okay, we have to do something about syria

syria civilians

       “We HAVE to do something about Syria!”
       “Okay. Why?”
       “Because the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people!”
       “Okay. But hasn’t the Syrian government been killing their own people for a couple of years now?”
       “Yes. But this time they used chemical weapons!”
       “Okay. Do chemical weapons kill their victims deader than conventional weapons?”
       “You don’t understand! Chemical weapons are indiscriminate!”
       “Okay. But when the Syrian government shelled neighborhoods where insurgents were suspected of hiding, wasn’t that also indiscriminate?”
       “The chemical weapons killed noncombatants! Women! Children! Old people!”
       “Okay. Didn’t the shelling also kill women and children and old…”
       “We have to do something to stop the killing of innocents!”
       “Okay. What do you suggest?”
       “Launch missles! Drop smart bombs!”
       “Okay. And you can guarantee that won’t kill innocents?”
       “There is always collateral damage! But we have to stop Syrian President Assad from using chemical weapons!”
       “Okay. So we should destroy his chemical weapons facilities?”
       “No! That would contaminate the area!”
       “Okay, so we should drop bombs and launch missiles at Assad? We should kill him?”
       “No! He’s the only one we can negotiate with! And he’s not a radical Islamist!”
       “Okay. So who do we fire these missiles at? Who do we drop the bombs on?”
       “Airfields! Command and control centers! Military installations!”
       “Okay. But that’ll just kill a bunch of mid-level officers and support staff, won’t it?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. If we destroy a bunch of military installations and kill those people, will that prevent the Syrian government from deploying chemical weapons?”
       “No! Chemical weapons can be fired from any artillery piece!”
       “Okay. So we’d have to destroy all the Syrian government’s artillery. Can we do that?”
       “No! Many of them are deployed in areas inhabited by civilians!”
       “Okay. So what should we do? Send in ground troops?”
       “Are you fucking crazy? We can’t send in ground troops!”
       “Okay. So we can’t kill Assad, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t target the places where the chemical weapons are created, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t target the individual weapon systems that actually fire the weapons, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t send in ground forces, right?”
       “Are you fucking crazy?!”
       “Okay. So basically, we can’t actually prevent Assad and his government from using chemical weapons against their own rebellious citizens.”
       “Correct! But we HAVE to do something, or America will be blamed and people will hate us!”
       “Okay. You’re saying if the U.S. does nothing, we’ll be blamed and people will hate us?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. But if we do something and it doesn’t work, won’t we still be blamed and won’t people still hate us?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. But even if we did something and somehow whatever we did magically worked, wouldn’t we be blamed for not acting sooner?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. So the United States is going to be blamed regardless. Won’t people hate us anyway?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. Okay, so to summarize, regardless of what we do or don’t do, the Assad government will be able to use chemical weapons against their own people and the United States will be blamed and hated regardless. And regardless of what we do or don’t do, civilians will continue to be killed at random.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. So we’re fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. And the Assad government is fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. And the Syrian people are fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct! Massively fucked! Fucked all around!”
       “Okay. And knowing all that, your position is…?”
       “We HAVE to do something about Syria!”

syria neighborhood

Advertisements

187 thoughts on “okay, we have to do something about syria

  1. Was literally just talking about this the other day. It’s such a fragile situation, and at first glance, the most obvious response is wanting to rush in and ‘help’. If only it were that easy!

    Like

  2. Yeah, I disagree. We don’t need to anything…. I get the whole chemical warfare thing and the fact that a bunch of people are being killed, but for once the United States needs to keep our noses out of it.I know it sounds blunt and uncaring but any attack on Syria and the Assad regime basically guarantees a reaction from Russia, most likely resulting in escalating military responses from both of us. And I for one would like to stay away from any interactions with the Russians that involves our militaries in any way. It sucks being in this situation but it’s the best option for the United States; however, it doesn’t look like we will stay out of it. I am pretty sure Obama will be authorizing the air strikes whether he gets congressional approval or not. I really hope he doesn’t get congressional approval and decides not to do it and accepts the fact that we will look weak, but we will just have to wait until the 9th or whenever congress gets back. I would love to help these people, I really do, but its not in our best interests and we are far more likely to have a better outcome in this situation if we just stay out of it.

    Like

  3. The way that I see it is that even if Assad’s government was taken down, the chances of him being replaced by someone worst is higher. You want the solution to be beneficial for the innocents involved in the situation. Such a solution comes for a price, which innocent people pay anyway.

    Like

    • The intent of the limited strike President Obama is suggesting isn’t to remove Assad from power (although the US has been urging him to step down for about two years now). The intent is to reinforce the Geneva Conventions ban on chemical and biological weapons.

      I think the intent is commendable; I just don’t think either Assad or the rebels are open to the message.

      Like

  4. Are Westerners Ready to Bomb Syria?
    by Thierry Meyssan

    Pretending to believe in a chemical attack by the Syrian government against its own people, Washington, London and Paris are beating the drums of war. Should we take these threats seriously coming from states having announced as imminent the fall of Syria for more than two years? Although one should not exclude this option, Thierry Meyssan thinks it is less likely that an intervention organized by Saudi Arabia. Western agitation would rather aim to test the responses of Russia and Iran.
    Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 30 August 2013

    (Damascus, August 27) – What bee has the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama, got in his bonnet? Sunday, August 25, the White House issued a statement in which an anonymous senior official said that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that Syria ’s agreement to let the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible .”

    If the use of chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus, Wednesday, August 21, 2013 is likely, the Security Council of the United Nations has not concluded that it was the work of the Syrian government. At an emergency meeting held at the request of the West, the ambassadors were surprised to see their Russian colleague present satellite photos showing the firing of two rounds at 1:35 am from the rebel zone Duma in rebel areas affected by gas (at Jobar and between Arbin and Zamalka ) at times coinciding with the related disorders. The pictures do not tell us whether they were chemical shells, but they suggest that the “Brigade of Islam”, which occupies Duma, has hit three birds with the same stone: first, to remove the support of its rivals in the opposition; second, accuse Syria of using chemical weapons; finally, disrupt the offensive of the Syrian Arab army clearing the capital.

    If the Syrian government, similar to its enemy, Israel, is not a signatory to the Convention against chemical weapons and has large stocks, the jihadists also have some, as confirmed by Carla Del Ponte, to the fury of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In December, the Free Syrian Army released a video showing a chemical laboratory and threatening the Alawites. This week, the government discovered several caches of chemical weapons, gas masks and antidotes in the suburbs of Damascus. The products came from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States and the Netherlands. Also, it is at the request of the Syrian government, not the West, that UN inspectors are present in Syria for two weeks to investigate allegations of use. Finally, on 29 May 29, 2013, the Turkish police arrested a dozen members of the Al-Nosra Front and seized chemical weapons that were to be used in Syria.

    However, on Friday, President Obama met his National Security Council to review the attack options against Syria in the presence of Ambassador Samantha Power, leader of liberal hawks. He decided to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean by sending a fourth destroyer, loaded with cruise missiles, the USS Ramage. This is in addition to the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and USS Mahan, which remains in the zone when it should return to port.

    Saturday, he called British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone. And on Sunday, he spoke with French President Francois Hollande. The three men agreed that intervention was necessary without specifying how. Sunday again, the Secretary of State John Kerry called his British, French, Canadian and Russian counterparts to say that the United States was convinced that Syria had crossed the “red line”. If the first three speakers listened at attention, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov expressed surprise that Washington pronounced itself before the report of the UN inspectors. He referred to the “extremely grave consequences” that would result form an intervention in the region.

    Monday, the French defense minister, Jean -Yves Le Drian, was in Qatar and was to go to the UAE to coordinate with them. While the Israeli national security adviser, General Yaakov Amidror, was received at the White House. During a telephone conversation between the British Prime Minister David Cameron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the latter stressed that there was no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Syria. For his part, the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Li Baodong, called his U.S. counterpart, Wendy R. Sherman, to urge the United States to exercise restraint. Aware of the risk of a regional war in which Christians would suffer, Pope Francis reiterated his call for peace.

    Should we therefore think that the West will go to war without a mandate from the Security Council, as NATO did in Yugoslavia? This is unlikely because at the time Russia was in ruins. Today, after issuing three vetoes to protect Syria, it must intervene or forsake any international action. However Sergey Lavrov has wisely rejected a Third World War. He said that his country was not ready to go to war against anyone, even over Syria. It could therefore be an indirect intervention in support of Syria, as China did during the Vietnam War .

    Iran then, through its Deputy Chief of Staff, Massoud Jazayeri, indicated that the attack on Syria would be crossing the “red line” and that if it took this step, the White House would endure “serious consequences.” Though Iran has neither the resources of Russia, nor alliances, it is certainly one of the top 10 global military powers. Therefore, to attack Syria is to run the risk of retaliation against Israel and uprisings in much of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. The recent intervention of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the statements of its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, such as the Palestinian organization PFLP- General Command, leave no doubt.

    Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al -Assad, said: “The statements made by US politicians, Western and other countries is an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. This is nonsense: first accuse, then gather evidence. This task is carried out by a powerful country, the United States ( … ) This kind of accusation is a purely political response to the series of victories won by government forces against the terrorists. ”

    In Russia, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov, commented on his Twitter account : ” Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected. ”

    The notion of a new war in Syria squares badly with the economic problems of the United States and Europe. If selling weapons is a way to earn money, destroying a state without hope of return in the short or medium term can worsen the situation.

    According to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted after the August 21st attack, 60% of the US public opposed intervention in Syria against 9% who supported it . If they were convinced of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they remained 46% in opposition to the war and 25% in support. The same survey indicates that U.S. respondents are even less fond of secret war : 89 % said the US should not arm the rebels, against 11% who want to arm them more. Finally, four options were offered to respondents : airstrikes ( supported by 12%), creating a no-fly zone ( 11%), the financing of a multinational force ( 9%), and direct U.S. action ( 4%).

    In France, Le Figaro, published by the arms dealer Dassault, asked its readers and, at the end of the day, 79.60 % opposed the war versus 20.40% in support. It will certainly be difficult to reverse public opinion and go to war.

    Another interpretation of events is possible: some videos showing the victims of chemical attacks actually circulated on the Internet a few hours before the attacks. It will always be possible for Westerners to “discover” the deception in time and backtrack. However, the case of chemical weapons in Iraq has shown that Westerners could lie to the international community and escape with impunity once their evil deed is accomplished.

    The charges from jihadists and their Western sponsors emerged while the Syrian Arab Army launched a major offensive, “Shield of Damascus” to free the capital. The shot of the two shells of the “Brigade of Islam” came at the beginning of the offensive, which continued for 5 days and resulted in significant losses among jihadists (at least 1,500 killed and wounded of the about 25,000 present). All this agitation may be only psychological warfare to both hide this defeat and attempt to cripple the Syrian offensive. This is especially a way for Washington to test the Iranian response after the election of Sheikh Hassan Rohani to his presidency. And it is now clear that the latter will not oppose the policy of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    However, during the war against Libya, I had underestimated the ability of the United States to violate all the rules, including those of NATO. Basing myself on documents from the Atlantic Alliance, I insisted on the long resilience of the Libyan Jamahiriya confronting its armed opposition. I ignored the holding of a secret meeting on the NATO base in Naples behind the back of the Atlantic Council. At the time, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Jordan secretly planned the use of Alliance assets to bomb Tripoli. Not trusting their allies, whom they knew would be opposed to an attack so costly in human lives, they had not informed them. The Atlantic Alliance was no longer an Alliance proper but an ad hoc coalition. In a few days, the taking of Tripoli caused at least 40,000 deaths, according to internal reports of the Red Cross. Such a manoeuvre may be being organized : the Chiefs of Staff of approximately the same states, plus Saudi Arabia and Canada, are gathered since Sunday and until tonight in Amman under the chairmanship of the CentCom commander, General Lloyd J. Austin III. They are considering five options: supplying weapons to the Contras, targeted bombings, creating a no-fly zone, establishment of buffer zones and land invasion.

    The Atlanticist press calls to war. The London Times ad .

    President Barack Obama could well follow the war plan drawn up by his predecessor George W. Bush on 15 September 2001, who foresaw, in addition to attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, those of Libya and Syria, as was revealed by the former Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark. Except that, for the first time, the target has serious allies.

    However, the new U.S. rhetoric contradicts all the efforts of the Obama administration for the last year that sought to eliminate obstacles to the holding of the Geneva 2 Conference: resignation of General David Petraeus and supporters of the secret war, non-reappointment of Hillary Clinton and the ultra-Zionists ; indictment of irreducible opponents of an alliance with Russia, especially within NATO and the missile shield . It also contradicts the efforts of John Brennan to cause clashes in the Syrian armed opposition to demand the abdication of the Emir of Qatar, and to threaten Saudi Arabia.

    On the Syrian side, they are preparing as much as is possible for any eventuality, including the NATO bombing of command centers and ministries coordinated with an assault by jihadists against the capital. However, the most likely option is not triggering a regional war that would overwhelm the Western powers. It is an attack in the fall, supervised by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the fighters it is currently recruiting . Eventually, this operation could be supported by the Arab League.
    Thierry Meyssan

    Translation
    Roger Lagassé

    Like

  5. Okay, so if the USA does something “they” will blame it and hate it. If the USA does nothing “they” will blame it and hate it. How would this differ from the current sitauation where “they” blame the USA and hate it? There is no upside to the USA doing anything in this situation while the downside occurs whether the USA does anything or not. Seems to me like one of those true, and rare, “no-brainers”.

    Like

    • The upside, according to President Obama, is that a limited strike sends the message to both sides that chemical warfare won’t be tolerated. I think that’s a laudable intent, but I’m not sure Assad (or the rebels, for that matter) will take that message to heart.

      Like

    • Keep in mind this is not merely a point to be made about Syria and the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is also a point that needs to be made about this type of behavior world wide whatever conflict arises. But it needs to be made on a universally accepted scale. Americans need to seriously pay attention to the working realities of the modern world. We live in a global economy and community, we are all affected by what happens outside our boarders. Remember Russia and Georgia? Crap like that couldn’t be tolerated and crap like this cant be tolerated.

      Like

  6. Yes something must be done, but why should the US be the ones to initiate? This is a tragic crime against humanity, genocide. All world leaders have a responsibility to stand up and take action, regardless of religious affiliation, ethnicity or their animosity toward the US. If in fact there is indisputable proof that chemical weapons were used all nations should stand together and take action.

    Like

  7. nothing could have summed it up the way you did – excellent work, well done. I hope people are blessed with some humanity so the simple civilians can live in peace – it is just this they ask for.

    Like

  8. We can’t forget the issue of oil. The West is addicted to it. It bathes in its consumption like that singer who soaks in bathtubs of yogurt. What do addicts do? They steal, deceive and exploit. Is there any way readers here could reduce their use of oil so the crazed addiction is reduced? I feel I have room to talk because I intentionally don’t have a car. I intentionally have a small house so need to heat is less. I have no children because I don’t see the sense in bringing more consumers into this world. Babies are for life and they quickly get ugly like the rest of us. I don’t think I’m great and wonderful because I keep my needs sustainable. I simply don’t want to be 100% owned (digestion and conscience) by corporations because I can’t govern myself. If the West believes it has the right to a high standard of living then factored into that is the belief that we can also cause havoc in other places for our baby-bump infatuated selves. Right? People who waste resources are the ones who think they are great and for some reason entitled to more. This comfy justification is a temporary state of mind with permanent and horrible effects. Wake up and smell the sarin…

    Like

    • greenfrieze / are you related to Greg as like Greg your
      comment but utter nonsense in playing people for fools.

      As with Greg t’woud have benefited if parents giving a
      occasional sound spanking upon your bared buttocks
      thus teaching some sense as some respect for others.

      Like

  9. Well, we do clearly have to do something about every chaos that’s erupting around the world. It’s affecting all of us clearly in such a way that, as human beings, we feel and empathize with the ones who are suffering.

    Yet for now, I hope many nations meet and carefully plan on how to make Syria at peace not in pieces. Just my opinion – a single powerful country that tries to stop the conflict of a country will only get in the way of resolving the inner turmoil (US to Iraq anyone?). And frankly, it doesn’t help at all. All the killings and chaos goes long term instead of being stopped instantly.

    Like

    • Things began to get really screwed up in the Middle East when, after the First World War, European powers arbitrarily redrew borders and set up puppet regimes ruled by internal minority sectarian groups. That led to those groups (like the Alawites in Syria) depending on foreign powers in order to remain in control. And now, of course, all those foreign powers are stuffing their hands in their pockets and walking away whistling and trying to look innocent.

      Like

      • Great comment about European powers arbitrarily drawing borders with no consideration about local cultures/tribes/what have you. Another example of this is Africa. The US has historically (since WWII) been the policeman of the world. The use of chemical weapons should be despised by ALL countries. Russia’s stand is atrocious – Putin is NOT to be trusted, he’s been eroding personal freedoms there for years. Mind you, our personal freedoms are also eroding. However, why don’t middle east countries try to seriously solve their own problems without outside intervention? I know oil is a big reason but even so. Great article that sums it up in a nutshell – we’re F&^%ed either way.

        Like

  10. Pingback: There’s a war in there « Pip Marks

  11. The tobacco comanies / killing a great part of humanity
    with tobacco as added highly addictive direst chemicals.

    MONSANTO killing rest of *worlds population with their
    frankenstien foods / in main in America genetic altered
    food given direct to the individuals / in Europe /in main
    genetic poisonous food being feed to animals thus via
    the animals to the to the Europeon population / result
    as a USA bring bringing millions of deaths / a multitude
    of serious health problems / comes with / frankenstien
    foods. It but beggers belief how humanity in such a dire
    situation /greed of wealth as an greed of political power.

    MONSANYO sought but wealth /achieved their powerful
    position in their funding of politicians funding all political
    parties / to the tune of tens of $millions.The Politicians
    so blinded by the wealth offered / given by MONSANTO
    they gave MONSANTO freedom to do / as they pleased
    of course politicians never realized dire result of genetic
    manipulation which now resulting with it’s bringing death.

    It’s vital THE USA starts face the real problems of nation
    as being MONSANTO a company out of control bringing
    death to millions worldwide / with the potential of ending
    humanity / the situation now requiring immediate action
    the USA should not use distraction diversion as means
    in turning a blind eye to the real problems it need face
    a USA as all humanity face / the media need be given
    the freedom in reporting the truth / thus politician give
    give their attention a focus to real problems / not that
    of media spin / where in a constant state of war with
    other nations / in trying to achieve world domination.

    Like

    • Dude, seriously…if you want to rant about Monsanto, do it on your own blog. I’ve been patient about this, but your insistence on thread-jacking a discussion about Syria is starting to get tedious.

      Like

      • greg / if serious problems as MONSANTO are not faced
        then there be no SYRIA or USA / humanity be wiped out.

        Like

  12. yeah, im not exactly one for war and politics, but I believe we should go about saving syria without making a huge war, whilst I fully support Obama, with all the nuclear weapons these days it could get horrific

    Like

  13. This is very well put. It’s such a frustrating situation that I feel like I’ve been having this argument with myself (and many many other people) all week.

    Like

    • I’m inclined to think that folks who aren’t having this argument with themselves and/or others simply aren’t paying enough attention. It would be SO much easier, wouldn’t it, if one side of the argument was clearly stronger.

      Like

      • True. I suppose the problem is that people seem to think that it’s an either or situation. Military intervention or nothing. Diplomatic routes linked with humanitarian efforts don’t seem as dramatic as air strikes but there we are.

        Like

      • You’re absolutely right. There’s nothing sexy about diplomacy. Nobody ever made a blockbuster movie about peace negotiations.

        The argument made by folks who want to punish Syrian for using chemical weapons is that the use of such weaponry isn’t open to negotiation. They were banned by the Geneva Conventions. Their argument is that anybody, regardless of what side they’re on, who used biological or chemical weapons in a conflict has to be punished. I think that’s a legitimate argument. I just don’t think the ‘punishment’ will actually achieve anything.

        But I like your thinking.

        Like

  14. Thanks for this! My thoughts exactly! There’s so much more I wish I could say, but I’m not exactly sure how to put it in words. Basically, there are crisis all over the world, yet the ones in the Middle East are the only ones where we see the need to intervene, to “help the people”. I think it’s a clever disguise for a bigger agenda. Regardless, this was so very well written!

    Like

      • Greg / It’s an obvious attempt of mind to put a end to
        all brain development thus the destruction of humanity.
        There is one way that mind can be controlled thus the
        ability of brain developmenthat fundemental is allowed.

        I say the mind controlled not defeated because it can’t
        be defeated /however it can be controlled in giving one
        peace of mind /I shall give a further comment soon / as
        to how such be achieved. As explain at a later time how
        mind can’t be defeated / yet can be controlled / where it
        being the better qualties of humanity flourish / blossom.

        Like

      • It’s an obvious attempt of mind to put a end to all brain development thus the destruction of humanity.

        You’re talking about Monsanto again, right? Not reality television, or hockey. You’re starting to get a wee bit Boo Radley, you know.

        Like

  15. Sorry to be so vague, Greg.

    There are problems all over the world, some as great as those in the Middle East. And chemical weapons/chemical warfare are definitely something to be concerned about! But I just wonder (wonder is the more appropriate term, since I really am curious) if it’s all an attempt to seize control of the oil industry. Of course, it’s not just the US, but other countries as well.

    Drug wars/crimes in Mexico. Conflict in the Republic of Congo. Sex trafficking in Thailand. Just a few examples. They all seem like pretty horrible things, but you don’t hear much about the US involvement to “help” these people. But I wonder, if those countries were rich in oil, would we suddenly turn up to “help” these countries? Again, I’m not snubbing my nose at the problems and the serious situation in Syria. And, maybe I sound like a complete moron to those reading. But, this theory that I never really thought about was discussed by friends this weekend, and it just makes me wonder.

    To be honest, I’m really not educated on that theory, but I wonder if there are those who are, or those out there who believe that. I suppose I didn’t go about asking my question in a very clear manner. Forgive me! All I really meant to do was compliment your piece and then I went and stuck my foot in my mouth, talking about things I know nothing about. *sigh* Really good stuff, though!

    Like

    • Heidi, you don’t sound like a moron at all. You sound like somebody who’s making an honest attempt to understand issues that are so complex and twisted that experts want to throw up their hands and quit.

      And I think you’re right on some of those issues. The problem is that chemical and biological weapons are different; they’re banned by the Geneva Conventions. As horrible as war is, it would be even more horrible if nations ignored the very few universal rules proscribing what can and can’t be done by nations at war.

      Like

  16. With decades of 24/7 govt media as military media brainwashing
    greater majority of Americans incapable of independent thought
    however / there an means american people can free themselves.

    Such the means of freedom for americans is again establishing
    the direct link with the creator where one’s practical experience
    of the creator will take one beyond ideas as beliefs to that that
    one knowing the creator / understanding the ultimate purpose
    of creation of the universe / the creation of given a human life.

    The next comment be establishing such the needed direct link
    which one being capable in having / but having forgotten such
    link exists having been the victims of cruel brainwashing / from
    corrupt govts / corrupt politicians / whom rather than serve the
    people having stripped the people of all rights / where treating
    people as sheep to fleece /cut unto the bone shown no mercy.

    A USA govt as military will not take the blame for the dire state
    of the nation / rather they continue to wage war on others use
    distraction as diversion as a means in staying in power / thus
    deny the people their right to brain development / their rights
    knowing the purpose of creation /the purpose of a human life.

    I advise all americans not to lose heart / in time you will be set
    free you must be of good faith don’t lose hope / remain strong.

    Like

  17. How and why is this the United States “problem”? I think what is happening is horrific..as you pointed out..there is nothing we can do to help. If the United States must get involved..shouldn’t the United States first get the thumbs up from the United Nations?

    Like

    • I don’t think this IS the United States’ problem. It’s a world problem. The Geneva Conventions ought to be applied worldwide.

      As to getting UN approval, that simply won’t happen — not because a majority of nations would oppose the use of force in Syria, but because Russia (or China, for that matter) would simply veto any UN resolution authorizing the use of force.

      Like

  18. The direct link to the creator has not changed since time
    having began that link achieved when turning the senses
    inward via meditation doing such / the experience gained
    gifts one Clarity of understanding in one knowing creator
    in going beyond ideas and beliefs to practical experience
    of creator in understanding one’s ultimate purpose of life.
    which controling one’s mind / allowing brain development.

    One can’t defeat the mind but one making the direct link
    with creator can control mind / why? mind NOT defeated
    is another story for another time ( interesting as it is the
    main need at present is / gaining greater understanding
    thus this comment shall be towards fulfilling a vital need
    as how such direct link with creator again reestablished.

    As one’s focus only has been on material manifestation
    of the power of creation. / One needs aid and guidance
    to re-focus the senses that one experiences the power
    of creation in it’s essence / not as before being diluted
    in it’s material manifestation / (thus greater experience).

    Throughout history of humanity there (always) being a
    “Teacher of Teachers” the teacher of teachers being a
    aid & guide to those reaching such the stage that they
    then require meditation in furthering their development.

    Present times the Teacher of Teachers is Prem Rawat
    Prem having dedicated his life to aid guide those whom
    reaching such the stage meditation vital as be required
    in going beyond ideas as beliefs unto knowing creator.

    On PC search put (words of peace) or (words of peace
    global) on site be a selection of videos / Prem explains
    meditation with a open invitation he will aid guide all in
    reaching the stage that meditation being then required.

    Once such re-focus begins / then again one in knowing
    true peace of mind again in one knowing their true self.

    Like

  19. BARACK / for the illegal drone ( unmanned armed aircraft) strikes on
    YEMEN alone BARACK guilty of mass murder / slaughter of innocent
    men / women /children /such appalling heartless crime / for which the
    USA military command / & USA president BARACK be brought to trial.

    Like

  20. If Obama can sow all this concern , because young innocent victims died at the hands of the Syrian military because of a chemical weapons` attack ? Then why no outrage as to the loss of lives on the streets of Chicago from the gun violence there ?

    Seemingly, Barack Obama cherry-picks the issues, , he feels will tug at the heart strings of the American people . If only he would also show the same concern for the military veterans as well , specifically the young men and women returning from the theater of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are unable to obtain the benefits they rightfully deserve , because of the archaic bureaucracy and incompetency of the VA .

    Like

    • I think there is, in fact, outrage about the gun violence in the US. Unfortunately, the outrage isn’t felt by those in Congress. As the President of the U.S. Obama doesn’t have the power or the authority to overrule Congress; as Commander in Chief, though, he does have the power and authority to authorize limited military strikes. Those are two different roles and they don’t overlap.

      That said, I think he’s doing the right thing by putting the issue of military strikes before Congress.

      Like

      • You saw the idiocy of David Cameron’s actions initially and he was in no uncertain terms that he cannot act unilaterally by the vote that took in the House of Parliament ,

        In the case of Obama , his actions show in some cases a complete lack of understanding and his so called foreign policy is dictated way too much on supposition . Barack Obama has no real clear idea who the US allies are in the Middle East .

        And John Kerry as Secretary of State was an uninspired choice to say the very least ..

        Like

  21. What’s important is for all Anericans again in making that
    direct link with creator thus then being in a state of peace
    free from govt and military cruel 24/7 media brainwashing.

    Like

  22. I like the choice of dialogue rather than typical journalism and some great questions posed here, with no clear answers because I’d have to question if there really are any. Bombing a country sounds like a primitive “solution” to me that will worsen things long-term, with generational consequences for all countries involved– meaning the entire world.

    Like

  23. Isn’t is amazing that we have such “clarity” of the situation in Syria, yet we are still not talking about the Benghazi disaster? Could it be that the urgency of the Syrian crises is a distraction from our domestic issues – the impending change of our health care system and the mishandling of our own embassy crises in Benghazi?

    Like

  24. Thank you for this discussion. I think the only thing we can do to make a difference is to support those who have lost their homes and live in refugee settlements until this issue is resolved and they can go home.

    Like

  25. Pingback: Poor Miley | khaula mazhar

  26. Pingback: Your Voice, Live from the Scene: WPrightnow — Blog — WordPress.com

  27. Pingback: Your Voice, Live from the Scene: WPrightnow | Electrician Richardson

  28. Pingback: okay, we still have to do something about syria, again | gregfallis.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.