Obama live on the tellyâŠ
Made the case for why he felt a strike was justified, but says heâs putting things on ice because of noises from the Russians that the Syrians will give up their chemical weapons.
Are we playing a game still oright someone actually be seeing a bit of sense here?
Will I be watching Discovery Channel shows in 15 years saying how we were hours from WW3?
Is that just a backdown cos heâs at risk of losing the vote. If he was confident he could get the mandate to strike and the tell the Russians he was giving them a week or so. Massive climb down it would seem.
The Syrians have run rings around Obama here.
Kerry gave them an opening when he was asked what would it take to avert the strike. He said Syria giving up all their chemical weapons. Syrians agreed and now they are stuck, even though the realities of what they are proposing are pretty unpractical.
Obama is some joke of a President btw. He is a good public speaker, thats about all he has going for him. Other than that heâs been the biggest stooge of all.
Obama played a blinder here in fairness.
Putin and Syrians have destroyed Obama here.
He was terrified to let it go to a vote as he probably didnât have the numbers.
Decent article from John Pilger in the Guardian today:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/silent-military-coup-took-over-washington
The silent military coup that took over Washington
On my wall is the Daily Express front page of September 5 1945 and the words: âI write this as a warning to the world.â So began [U]Wilfred Burchettâs report from Hiroshima[/U]. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror.
Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this. Yet again we are held hostage by the prospect of a terrorism whose nature and history even the most liberal critics still deny. The great unmentionable is that humanityâs most dangerous enemy resides across the Atlantic.
John Kerryâs farce and Barack Obamaâs pirouettes are temporary. [U]Russiaâs peace deal over chemical weapons[/U][/URL] will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. âThis operation [in Syria],â said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June, "goes way back. [URL=âhttp://explosivereports.com/2013/07/07/former-french-foreign-minister-anglo-french-operations-against-assad-prepared-preconceived-and-planned/â][U]It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned[/U]."
When the public is âpsychologically scarredâ, as the Channel 4 reporter Jonathan Rugman described the British peopleâs overwhelming hostility to an attack on Syria, suppressing the truth is made urgent. Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the ârebelsâ [U]used gas in the suburbs of Damascus[/U], it is the US, not Syria, that is the worldâs most prolific user of these terrible weapons.
In 1970 the Senate reported: âThe US has dumped on Vietnam a quantity of toxic chemical (dioxin) amounting to six pounds per head of population.â This was [U]Operation Hades, later renamed the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand[/U][/URL] â the source of what Vietnamese doctors call a âcycle of foetal catastropheâ. I have seen generations of children with their familiar, monstrous [URL=âhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3798581.stmâ][U]deformities[/U][/URL]. John Kerry, with his own blood-soaked [URL=âhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_John_Kerryâ][U]war record[/U], will remember them. I have seen them in Iraq too, where the US used depleted uranium and white phosphorus, as did the Israelis in Gaza. No Obama âred lineâ for them. No showdown psychodrama for them.
The sterile repetitive debate about whether âweâ should âtake actionâ against selected dictators (ie cheer on the US and its acolytes in yet another aerial killing spree) is part of our brainwashing. Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and UN special rapporteur on Palestine, describes it as âa self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violenceâ. This âis so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeableâ.
It is the biggest lie: the product of âliberal realistsâ in Anglo-American politics, scholarship and media who ordain themselves as the worldâs crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. Stripping humanity from the study of nations and congealing it with jargon that serves western power designs, they mark âfailedâ, ârogueâ or âevilâ states for âhumanitarian interventionâ.
An attack on Syria or Iran or any other US âdemonâ would draw on a fashionable variant, [U]âResponsibility to Protectâ, or R2P[/U][/URL] â whose lectern-trotting zealot is the former Australian foreign minister [URL=âhttp://www.gevans.org/biography.htmlâ][U]Gareth Evans[/U][/URL], co-chair of a "[URL=âhttp://www.globalr2p.org/â][U]global centre[/U]" based in New York. Evans and his generously funded lobbyists play a vital propaganda role in urging the âinternational communityâ to attack countries where âthe security council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable timeâ.
Evans has form. He appeared in my 1994 film [U]Death of a Nation[/U], which revealed the scale of genocide in East Timor. Canberraâs smiling man is raising his champagne glass in a toast to his Indonesian equivalent as they fly over East Timor in an Australian aircraft, having signed a treaty to pirate the oil and gas of the stricken country where the tyrant Suharto killed or starved a third of the population.
Under the âweakâ Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year [U]6,500 veterans took their own lives[/U]. Put out more flags.
The historian Norman Pollack calls this âliberal fascismâ: âFor goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manquĂ©, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.â Every Tuesday the âhumanitarianâ Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that âbugsplatâ people, their rescuers and mourners. In the westâs comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement â Obamaâs singular achievement.
In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: âIndividual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity.â The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self-respect, deserve nothing less now.
Elaborate.
[quote=âRocko, post: 830241, member: 1â]Decent article from John Pilger in the Guardian today:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/silent-military-coup-took-over-washington
The silent military coup that took over Washington
On my wall is the Daily Express front page of September 5 1945 and the words: âI write this as a warning to the world.â So began [U]Wilfred Burchettâs report from Hiroshima[/U]. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror.
Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this. Yet again we are held hostage by the prospect of a terrorism whose nature and history even the most liberal critics still deny. The great unmentionable is that humanityâs most dangerous enemy resides across the Atlantic.
John Kerryâs farce and Barack Obamaâs pirouettes are temporary. [U]Russiaâs peace deal over chemical weapons[/U][/URL] will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. âThis operation [in Syria],â said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June, "goes way back. [URL=âhttp://explosivereports.com/2013/07/07/former-french-foreign-minister-anglo-french-operations-against-assad-prepared-preconceived-and-planned/â][U]It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned[/U]."
When the public is âpsychologically scarredâ, as the Channel 4 reporter Jonathan Rugman described the British peopleâs overwhelming hostility to an attack on Syria, suppressing the truth is made urgent. Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the ârebelsâ [U]used gas in the suburbs of Damascus[/U], it is the US, not Syria, that is the worldâs most prolific user of these terrible weapons.
In 1970 the Senate reported: âThe US has dumped on Vietnam a quantity of toxic chemical (dioxin) amounting to six pounds per head of population.â This was [U]Operation Hades, later renamed the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand[/U][/URL] â the source of what Vietnamese doctors call a âcycle of foetal catastropheâ. I have seen generations of children with their familiar, monstrous [URL=âhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3798581.stmâ][U]deformities[/U][/URL]. John Kerry, with his own blood-soaked [URL=âhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_John_Kerryâ][U]war record[/U], will remember them. I have seen them in Iraq too, where the US used depleted uranium and white phosphorus, as did the Israelis in Gaza. No Obama âred lineâ for them. No showdown psychodrama for them.
The sterile repetitive debate about whether âweâ should âtake actionâ against selected dictators (ie cheer on the US and its acolytes in yet another aerial killing spree) is part of our brainwashing. Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and UN special rapporteur on Palestine, describes it as âa self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violenceâ. This âis so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeableâ.
It is the biggest lie: the product of âliberal realistsâ in Anglo-American politics, scholarship and media who ordain themselves as the worldâs crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. Stripping humanity from the study of nations and congealing it with jargon that serves western power designs, they mark âfailedâ, ârogueâ or âevilâ states for âhumanitarian interventionâ.
An attack on Syria or Iran or any other US âdemonâ would draw on a fashionable variant, [U]âResponsibility to Protectâ, or R2P[/U][/URL] â whose lectern-trotting zealot is the former Australian foreign minister [URL=âhttp://www.gevans.org/biography.htmlâ][U]Gareth Evans[/U][/URL], co-chair of a "[URL=âhttp://www.globalr2p.org/â][U]global centre[/U]" based in New York. Evans and his generously funded lobbyists play a vital propaganda role in urging the âinternational communityâ to attack countries where âthe security council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable timeâ.
Evans has form. He appeared in my 1994 film [U]Death of a Nation[/U], which revealed the scale of genocide in East Timor. Canberraâs smiling man is raising his champagne glass in a toast to his Indonesian equivalent as they fly over East Timor in an Australian aircraft, having signed a treaty to pirate the oil and gas of the stricken country where the tyrant Suharto killed or starved a third of the population.
Under the âweakâ Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year [U]6,500 veterans took their own lives[/U]. Put out more flags.
The historian Norman Pollack calls this âliberal fascismâ: âFor goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manquĂ©, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.â Every Tuesday the âhumanitarianâ Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that âbugsplatâ people, their rescuers and mourners. In the westâs comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement â Obamaâs singular achievement.
In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: âIndividual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity.â The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self-respect, deserve nothing less now.[/quote]
Pilger is a blowhard of the highest order.
Flesh that out there.
No.
absolutely
a spineless hypocrite of epic proportions
Himself and the likes of that fool Robert Fisk compose their liberal bullshit from 5 star hotels in Damascus and Beirut while people around them are being slaughtered and eaten live ( in Assadâs case babies are literally suffering that fate at the hands of the gangs of militia he released from prisons to fight for his cause in southern Syria) .
When it suits them theyâll have a pop off whatever oppressive regime is in power, be it Assad, Gadaffi, Mubarak⊠but at the first sign of any foreign intervention theyâll come out waving the war monger flag and side with the poor oppressed general.
Syria is a fucking mess, its worse than egypt or Libya but when Assad goes as in the case of Mubarak and Gadaffi this country will enter the same state of chaos that these nations are in now, the void created by the absence of a dictator will just lead to a power vacuum that will ultimately be filled by some fundamentatlist regeime that was worse than the previous dictator ( in Egyptâs case ) and eventually martial law will need to be imposed.
I actually think Obama did well here, if he didnt make noise about going in then we would never have seen any movement in trying to disarm Assad of the chemical weapons he has, now Putin has said he will simply take back the munitions he sold to Assad in the first place, the onus is on him to come up with the goods now and he is feeling the squeeze, if he dosent then i guess the military intervention option will rear its head again, peace as we know however is made in such ways, eventually Obama will get what he wants, that is to disarm Assad.
I dont think he gives a fuck how it happens and i can guarantee you he knew damn will that Putin had the ability to do this all along.
i guess it all comes down to the fact, what do we perceive as an accepted way of killing people?
is slashing childrenâs throats and having mothers seeing their babies cooked in an oven acceptable?, it was all along, nobody gave a fook, it was only when Assad decided to gas a load of kids that the Americans said " no, you actually cant kill people that way, please revert to other methods, then weâll leave you alone".
it dosent matter a fuck if the yanks bomb that cunt or not, his time will come anyway, its what happens after that will be the real problem
Agreed. He does not want to lift a finger on Syria. Or has he just got lucky?
[quote=âmickee321, post: 830534, member: 367â]absolutely
a spineless hypocrite of epic proportions
Himself and the likes of that fool Robert Fisk compose their liberal bullshit from 5 star hotels in Damascus and Beirut while people around them are being slaughtered and eaten live ( in Assadâs case babies are literally suffering that fate at the hands of the gangs of militia he released from prisons to fight for his cause in southern Syria) .
When it suits them theyâll have a pop off whatever oppressive regime is in power, be it Assad, Gadaffi, Mubarak⊠but at the first sign of any foreign intervention theyâll come out waving the war monger flag and side with the poor oppressed general.
Syria is a fucking mess, its worse than egypt or Libya but when Assad goes as in the case of Mubarak and Gadaffi this country will enter the same state of chaos that these nations are in now, the void created by the absence of a dictator will just lead to a power vacuum that will ultimately be filled by some fundamentatlist regeime that was worse than the previous dictator ( in Egyptâs case ) and eventually martial law will need to be imposed.
I actually think Obama did well here, if he didnt make noise about going in then we would never have seen any movement in trying to disarm Assad of the chemical weapons he has, now Putin has said he will simply take back the munitions he sold to Assad in the first place, the onus is on him to come up with the goods now and he is feeling the squeeze, if he dosent then i guess the military intervention option will rear its head again, peace as we know however is made in such ways, eventually Obama will get what he wants, that is to disarm Assad.
I dont think he gives a fuck how it happens and i can guarantee you he knew damn will that Putin had the ability to do this all along.
i guess it all comes down to the fact, what do we perceive as an accepted way of killing people?
is slashing childrenâs throats and having mothers seeing their babies cooked in an oven acceptable?, it was all along, nobody gave a fook, it was only when Assad decided to gas a load of kids that the Americans said " no, you actually cant kill people that way, please revert to other methods, then weâll leave you alone".
it dosent matter a fuck if the yanks bomb that cunt or not, his time will come anyway, its what happens after that will be the real problem[/quote]
Do you really believe this has much if anything to do with Chemical weapons?
The basis for the worry bout CW is that they could be used on American soil. I have no idea why they think this can be stopped by attacking Syria. In fact I would suggest it increases the chances.
This is all about money. Keeping the rich Jewish Bank owning American families happy and having the American military industry booming. It has a little bit to do with Oil and a few other things, but very very little to do with chemical weapons.
Fox News have alot to do with this red line shit and I canât believe Obama didnât nip it in the bud long go.
Them red lines are a divil altogether
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Portals/0//news/130429_redline.jpg
in fairness, Netanyahu is a horrible cunt but that mocking speech at the UN was a funny moment
[quote=âcaoimhaoin, post: 830580, member: 273â]Do you really believe this has much if anything to do with Chemical weapons?
The basis for the worry bout CW is that they could be used on American soil. I have no idea why they think this can be stopped by attacking Syria. In fact I would suggest it increases the chances.
This is all about money. Keeping the rich Jewish Bank owning American families happy and having the American military industry booming. It has a little bit to do with Oil and a few other things, but very very little to do with chemical weapons.
Fox News have alot to do with this red line shit and I canât believe Obama didnât nip it in the bud long go.[/quote]
The point about chemical weapons is that they have been banned by international law relatively recently. Yes other places have used them in the past and etc etc but the use of chemical weapons is possibly the first clear breach of international law (the other humanitarian abuses perhaps not having been definitively proved more because of a lack of will than anything else) that requires the international community to step in. Wasnât it Obama, or Kerry (?), that trotted out the âred lineâ phrase in the first place? Not Fox news, they just used it as rope to hang Obama with.
Va. Still has absolutely nothing to do with chemicals. Itâs about power and money.
India v Pakistan
Coming soon