- Western media misreport what’s happening in Syria and why. Propaganda substitutes for truth and full disclosure.
- Syrians are struggling to prevent Western conquest, exploitation, and control. They’re fighting for their lives to stay free.
- At issue isn’t whether Assad’s government is democratic, despotic or anything in between. Its sovereign independence made it vulnerable.
- Washington tolerates no governments it doesn’t control. Replacing them with puppet regimes is policy. Whether Assad can hold out and prevail isn’t known. Most Syrians depend on him.
The longer conflict persists, the greater his support. Who else can Syrians turn to for help? They want no part of becoming another pro-Western vassal state. They know the daily horrors Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans face … //
… A Foreign Policy Initiative/Foundation for the Defense of Democracies letter said:
- “We believe it is clear that multilateral diplomacy and non-military pressure, by themselves, will neither compel Assad to step down nor ensure that America’s national security interests in Syria and the wider region are protected.”
- “America’s national security interests are intertwined with the fate of the Syrian people and the wider region.”
- “The longer we wait to act, the more others with interests contrary to ours will fill the void, limiting America’s ability to ensure a multi-sectarian pluralistic Syria.”
- “We therefore believe it is long past due for the United States to adopt a strategy that will help the Syrian people to quickly end the Assad regime and actively promote order and stability after the regime’s fall.”
A rogue’s gallery of co-signers included Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Paul Bremer, and Robert Kagan, among others.
They support war and imperial conquest. Their letter also said inaction means “complicity in oppression.”
Mitt Romney made similar accusations, saying:
- “While Russia and Iran have rushed to support Bashar al-Assad and thousands have been slaughtered, President Obama has abdicated leadership and subcontracted US policy to Kofi Annan and the United Nations.”
- “Under this president, American influence and respect for our position around the world is at a low ebb.”
Safe zones are ground-based no-fly replicas. Both are acts of war. They’re belligerent and lawless. They assure full-scale intervention.
Co-signer hawks said “multilateral diplomacy and non-military pressure (won’t) compel Assad to step down nor ensure (US) national security interests in Syria and the wider region….”
They want war. So does Obama. Only their timetables differ. Post-election, expect the worst.
Perhaps Russia foresees it. On the one hand, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was clear and unequivocal. He condemned US support for terrorism.
He referred to Washington’s failure to denounce insurgents attacking Syria’s National Security headquarters, saying:
- “This is quite an awful position, I cannot even find the words to make clear how we feel. This is directly justifying terrorism. How can this be understood?”
- “In other words, to say it in plain Russian, this means ‘we (the United States) will continue to support such terrorist acts for as long as the UN Security Council has not done what we want.’ “
Lavrov also criticized UN envoy Susan Rice’s hostile comments and Arab League leaders for pressuring Assad to step down.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense said warships entered the Mediterranean. Three vessels carry marines. They’ll rendezvous with other Russian ships off Syria’s coast.
Perhaps they’ll be positioned at Tartus. Moscow maintains its only Mediterranean base there. It’s strategic importance may be used. What’s planned remains unknown.
Russia has vital regional interests. So does China. Hopefully both countries will go all out to protect them and make their intentions known. Perhaps doing so can prevent war. There may be no other way.
(full long text).