is to destabilize and destroy the country and the people and throw Syria into anarchy. This will create yet another weak and broken country from which they can steal resources and which they can manipulate as they wish. Look at the record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and all of the other countries in the Middle East that they have destabilized and destroyed through other means.
A la Zbigniew Brzeznski and his plans to destabilize Russia into sixty-some-odd autonomous republics, the plans for the Middle East are almost identical, and the people of all of these countries just get in the way. Why else attack countries that pose no threat? Iraq never threatened America, nor did Afghanistan or Libya. Neither has Syria.
These states did possess independent foreign policies and that has been their only crime. Other than of course, in the case of Iraq and Libya, the fact that hours before the attacks on their countries, the leaders changed the trade in oil from the dollar to the euro. Something that would completely destroy the United States if all of the countries of the world followed suit. Hence they need to destabilize the economy of Europe and all of the instruments that have been implemented to carry that out. The US cannot allow the euro to grow as an alternative currency, because the US economy will be destroyed. The United States has technically long been economically bankrupt. As for moral, well that is also obvious.
It is interesting to note, from a militarily strategic viewpoint, that by intentionally telegraphing that they are planning to attack, and even setting the date, they are guaranteeing that President Al-Assad will be protected and they are contributing to the massive civilian losses that will occur.
There will be no chance of a “surgical strike†because all of the important targets will already be moved or protected. So in order to achieve whatever military objectives there are this will require even more fire power and more missiles, something which of course will be very profitable and beneficial for Raytheon and all of the other US war contractors. Telegraphing will also allow for Syria to set up defenses, if it has not already, to knock all of the US’s million dollar missiles out of the sky. Something it has every right to do.
The plan to strike Syria is not only one of cowardice and an admission of utter and complete failure by the United States on the diplomatic front but it is also illegal without a United Nations resolution and an imminent threat to America itself. It is obviously cowardly because launching missiles while fearfully hiding behind a shield where there is no threat to yourself is not something that an honorable soldier on a battlefield would do. It is the tactic of a coward.
This tactic however is necessary for Obama because when the massive loss of American lives begins, the American people will rise up and no longer support all of the callous unthinking military adventures. Hence what some view as the illogical funding of Al-Qaeda and terrorists to carry out the dirty work.
What will happen when these terrorist elements begin to realize that they have been merely disposable pawns for the US and that they have been killing their own brothers and mothers and sisters? Of course the US has not thought of that. The backlash when Al-Qaeda and all of the motley groups of terrorists realize they have been killing their brethren for the enemy will be monumental and Americans will finally see what real terrorism is all about, I believe that is a given. But that is okay for Washington too, they have all of the plans in place and this will allow the military industrial complex to expand and invade even more countries. What are a few American lives?
What about Israel? As I have said in the past, in reality the United States does not care about Israel. The maelstrom that will occur if the US strikes Syria will be monumental and right in the middle of it will be the Jewish state. Washington, thousands of miles away, behind a missile shield, with all of its leaders protected and hiding in bunkers, will be safe. Of course the US has convinced Israel that they are safe, but I beg to differ.
Let this be a warning then to reactionary proponents of an attack on Syria: the results will be monumental and may lead to the self-destruction of America both economically and politically. Why? For one it will further bankrupt an already decimated economy. Two, it will also polarize enemies and cause countries around the world to strike back, meaning the world community may in fact realize that it is time to reign in and end the continual invasions and aggressive wars being waged by the US.
This will be particularly true when it is revealed that the chemical attack in Syria was a black operation to give Obama his pretext to carry out another Nobel-Peace-
This last point will no doubt fall on deaf ears, or in this case “on blind eyesâ€, but in reality the US is missing a very important opportunity in Syria, and that is a chance to rebuild its reputation and become a respected intelligent and grown up member and leader of the world community by simply promoting a peaceful resolution. The world is truly tired of US bombs and bellicose rhetoric and the actions of an arrogant one-world-power wantonly bashing and bullying its way across the globe.
My thoughts are with the Syrian people and my hope is that someone, somewhere, with the power to stop this madness will listen. How about it President of the United States of America Barrack Hussein Obama? Maybe it is time to use diplomacy and work for peace and to finally put the weapons down? You have a Nobel Peace Prize after all. Or does that mean nothing?
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 29, 2013
Attack on Syria may cause massive damage to the US
John Robles
The United States of America and its leader Barrack Hussein Obama have spent billions of dollars in Syria, at a time when US taxpayers are suffering, attempting to bring about a change of regime. The money has been spent funding al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists to destabilize the country, groups that they have parroted time and time again as being the number one enemies of the American people.
Their strategy was failing, like all of their strategies are bound to fail because they lack vision and true understanding of the world and its people. They created a red line, most likely launched a black operation to make that red line a reality and now with extreme desperate irrational urgency, they want to carry out their plan to attack Syria. That is their goal, they set it, and no matter what happens they will obtusely carry it out without regard for the consequences and without forward planning.
I would put forward that the goal of the United States is not to remove President Bashar Al-Assad, just as it is not to protect the Syrian people. As for Al-Assad he offered to step down multiple times in the past and if the true goal was simply removing him, they could have assassinated him years ago. Unless the CIA has grown completely incompetent that is.
As for the Syrian people, it is clear that all of the bloodshed and loss of life in the country has been caused because of, and almost exclusively by, the terrorist elements that the United States has been training, funding, arming and importing.
So if they do not want to remove Assad what do they want? Now this is part of the secret geopolitical agenda they seek for the Middle East. I would put forward that the real goal is to destabilize and destroy the country and the people and throw Syria into anarchy. This will create yet another weak and broken country from which they can steal resources and which they can manipulate as they wish. Look at the record: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and all of the other countries in the Middle East that they have destabilized and destroyed through other means.
A la Zbigniew Brzeznski and his plans to destabilize Russia into sixty-some-odd autonomous republics, the plans for the Middle East are almost identical, and the people of all of these countries just get in the way. Why else attack countries that pose no threat? Iraq never threatened America, nor did Afghanistan or Libya. Neither has Syria.
These states did possess independent foreign policies and that has been their only crime. Other than of course, in the case of Iraq and Libya, the fact that hours before the attacks on their countries, the leaders changed the trade in oil from the dollar to the euro. Something that would completely destroy the United States if all of the countries of the world followed suit. Hence they need to destabilize the economy of Europe and all of the instruments that have been implemented to carry that out. The US cannot allow the euro to grow as an alternative currency, because the US economy will be destroyed. The United States has technically long been economically bankrupt. As for moral, well that is also obvious.
It is interesting to note, from a militarily strategic viewpoint, that by intentionally telegraphing that they are planning to attack, and even setting the date, they are guaranteeing that President Al-Assad will be protected and they are contributing to the massive civilian losses that will occur.
There will be no chance of a “surgical strike†because all of the important targets will already be moved or protected. So in order to achieve whatever military objectives there are this will require even more fire power and more missiles, something which of course will be very profitable and beneficial for Raytheon and all of the other US war contractors. Telegraphing will also allow for Syria to set up defenses, if it has not already, to knock all of the US’s million dollar missiles out of the sky. Something it has every right to do.
The plan to strike Syria is not only one of cowardice and an admission of utter and complete failure by the United States on the diplomatic front but it is also illegal without a United Nations resolution and an imminent threat to America itself. It is obviously cowardly because launching missiles while fearfully hiding behind a shield where there is no threat to yourself is not something that an honorable soldier on a battlefield would do. It is the tactic of a coward.
This tactic however is necessary for Obama because when the massive loss of American lives begins, the American people will rise up and no longer support all of the callous unthinking military adventures. Hence what some view as the illogical funding of Al-Qaeda and terrorists to carry out the dirty work.
What will happen when these terrorist elements begin to realize that they have been merely disposable pawns for the US and that they have been killing their own brothers and mothers and sisters? Of course the US has not thought of that. The backlash when Al-Qaeda and all of the motley groups of terrorists realize they have been killing their brethren for the enemy will be monumental and Americans will finally see what real terrorism is all about, I believe that is a given. But that is okay for Washington too, they have all of the plans in place and this will allow the military industrial complex to expand and invade even more countries. What are a few American lives?
What about Israel? As I have said in the past, in reality the United States does not care about Israel. The maelstrom that will occur if the US strikes Syria will be monumental and right in the middle of it will be the Jewish state. Washington, thousands of miles away, behind a missile shield, with all of its leaders protected and hiding in bunkers, will be safe. Of course the US has convinced Israel that they are safe, but I beg to differ.
Let this be a warning then to reactionary proponents of an attack on Syria: the results will be monumental and may lead to the self-destruction of America both economically and politically. Why? For one it will further bankrupt an already decimated economy. Two, it will also polarize enemies and cause countries around the world to strike back, meaning the world community may in fact realize that it is time to reign in and end the continual invasions and aggressive wars being waged by the US.
This will be particularly true when it is revealed that the chemical attack in Syria was a black operation to give Obama his pretext to carry out another Nobel-Peace-
This last point will no doubt fall on deaf ears, or in this case “on blind eyesâ€, but in reality the US is missing a very important opportunity in Syria, and that is a chance to rebuild its reputation and become a respected intelligent and grown up member and leader of the world community by simply promoting a peaceful resolution. The world is truly tired of US bombs and bellicose rhetoric and the actions of an arrogant one-world-power wantonly bashing and bullying its way across the globe.
My thoughts are with the Syrian people and my hope is that someone, somewhere, with the power to stop this madness will listen. How about it President of the United States of America Barrack Hussein Obama? Maybe it is time to use diplomacy and work for peace and to finally put the weapons down? You have a Nobel Peace Prize after all. Or does that mean nothing?
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
August 29, 2013
US Frustrated by Russian Efforts to ‘Block’ Syria Action at UN
WASHINGTON: An urgent meeting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – reportedly called by Russia – ended in less than an hour on Thursday without any indication of progress or agreement on the crisis in Syria following last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack, US media reported.
It was the second time in two days that the five permanent Security Council members – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – came out of a meeting with no apparent progress.
Russia, which on Wednesday blocked a British resolution seeking the authorization of military force, says there is no evidence that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. The US and its allies say they are convinced that the Assad regime was behind the attack.
And in a stunning defeat for British Prime Minister David Cameron, the British parliament late Thursday voted against endorsing military action against Syria.
The White House said Thursday’s Security Council permanent member meeting was the latest effort by Moscow to prevent the UN from holding Syria accountable for the alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus on Aug. 21. The Syrian government has denied using chemical agents.
The United States believes “strongly†in the UN process, but, “What we’ve seen at the UN is a repeated willingness on the part of the Russians to block action… They’ve done it three times, looks like they’re doing it again,†said White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest in a briefing with reporters.
The United Nations Security Council has not authorized any military intervention in the Syrian crisis, which began in early 2011. Moscow, along with Beijing, has previously vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions condemning Assad's government.
“We’ve seen two years of Russian intransigence on the Syria issue at the UN... We’ve haven’t seen a shift in two years, I’m not sure why we would expect one today,†said Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, to the media.
...
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
August 30, 2013
Five permanent members of United Nations Security Council end meeting on Syria
UNITED NATIONS: The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have ended their discussions of the situation in Syria, a source at the Russian Permanent Mission to the United Nations told Itar-Tass on Thursday.
“The meeting is over,†the source said without commenting on details.
British Ambassador to the United Nations Mark Lyall-Grant also refused to give any comments to journalists.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council held their first meeting last Wednesday to discuss a British draft resolution, which was supposed to sanction measures necessary to protect civilians in Syria.
Observers believed that the wording was designed to hide Western plans to deliver missile strikes at Syria.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said earlier on Thursday that London would not insist on a military operation against Damascus if the majority of Security Council members voted against that.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Russian Information Agency Novosti
August 29, 2013
US Frustrated by Russian Efforts to ‘Block’ Syria Action at UN
WASHINGTON: An urgent meeting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – reportedly called by Russia – ended in less than an hour on Thursday without any indication of progress or agreement on the crisis in Syria following last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack, US media reported.
It was the second time in two days that the five permanent Security Council members – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – came out of a meeting with no apparent progress.
Russia, which on Wednesday blocked a British resolution seeking the authorization of military force, says there is no evidence that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. The US and its allies say they are convinced that the Assad regime was behind the attack.
And in a stunning defeat for British Prime Minister David Cameron, the British parliament late Thursday voted against endorsing military action against Syria.
The White House said Thursday’s Security Council permanent member meeting was the latest effort by Moscow to prevent the UN from holding Syria accountable for the alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus on Aug. 21. The Syrian government has denied using chemical agents.
The United States believes “strongly†in the UN process, but, “What we’ve seen at the UN is a repeated willingness on the part of the Russians to block action… They’ve done it three times, looks like they’re doing it again,†said White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest in a briefing with reporters.
The United Nations Security Council has not authorized any military intervention in the Syrian crisis, which began in early 2011. Moscow, along with Beijing, has previously vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions condemning Assad's government.
“We’ve seen two years of Russian intransigence on the Syria issue at the UN... We’ve haven’t seen a shift in two years, I’m not sure why we would expect one today,†said Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, to the media.
...
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
August 30, 2013
Five permanent members of United Nations Security Council end meeting on Syria
UNITED NATIONS: The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have ended their discussions of the situation in Syria, a source at the Russian Permanent Mission to the United Nations told Itar-Tass on Thursday.
“The meeting is over,†the source said without commenting on details.
British Ambassador to the United Nations Mark Lyall-Grant also refused to give any comments to journalists.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council held their first meeting last Wednesday to discuss a British draft resolution, which was supposed to sanction measures necessary to protect civilians in Syria.
Observers believed that the wording was designed to hide Western plans to deliver missile strikes at Syria.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said earlier on Thursday that London would not insist on a military operation against Damascus if the majority of Security Council members voted against that.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"ANTIC.org-SNN" minimaks
Justifying the Unjustifiable: US Uses Past Crimes to Legalize Future Ones <http://www.infowars
Diana Johnstone
Ron Paul Institute <http://ronpaulinsti
August 26, 2013
The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal†for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo warâ€.
This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars. The pretext of “saving the Kosovars†from an imaginary “genocide†was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction†pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public. Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.
On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.†(By the way, the “air war†was not “in Kosovoâ€, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)
On Friday, Obama admitted that going in and attacking another country “without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence†raised questions in terms of international law.
According to the New York Times, “Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.â€
“It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision,†said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.â€
Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO, suggests that the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons in Syria amounts to a grave humanitarian emergency, just as the Clinton administration argued in 1999 that “a grave humanitarian emergency†presented the “international community†with “the responsibility to actâ€.
This amounts to creative legality worthy of the planet’s number one Rogue State.
An Illegal War as Precedent for More War
The US/NATO war against Yugoslavia, which used unilateral force to break up a sovereign state, detaching the historic Serbian province of Kosovo and transforming it into a US satellite, was clearly in violation of international law.
In May 2000, the distinguished British authority on international law, Sir Ian Brownlie (1936-2010), presented a 16,000-word Memorandum <http://www.parliame
Brownlie recalled that key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.â€
Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter.
During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect†(R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.
Concerning the Kosovo war, in his Memorandum Professor Brownlie reached the following major conclusions:
- The primary justification for the bombing of Yugoslavia was always the imposition of the NATO plans for the future of Kosovo. It was in this context that the bombing campaign was planned in August 1998.
-The threats of massive air strikes were made in the same context and were first made public in October 1998. Neither the purpose of the planned air strikes nor their implementation related to events on the ground in Kosovo in March 1999.
- The cause of the air strikes was quite simple: given that Yugoslavia had not given in to threats, the threats had to be carried out.
- The legal basis of the action, as presented by the United Kingdom and other NATO States, was at no stage adequately articulated.
- Humanitarian intervention, the justification belatedly advanced by the NATO States, has no place either in the United Nations Charter or in customary international law.
- If the view had been held that the Permanent Members of the Security Council would recognise the need for humanitarian action, then no doubt a resolution would have been sought.
- The intentions of the United States and the United Kingdom included the removal of the Government of Yugoslavia. It is impossible to reconcile such purposes with humanitarian intervention.
- The claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds appears difficult to reconcile with the disproportionate amount of violence involved in the use of heavy ordnance and missiles. The weapons had extensive blast effects and the missiles had an incendiary element. A high proportion of targets were in towns and cities. Many of the victims were women and children. After seven weeks of the bombing at least 1,200 civilians had been killed and 4,500 injured.
- In spite of the references to the need for a peaceful solution to be found in Security Council Resolutions, the public statements of Mrs Albright, Mr Cook, Mr Holbrooke, and others, and the reiterated threats of massive air strikes, make it very clear that no ordinary diplomacy was envisaged.
The “Kosovo treatmentâ€
As a final synopsis, Brownlie wrote a prophetic note on future use of “the Kosovo treatmentâ€:
The writer has contacts with a great number of diplomats and lawyers of different nationalities. The reaction to the NATO bombing campaign outside Europe and North America has been generally hostile. Most States have problems of separatism and could, on a selective basis, be the objects of Western ‘crisis management’. The selection of crises for the ‘Kosovo’ treatment will depend upon the geopolitical and collateral agenda. It is on this basis, and not a humanitarian agenda, that Yugoslavia is marked out for fragmentation on a racial basis, whilst Russia and Indonesia are not.
He added: “Forcible intervention to serve humanitarian objectives is a claim which is only open to powerful States to make against the less powerful. The fate of Yugoslavia will have caused considerable damage to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.â€
The Brownlie Memorandum to the British Parliament is the most thorough assessment of the legal status of the Kosovo War. It is quite remarkable that the liberal warhawks around Obama talk of using that war as a “legal precedent†for a new war against Syria.
This amounts to saying that a crime committed once becomes a “precedent†to justify the crime being committed the next time.
How Many Times Can You Fool Most of the People?
If understood correctly, the Kosovo war was indeed a precedent that should act as a warning signal.
How many times can the United States use a false alarm to start an aggressive war? Non-existent “genocide†in Kosovo and Libya, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now what looks to much of the world like a “false flag†chemical weapons attack in Syria.
The United States habitually announces the presence of a desired casus belli, dismissing demands for concrete evidence.
In Kosovo, the United States obtained withdrawal of international observers who could have testified whether or not there was evidence of “genocide†of Kosovars. The accusations escalated during the war, and when, afterwards, no evidence of such mass murder was found, the matter was forgotten.
In Iraq, there was never any proof of WMD, but the US went ahead and invaded.
In Libya, the pretext for war was a misquoted statement of Gaddafi threatening a “massacre of civilians†in Benghazi. This was exposed as a fake, but again, NATO bombed, the regime was toppled, and the pretext falls into oblivion.
Sunday, just as the Syrian government announced readiness to allow international inspectors to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use, the White House responded, “too late!â€
A senior Obama administration official demanding anonymity (one can reasonably guess the official was Obama’s hawkish National Security Advisor Susan Rice) issued a statement claiming that there was “very little doubt†that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians and that a promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.â€
In the world beyond the beltway, there is a great deal of doubt – especially about the credibility of the United States government when it comes to finding pretexts to go to war. Moreover, setting “chemical weapons†as a “red line†obliging the US to go to war is totally arbitrary. There are many ways of killing people in a civil war. Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a “false flag†operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.
Who really wants or needs US intervention? The American people? What good will it do them to get involved in yet another endless Middle East war?
But who has influence on Obama? The American people? Or is it rather “our staunchest allyâ€, who is most concerned about rearranging the Middle East neighborhood?
“This situation must not be allowed to continue,†Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, expressing remarkable concern for Syrian civilians “who were so brutally attacked by weapons of mass destruction.â€
“The most dangerous regimes in the world must not be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons in the world,†Netanyahu added.
Incidentally, polls have been taken showing that for much of the world, the most dangerous regime in the world is Israel, which is allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons – nuclear weapons. But there is no chance that Israel will ever get “the Kosovo treatmentâ€.
This article was posted: Monday, August 26, 2013 at 5:36 am
DIANA JOHNSTONE is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia , NATO and Western
Delusions. She can be reached at diana.josto@
Diana Johnstone
Ron Paul Institute <http://ronpaulinsti
August 26, 2013
The liberal warhawks are groping around for a pretext they can call “legal†for waging war against Syria, and have come up with the 1999 “Kosovo warâ€.
This is not surprising insofar as a primary purpose of that US/NATO 78-day bombing spree was always to set a precedent for more such wars. The pretext of “saving the Kosovars†from an imaginary “genocide†was as false as the “weapons of mass destruction†pretext for war against Iraq, but the fakery has been much more successful with the general public. Therefore Kosovo retains its usefulness in the propaganda arsenal.
On August 24, the New York Times reported that President Obama’s national security aides are “studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.†(By the way, the “air war†was not “in Kosovoâ€, but struck the whole of what was then Yugoslavia, mostly destroying Serbia’s civilian infrastructure and also spreading destruction in Montenegro.)
On Friday, Obama admitted that going in and attacking another country “without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence†raised questions in terms of international law.
According to the New York Times, “Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.â€
“It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision,†said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar.â€
Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO, suggests that the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons in Syria amounts to a grave humanitarian emergency, just as the Clinton administration argued in 1999 that “a grave humanitarian emergency†presented the “international community†with “the responsibility to actâ€.
This amounts to creative legality worthy of the planet’s number one Rogue State.
An Illegal War as Precedent for More War
The US/NATO war against Yugoslavia, which used unilateral force to break up a sovereign state, detaching the historic Serbian province of Kosovo and transforming it into a US satellite, was clearly in violation of international law.
In May 2000, the distinguished British authority on international law, Sir Ian Brownlie (1936-2010), presented a 16,000-word Memorandum <http://www.parliame
Brownlie recalled that key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.â€
Brownlie added that the alleged right to use force for humanitarian purposes was not compatible with the UN Charter.
During the past decade, the Western powers have invented and promoted a theoretical “right to protect†(R2P) in an effort to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change. The use of R2P to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya gave the game away, ensuring Russian and Chinese opposition for any further such manoeuvre in the UN Security Council.
Concerning the Kosovo war, in his Memorandum Professor Brownlie reached the following major conclusions:
- The primary justification for the bombing of Yugoslavia was always the imposition of the NATO plans for the future of Kosovo. It was in this context that the bombing campaign was planned in August 1998.
-The threats of massive air strikes were made in the same context and were first made public in October 1998. Neither the purpose of the planned air strikes nor their implementation related to events on the ground in Kosovo in March 1999.
- The cause of the air strikes was quite simple: given that Yugoslavia had not given in to threats, the threats had to be carried out.
- The legal basis of the action, as presented by the United Kingdom and other NATO States, was at no stage adequately articulated.
- Humanitarian intervention, the justification belatedly advanced by the NATO States, has no place either in the United Nations Charter or in customary international law.
- If the view had been held that the Permanent Members of the Security Council would recognise the need for humanitarian action, then no doubt a resolution would have been sought.
- The intentions of the United States and the United Kingdom included the removal of the Government of Yugoslavia. It is impossible to reconcile such purposes with humanitarian intervention.
- The claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds appears difficult to reconcile with the disproportionate amount of violence involved in the use of heavy ordnance and missiles. The weapons had extensive blast effects and the missiles had an incendiary element. A high proportion of targets were in towns and cities. Many of the victims were women and children. After seven weeks of the bombing at least 1,200 civilians had been killed and 4,500 injured.
- In spite of the references to the need for a peaceful solution to be found in Security Council Resolutions, the public statements of Mrs Albright, Mr Cook, Mr Holbrooke, and others, and the reiterated threats of massive air strikes, make it very clear that no ordinary diplomacy was envisaged.
The “Kosovo treatmentâ€
As a final synopsis, Brownlie wrote a prophetic note on future use of “the Kosovo treatmentâ€:
The writer has contacts with a great number of diplomats and lawyers of different nationalities. The reaction to the NATO bombing campaign outside Europe and North America has been generally hostile. Most States have problems of separatism and could, on a selective basis, be the objects of Western ‘crisis management’. The selection of crises for the ‘Kosovo’ treatment will depend upon the geopolitical and collateral agenda. It is on this basis, and not a humanitarian agenda, that Yugoslavia is marked out for fragmentation on a racial basis, whilst Russia and Indonesia are not.
He added: “Forcible intervention to serve humanitarian objectives is a claim which is only open to powerful States to make against the less powerful. The fate of Yugoslavia will have caused considerable damage to the cause of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.â€
The Brownlie Memorandum to the British Parliament is the most thorough assessment of the legal status of the Kosovo War. It is quite remarkable that the liberal warhawks around Obama talk of using that war as a “legal precedent†for a new war against Syria.
This amounts to saying that a crime committed once becomes a “precedent†to justify the crime being committed the next time.
How Many Times Can You Fool Most of the People?
If understood correctly, the Kosovo war was indeed a precedent that should act as a warning signal.
How many times can the United States use a false alarm to start an aggressive war? Non-existent “genocide†in Kosovo and Libya, non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now what looks to much of the world like a “false flag†chemical weapons attack in Syria.
The United States habitually announces the presence of a desired casus belli, dismissing demands for concrete evidence.
In Kosovo, the United States obtained withdrawal of international observers who could have testified whether or not there was evidence of “genocide†of Kosovars. The accusations escalated during the war, and when, afterwards, no evidence of such mass murder was found, the matter was forgotten.
In Iraq, there was never any proof of WMD, but the US went ahead and invaded.
In Libya, the pretext for war was a misquoted statement of Gaddafi threatening a “massacre of civilians†in Benghazi. This was exposed as a fake, but again, NATO bombed, the regime was toppled, and the pretext falls into oblivion.
Sunday, just as the Syrian government announced readiness to allow international inspectors to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use, the White House responded, “too late!â€
A senior Obama administration official demanding anonymity (one can reasonably guess the official was Obama’s hawkish National Security Advisor Susan Rice) issued a statement claiming that there was “very little doubt†that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians and that a promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.â€
In the world beyond the beltway, there is a great deal of doubt – especially about the credibility of the United States government when it comes to finding pretexts to go to war. Moreover, setting “chemical weapons†as a “red line†obliging the US to go to war is totally arbitrary. There are many ways of killing people in a civil war. Selecting one as a trigger for US intervention serves primarily to give rebels an excellent reason to carry out a “false flag†operation that will bring NATO into the war they are losing.
Who really wants or needs US intervention? The American people? What good will it do them to get involved in yet another endless Middle East war?
But who has influence on Obama? The American people? Or is it rather “our staunchest allyâ€, who is most concerned about rearranging the Middle East neighborhood?
“This situation must not be allowed to continue,†Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, expressing remarkable concern for Syrian civilians “who were so brutally attacked by weapons of mass destruction.â€
“The most dangerous regimes in the world must not be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons in the world,†Netanyahu added.
Incidentally, polls have been taken showing that for much of the world, the most dangerous regime in the world is Israel, which is allowed to possess the most dangerous weapons – nuclear weapons. But there is no chance that Israel will ever get “the Kosovo treatmentâ€.
This article was posted: Monday, August 26, 2013 at 5:36 am
DIANA JOHNSTONE is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia , NATO and Western
Delusions. She can be reached at diana.josto@
Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
August 30, 2013
France is prepared to invade Syria even without British support
The refusal of the UK parliament to sanction a military strike against Syria will have no effect on France’s stance on the issue. Paris does not rule out that the operation may be launched September 4, after parliamentary hearings on the Syrian crisis, France’s President François Hollande stated, as reported the French newspaper Le Monde.
The French national leader has emphasized that his country is prepared to act in Syria without support from its British allies. “Each country is a sovereign state and makes own decisions whether to take part in an operation or not. This applies equally to Great Britain and France,†Hollande said.
The president stated that the intervention could begin even before UN experts left Syria; however, he didn’t rule out that a decision to launch a military operation could be made by French top officials prior to parliamentary hearings, scheduled for September 4.
“I rule out making a decision before receiving all information which would support it,†he emphasized. “I have summed the parliament on Wednesday for an emergency session in order to discuss the Syrian situation. If I send France [to Syria], the government will inform [the parliament] on means and objectives according to article 35 of the Constitution.â€
Regarding events of August 21, when an alleged chemical attack happened in Damascus suburbs, Hollande stated that for France, possibility of using nerve gas “is an established fact which is not even refuted by Syrian authorities. The issue now is to establish guilty parties in this travesty. France possesses numerous pieces of evidence, which point to the Syrian regime being responsible for it,†he added.
Reminding that the 1925 Geneva protocol, prohibiting use of chemical weapons provides a legal basis for intervention, Hollande declared that Paris was looking into all options regarding retaliatory measures. “France wants a proportionate and firm response to the Syrian regime in Damascus,†the president said, emphasizing that he believed it inappropriate to use the word “war.†“We’re talking about punishment for heinous violation of human rights,†he clarified.
The president added that no resolution of the UN Security Council on the Syrian situation will not prevent creation of a wide international frontline consisting of countries, willing to take part in the potential military operation. “If the Security Council will be prevented from action, a coalition will form,†the president said. “It will be supported by the Arab League, which has already condemned this crime and made it public. It will also receive support of the European Union.â€
François Hollande noted that currently “there are very few countries which are able to execute punishment with corresponding methods.†“France is among these countries, and it’s ready to act. We will make a decision after thorough coordination with allies,†he said, adding that later on he would talk with Barack Obama on this subject.
France’s president once again reminded that he believed “the Damascus chemical attack cannot and should not go unpunished†and that Paris “possesses evidence,†pointing to governmental forces being behind the attack.
“Otherwise there is a distinct risk of allowing escalation which would render using chemical weapons commonplace. I do not think there should be an international intervention which would ‘free’ Syria or depose the dictator, but I believe that it’s necessary to crack down on the regime which commits irredeemable acts against its population,†the president said.
Answering a question regarding potential aftermath of the Syrian invasion with regards to Moscow, Hollande claimed that “Russia refuses to admit that the regime could be guilty of the travesty as it fears Bashar Al-Assad’s ousting will cause chaos.†“I want to assure Russia that the worst outcome is the current situation which reinforces mujahedeen militants, “ he said.
“I’ve always told president Putin that I will in not call into question special relations which the country have been maintaining with Syria for a long time. It’s in Russia’s interests to reach a political decision as soon as possible.â€Â
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Itar-Tass
August 30, 2013
France is prepared to invade Syria even without British support
The refusal of the UK parliament to sanction a military strike against Syria will have no effect on France’s stance on the issue. Paris does not rule out that the operation may be launched September 4, after parliamentary hearings on the Syrian crisis, France’s President François Hollande stated, as reported the French newspaper Le Monde.
The French national leader has emphasized that his country is prepared to act in Syria without support from its British allies. “Each country is a sovereign state and makes own decisions whether to take part in an operation or not. This applies equally to Great Britain and France,†Hollande said.
The president stated that the intervention could begin even before UN experts left Syria; however, he didn’t rule out that a decision to launch a military operation could be made by French top officials prior to parliamentary hearings, scheduled for September 4.
“I rule out making a decision before receiving all information which would support it,†he emphasized. “I have summed the parliament on Wednesday for an emergency session in order to discuss the Syrian situation. If I send France [to Syria], the government will inform [the parliament] on means and objectives according to article 35 of the Constitution.â€
Regarding events of August 21, when an alleged chemical attack happened in Damascus suburbs, Hollande stated that for France, possibility of using nerve gas “is an established fact which is not even refuted by Syrian authorities. The issue now is to establish guilty parties in this travesty. France possesses numerous pieces of evidence, which point to the Syrian regime being responsible for it,†he added.
Reminding that the 1925 Geneva protocol, prohibiting use of chemical weapons provides a legal basis for intervention, Hollande declared that Paris was looking into all options regarding retaliatory measures. “France wants a proportionate and firm response to the Syrian regime in Damascus,†the president said, emphasizing that he believed it inappropriate to use the word “war.†“We’re talking about punishment for heinous violation of human rights,†he clarified.
The president added that no resolution of the UN Security Council on the Syrian situation will not prevent creation of a wide international frontline consisting of countries, willing to take part in the potential military operation. “If the Security Council will be prevented from action, a coalition will form,†the president said. “It will be supported by the Arab League, which has already condemned this crime and made it public. It will also receive support of the European Union.â€
François Hollande noted that currently “there are very few countries which are able to execute punishment with corresponding methods.†“France is among these countries, and it’s ready to act. We will make a decision after thorough coordination with allies,†he said, adding that later on he would talk with Barack Obama on this subject.
France’s president once again reminded that he believed “the Damascus chemical attack cannot and should not go unpunished†and that Paris “possesses evidence,†pointing to governmental forces being behind the attack.
“Otherwise there is a distinct risk of allowing escalation which would render using chemical weapons commonplace. I do not think there should be an international intervention which would ‘free’ Syria or depose the dictator, but I believe that it’s necessary to crack down on the regime which commits irredeemable acts against its population,†the president said.
Answering a question regarding potential aftermath of the Syrian invasion with regards to Moscow, Hollande claimed that “Russia refuses to admit that the regime could be guilty of the travesty as it fears Bashar Al-Assad’s ousting will cause chaos.†“I want to assure Russia that the worst outcome is the current situation which reinforces mujahedeen militants, “ he said.
“I’ve always told president Putin that I will in not call into question special relations which the country have been maintaining with Syria for a long time. It’s in Russia’s interests to reach a political decision as soon as possible.â€Â
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:53 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"mart unknown"
Forward from mart
Important! Please Distribute Widely
*Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux*
------------
http://ca.news.
*The Daily Brew
Yahoo News Canada
http://ca.news.
28 Aug, 2013
*
*
Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux
By Matthew Coutts
National Affairs Reporter
Wed, 28 Aug, 2013*
*
The chance of U.S.-led military intervention* in Syria continued its drive
toward inevitability as the international community receives confirmation
that a chemical attack occurred earlier this month.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama spoke on
Tuesday and agreed that a “firm response” was needed, further strengthening
the likelihood of an attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military.
While it is still not clear what role, if any, Canada would play in such an
intervention, Russia's ambassador to the country is warning us to steer
clear of the whole conflict.
Georgiy Mamedov compared the expected Syrian conflict to the 2003
intervention in Iraq, when U.S.-led forces invaded the country on
later-refuted claims that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
“I have a sense of déja vu. Ten years ago when I arrived in Canada, [the]
first question to me was why we don’t support Western intervention in Iraq
and I said it’s a tragic mistake, it’s a tragic mistake because it will
only help extremists, terrorists," Mamedov said at an appearance in Ottawa
on Tuesday, according to the Globe and Mail.
He went on to suggest that terrorists within the country could have
launched a "primitive&quo
prompt Western powers to attack Assad's forces.
Russia is opposed to the idea of military intervention in Syria, and its
position on the UN Security Council means its refusal would negate the
chance of a UN-led military response. That lack of mandate from the UN is
another similarity a Syria response would have with the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Add to that the uncertainty surrounding a smoking gun – weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, and the origin of the chemical attacks in Syria – and
there are enough parallels to at least compare the two.
UN chemical weapons experts have confirmed that a Damascus suburb was
struck by a gas attack on Aug. 21, although there is still no UN
confirmation on who launched the attack.
Assad has denied using chemical weapons, although most Western authorities
have dismissed that claim. Vice President Joe Biden has expressed certainty
that the government was behind the attack.
Important! Please Distribute Widely
*Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux*
------------
http://ca.news.
*The Daily Brew
Yahoo News Canada
http://ca.news.
28 Aug, 2013
*
*
Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux
By Matthew Coutts
National Affairs Reporter
Wed, 28 Aug, 2013*
*
The chance of U.S.-led military intervention* in Syria continued its drive
toward inevitability as the international community receives confirmation
that a chemical attack occurred earlier this month.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama spoke on
Tuesday and agreed that a “firm response” was needed, further strengthening
the likelihood of an attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military.
While it is still not clear what role, if any, Canada would play in such an
intervention, Russia's ambassador to the country is warning us to steer
clear of the whole conflict.
Georgiy Mamedov compared the expected Syrian conflict to the 2003
intervention in Iraq, when U.S.-led forces invaded the country on
later-refuted claims that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
“I have a sense of déja vu. Ten years ago when I arrived in Canada, [the]
first question to me was why we don’t support Western intervention in Iraq
and I said it’s a tragic mistake, it’s a tragic mistake because it will
only help extremists, terrorists," Mamedov said at an appearance in Ottawa
on Tuesday, according to the Globe and Mail.
He went on to suggest that terrorists within the country could have
launched a "primitive&quo
prompt Western powers to attack Assad's forces.
Russia is opposed to the idea of military intervention in Syria, and its
position on the UN Security Council means its refusal would negate the
chance of a UN-led military response. That lack of mandate from the UN is
another similarity a Syria response would have with the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Add to that the uncertainty surrounding a smoking gun – weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, and the origin of the chemical attacks in Syria – and
there are enough parallels to at least compare the two.
UN chemical weapons experts have confirmed that a Damascus suburb was
struck by a gas attack on Aug. 21, although there is still no UN
confirmation on who launched the attack.
Assad has denied using chemical weapons, although most Western authorities
have dismissed that claim. Vice President Joe Biden has expressed certainty
that the government was behind the attack.
