RPI: State Department 'Diplomats' Demand War on Assad (and Russia)

[AZJoe]

State Department 'Diplomats' Demand War on Assad (and Russia)
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archive...ent-diplomats-demand-war-on-assad-and-russia/

In a move that the New York Times reports is nearly unprecedented, some 51 mid-level State Department employees have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to begin bombing the Assad government in Syria immediately.

Demonstrating the reality that the "soft power" of diplomacy is in fact just a front for the "hard power" of bombs … Yes, to these supposed trained "diplomats," the "diplomatic process" consists of making final demands after the military has bombed your opponent to hell. …

What are these supposed diplomats furious about? Why do they demand that the US begin actively bombing the secular Assad government? They accuse the Syrian government of ceasefire violations because when Syrian forces attack al-Qaeda's Nusra front, the US-backed forces who fight alongside al-Qaeda [terrorists] are also caught up in the attack. One might think these State Department employees would better spend their energy urging the US administration to demand that its "moderate" rebels in Syria stop intermingling with al-Qaeda. …

this is more of the kind of fantasy-based analysis that led to the brilliant idea of overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya because it would bolster democratic-minded forces there and result in a model moderate, representative government in the country. …

To normal people living in the actual reality-based community, the idea that the US should attack the main opponent of ISIS to bolster the fight against ISIS seems idiotic. …

Additionally, the frayed thread that the Obama Administration hangs onto to justify its attack on sovereign Syria is that ISIS poses a clear and present danger to the US and therefore the US military must be involved in Syria … you have pure, naked US aggression against a country that poses no threat to the United States and is fighting the kind of radical Islamist insurgency that one might expect the US would also oppose. …

As John Kerry himself said: “You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.” …

What does it mean when a country's diplomatic apparatus demands that it engage in aggressive war even to the risk of a nuclear conflict with Russia? Something is deeply rotten in the empire. …

 

[Zippyjuan]

What does it mean when a country's diplomatic apparatus demands that it engage in aggressive war even to the risk of a nuclear conflict with Russia? Something is deeply rotten in the empire. …

It is a big stretch to claim that fighting in Syria would mean nuclear war with Russia (though I agree we should not be fighting in Syria because getting rid of Assad without a legitimate replacement would only increase the chaos in the region).

 

[wizardwatson]

Here's as perfect a paraphrase as I can come up with for US Coalition Syria policy:

"Assad must go. ISIS can never be defeated in Syria while Assad is there because the coalition will continue to support ISIS until Assad is gone."

And they're likely lying about ISIS being unsupported in the aftermath of an Assad regime, to boot.

 

[Origanalist]

I have an idea, why don't these assholes go do this on their own? If its so damn important to them then they should go over there and go after him themselves.

 

[nickpruitt]

Sounds a lot like Bush in 2002-03 and we didn't get a chaotic Iraq. It's all sunshine and rainbows.

 

[phill4paul]

So I expect them to go before Congress for a declaration of war. Right?


Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[wizardwatson]

So I expect them to go before Congress for a declaration of war. Right?


Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Well, it's not "war" per se, the document simply calls for a "judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed US-led diplomatic process."

So the bombs are really just "undergirding" US diplomatic efforts.

We just want to talk. The bombs will make it easier for them to listen.

 

[goldenequity]

The bombs will make it easier for them to listen.

^^^^^ THAT is excellent.... I must write that down.

 

[AZJoe]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI, House Armed Services Committee, Iraq war veteran, and Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard) speaks some sense.

 

[AZJoe]

It is a big stretch to claim that fighting in Syria would mean nuclear war with Russia (though I agree we should not be fighting in Syria because getting rid of Assad without a legitimate replacement would only increase the chaos in the region).

You seriously think there is no risk from such neocon madness. What these neocons advocate is insane madness. To pretend there is no risk is utterly foolish madness.

The State Department "diplomats" are calling for all out war on the nation of Syria, direct attacks on the Syrian government. Their letter is "calling for the Obama Administration to begin bombing the Assad government in Syria immediately"

What would be the natural consequence of this Hitleresque operation? Of course Syria would have every right to defend itself against the attack, and Russia the right to protect its ally. Syria and Russia would begin taking out the attacking Washington aircraft. US aircraft are no match for the S-400 and S-500 systems. They would all be blown out of the sky. Of course Washington could launch guided missiles from afar - from ships in the Mediterranean or bases in Iraq, but those too are sitting targets for retaliatory missile strikes. Attacking US ships would be sunk within hours and likewise US bases destroyed.

So if these Neocons actually got their way, and the invading US planes and pilots were shot out of the sky, and the attacking US ships and bases were sunk and destroyed, resulting in thousands of casualties of US sailors and military; What do you think the neocons would do? Do you think these neocons in the State Department would say "Oh gee, I guess we were wrong to protect Al Qaeda and ISIS. It was all a big mistake. Let's stop now."

Or do you think the neocons would push for what they have always pushed for - escalation. How could the neocons escalate the situation? What is the eventual consequence of such escalation? The neocons have shown repeatedly they advocate escalation always in any and every manner. The neocons have already advocated "tactical" use of nuclear weapons. The neocons have also wholly embraced nuclear first strike as acceptable military policy.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/14/escalations-in-a-new-cold-war/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/experts-invasion-syria-lead-nuclear-war.html

 

[susano]

Here's as perfect a paraphrase as I can come up with for US Coalition Syria policy:

"Assad must go. ISIS can never be defeated in Syria while Assad is there because the coalition will continue to support ISIS until Assad is gone."

And they're likely lying about ISIS being unsupported in the aftermath of an Assad regime, to boot.

Good and concise analysis.

I've followed the wars in Libya, Syria and Ukraine and the lies of these demons at the State Dept are breathtaking. Whatever comes out of their filthy mouths is the exact opposite of the truth. They and the AngloZionist media have even gone so far as to try to blame Russia for the creation of ISIS and the jihadi insurgency.

The AngloZionist west and their Sunni allies are pure evil.

 

[susano]

It is a big stretch to claim that fighting in Syria would mean nuclear war with Russia (though I agree we should not be fighting in Syria because getting rid of Assad without a legitimate replacement would only increase the chaos in the region).

I don't think it's that big of a stretch. In as a volatile situation as Syria, things can change in an instant. Were the AngloZionists to begin a direct (not proxy) war and oust or kill Assad, the next move would be to move on the Russian installations. Syria is Russia's only direct access to the Mediterranean and they would not allow anyone to remove them. Things could escalate very quickly.

 

[susano]

You seriously think there is no risk from such neocon madness. What these neocons advocate is insane madness. To pretend there is no risk is utterly foolish madness.

The State Department "diplomats" are calling for all out war on the nation of Syria, direct attacks on the Syrian government. Their letter is "calling for the Obama Administration to begin bombing the Assad government in Syria immediately"

What would be the natural consequence of this Hitleresque operation? Of course Syria would have every right to defend itself against the attack, and Russia the right to protect its ally. Syria and Russia would begin taking out the attacking Washington aircraft. US aircraft are no match for the S-400 and S-500 systems. They would all be blown out of the sky. Of course Washington could launch guided missiles from afar - from ships in the Mediterranean or bases in Iraq, but those too are sitting targets for retaliatory missile strikes. Attacking US ships would be sunk within hours and likewise US bases destroyed.

So if these Neocons actually got their way, and the invading US planes and pilots were shot out of the sky, and the attacking US ships and bases were sunk and destroyed, resulting in thousands of casualties of US sailors and military; What do you think the neocons would do? Do you think these neocons in the State Department would say "Oh gee, I guess we were wrong to protect Al Qaeda and ISIS. It was all a big mistake. Let's stop now."

Or do you think the neocons would push for what they have always pushed for - escalation. How could the neocons escalate the situation? What is the eventual consequence of such escalation? The neocons have shown repeatedly they advocate escalation always in any and every manner. The neocons have already advocated "tactical" use of nuclear weapons. The neocons have also wholly embraced nuclear first strike as acceptable military policy.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/14/escalations-in-a-new-cold-war/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/experts-invasion-syria-lead-nuclear-war.html

Exactly right. Dunno if you recall back when the jihadis made chemical attacks and the west tried to blame Assad. It was during that time that the administration was making the case for bombing Syria and congress ended up saying no. At that time, somebody fired a missile at Syria and it appeared to be the direction of Spain, where the US has a base and ships. That missile was shot out of the sky and most believe it was Russia who did it. The whole thing was hushed up with some cover story about Israhell and some war games.

I would also point to Russia's doing those close flyovers of US ships and doing the same with US spy planes. Russia isn't playing. They have warned the US and they won't threaten, they'll just act if the time comes. That's something I like about them. They say what they mean and it's not ambiguous.

While there are many agendas in play with destroying Syria, the main one for the neocons is to eliminate Iran's Shia allies (Syria, Hezbollah) and then take out Iran. It's all about Israel, as usual (just as going after Russia is a Jewish agenda):

June 4, 2012

We’re not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran. Given that the current round of negotiations with the world’s major powers will not fundamentally change Iran’s nuclear program, the question of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is likely to return to center stage later this year. In addition to hard-headed diplomacy and economic sanctions, there is an important step the United States can take to change Israel’s calculations — helping the people of Syria in their battle against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but in fact they are inextricably linked. Israel’s real fear — losing its nuclear monopoly and therefore the ability to use its conventional forces at will throughout the Middle East — is the unacknowledged factor driving its decision-making toward the Islamic Republic. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. It’s the fact that Iran doesn’t even need to test a nuclear weapon to undermine Israeli military leverage in Lebanon and Syria.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/04/the-real-reason-to-intervene-in-syria/

Edit to add: The above article written by Jamie Rubin, Zionist Jew and former Clinton State Dept, married to Christiane Amanpour, one of the biggest liars and war whores in the MSM.

 

[RandallFan]

Ahole Trump wants to "ignore the Generals & advice people"

 

[susano]

Ahole Trump wants to "ignore the Generals & advice people"

Well, they all want war so that might not be a bad idea. He'd be better off talking with Assad, Putin and Lavrov.

 

[Origanalist]

Well, they all want war so that might not be a bad idea. He'd be better off talking with Assad, Putin and Lavrov.

He knows that, that's why he said it. But Trump will do no such thing and he's making shit up out of thin air.

 

[Suzanimal]

I came across this today and wasn't sure if it had been posted anywhere else.

Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel

The new Wikileaks release shows the then Secretary of State ordering a war in Syria in order to overthrow the government and oust President Assad, claiming it was the “best way to help Israel”.

...

The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.

She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.

Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.

Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.

This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”

The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.

Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.

Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:

In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.

The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.

It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.

...

http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email-we-must-destroy-syria-for-israel/

 

[Zippyjuan]

Same site (yournewswire) claimed a submarine left in Scotland from WWI was actually found on the coast of Argentina and was used to transport German officers to that country (the sub did not have room for more than the pilot and did not have the range to sail across the Atlantic to South America anyways). Not a reliable source. http://yournewswire.com/ww2-u-boat-found-in-argentina-proves-top-nazis-escaped-germany/

Sub allegedly found in Argentina:

Link to Scotland picture of same sub: http://coastkid.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-saturday-cycle-to-sub-wrecks-at.html

I am not claiming that the US has not called for the removal of Assad- they have. And if successful, it will add to, not decrease, instability in the region.

 

[Suzanimal]

Same site (yournewswire) claimed a submarine left in Scotland from WWI was actually found on the coast of Argentina and was used to transport German officers to that country (the sub did not have room for more than the pilot and did not have the range to sail across the Atlantic to South America anyways). Not a reliable source. http://yournewswire.com/ww2-u-boat-found-in-argentina-proves-top-nazis-escaped-germany/

Sub allegedly found in Argentina:

Link to Scotland picture of same sub: http://coastkid.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-saturday-cycle-to-sub-wrecks-at.html

That looks totally legit. But seriously, I didn't look around the site.

Is this a better link?

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADMAFf

 

[RandallFan]

Celebrity candidates Trump & obama need to listen to the smart guys in the room.