Thursday, September 05, 2013

William Polk on Syria

Posted by Arun at 8:00 AM

Comments (3)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
0 Vote up Vote down
Cynthia's avatar

Cynthia · 604 weeks ago

The official story is that Syria's President Assad is a moron who invited UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, then on the very day they arrived carried out a chemical weapons attack, not against the leaders of the hired mercenaries trying to oust him,. but against women, children, and his own soldiers, right in front of those inspectors.

And if you believe that one, I have some of Saddam's nuclear weapons to sell you!

Setting aside the absurdity of the above claim, lies are most easily exposed by looking for what should be there but isn't, and what isn't in the official story is a MOTIVE for Assad to do such a thing. There is no military objective to be gained by gassing women, children, and his own soldiers. Assad gains nothing politically by such an attack. According to the latest polls (including by NATO) 70% of Syrians support Assad, 20% are undecided, and only 10% are with the hired mercenaries. Assad risks alienating his public support (along with inviting a US attack) by gassing woman and children.

So Kerry, McCain, and Israel can scream all they want that Assad gassed women and children all they want, but they cannot explain why he would want to! Which is why we know this claim about Assad is as huge a lie as the claim about Saddam's nuclear weapons. One almost has to wonder at the arrogance of the US Government that they actually thought Americans are dumb enough to fall for such an obvious hoax! But the US Government has ruled with lies and deception for so long, they have forgotten any other way to do things, and are clearly following that old standby adage, "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again!"
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
macgupta's avatar - Go to profile

macgupta 81p · 604 weeks ago

I hold no brief for the Assad regime, it is nasty. My argument is that even if Assad did all that Kerry & Obama say he did, bombing Syria is not going to improve things one bit. Not in Syria, and not with other countries, if they feel their backs are against the wall. As Polk pointed out, Churchill during WW2 contemplated using chemical weapons, when he felt Great Britain might otherwise fall.

US doctrine is that a chemical warfare attack on it will invite nuclear retaliation. Why would the US require a nuclear deterrent against chemical weapons if a conventional response of the type "bomb Syria" would suffice?
0 Vote up Vote down
Cynthia's avatar

Cynthia · 604 weeks ago

Kerry can lie all he wants to the Congress. Lies may start a war, but they certainly won't win one, will they? "Cakewalk" and "The Iraq war will pay for itself" come quickly to mind.

The Democrats seem to be attempting to outdo even George Bush with this clusterfuck dog and pony show.

Suddenly appearing defecting scientists? Intercepted phone calls? YouTube videos? This bullshit makes the house of cards that was the reasoning for the Iraq War look like the foundations of the Egyptian pyramids.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)