10 Problems with the latest excuse for war - see linked pdf
Then, please go to Cannonfire and see post for 31 August:
The "Trojan" trick: You can't understand what's going on now unless you know what happened in 1986
*** To Help Prevent an Attack on Syria - please go here:
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8463
Then, please go to Cannonfire and see post for 31 August:
The "Trojan" trick: You can't understand what's going on now unless you know what happened in 1986
*** To Help Prevent an Attack on Syria - please go here:
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8463
8 comments:
“It is the oldest ironies that are still the most satisfying: man, when preparing for bloody war, will orate loudly and most eloquently in the name of peace.”
Alan Moore, "Watchmen"
This may seem pedantic, but your link to "Veterans for Peace Statement" begins with an anti-intervention statement, but leads to an anti-war statement.
The POTUS can carry-out an intervention through his Commander In Chief powers without congressional approval. An assertion of war requires congressional approval.
The POTUS is currently stating military intervention (not war) may occur to punish al-Assad and his military. This action will have unknown consequences, but may lead to the "10 Problems with the Latest Excuse for War".
Let's keep our fingers crossed that no intervention occurs.
mike ~ I see what you're saying - I suppose the Veterans see intervention as a prelude to war - or maybe even a euphemism (as I do). Only they could answer that though.
President Obama, in his speech a few minutes ago from the Rose Garden, said he wants to "take military action" but will first ask Congress for their approval.
It seem that what the UK parliament did on Thursday night could have helped apply the brakes this side on action of the pond.
Good! That's at least one wee step away from the edge.
Should read "apply the brakes on action from this side of the pond"
:-/
For the most part, "military" actions are now about money, not humanitarian intervention or land acquisition. If there is enough money involved, a proper cover story will be concocted.
anyjazz ~ I think that's true. In the case of Syria though there could be an additional motive - to gain control of the coastline - landlocked Iran's access to the sea.
Cover stories are stock-in-trade of our hypocritical "leaders", yes. :-/
Humanitarian interventions always were a big hypocrisy, what really matters is the big poltical picture: United States have increasingly left Middle East for the search of oil made them go elsewhere.
But now the point is: Can Usa leave completely the Middle East
That is the real point
ex-Chomp ~ Seems they can never leave the ME, for if they did, someone else would take control there, and they would never countenance that!
Post a Comment