Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria

Article by Dennis Kucinich, former 16 year member of U.S Congress

Article re-posted from HuffintonPost

In the lead-up to the Iraq War, I researched, wrote and circulated a document to members of Congress which explored unanswered questions and refuted President Bush's claim for a cause for war. The document detailed how there was no proof Iraq was connected to 9/11 or tied to al Qaeda's role in 9/11, that Iraq neither had WMDs nor was it a threat to the U.S., lacking intention and capability to attack. Unfortunately, not enough members of Congress performed due diligence before they approved the war.

Here are some key questions which President Obama has yet to answer in the call for congressional approval for war against Syria. This article is a call for independent thinking and congressional oversight, which rises above partisan considerations

The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:

Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.

The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.

Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?

Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?

Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?

Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?

Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?

Claim #2: The administration claims the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

Which opposition?

Are you speaking of a specific group, or all groups working in Syria to overthrow President Assad and his government?

Has your administration independently and categorically dismissed the reports of rebel use of chemical weapons which have come from such disparate sources as Russia, the United Nations, and the Turkish state newspaper?

Have you investigated the rumors that the Saudis may have supplied the rebels with chemicals that could be weaponized?

Has the administration considered the ramifications of inadvertently supporting al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels?

Was any intelligence received in the last year by the U.S. government indicating that sarin gas was brought into Syria by rebel factions, with or without the help of a foreign government or intelligence agents?

Claim #3: The administration claims chemical weapons were used because the regime's conventional weapons were insufficient

Who is responsible for the conjecture that the reason chemical weapons were used against the Damascus suburbs is that Assad's conventional weapons were insufficient to secure "large portions of Damascus"?

Claim #4: The administration claims to have intelligence relating to the mixing of chemical weapons by regime elements

Who saw the chemical weapons being mixed from August 18th on?

Was any warning afforded to the Syria opposition and if not, why not?

If, on August 21st a "regime element" was preparing for a chemical weapons attack, has an assessment been made which could definitively determine whether such preparation (using gas masks) was for purpose of defense, and not offense?

Claim #5: The administration claims intelligence that Assad's brother ordered the attack

What is the type of and source of intelligence which alleges that Assad's brother personally ordered the attack?

Who made the determination that Assad's brother ordered the attack, based on which intelligence, from what source?

Claim #6: The administration claims poison gas was released in a rocket attack

Who was tracking the rocket and the artillery attack which preceded the poison gas release?

Did these events occur simultaneously or consecutively?

Could these events, the rocket launches and the release of poison gas, have been conflated?

Based upon the evidence, is it possible that a rocket attack by the Syrian government was aimed at rebels stationed among civilians and a chemical weapons attack was launched by rebels against the civilian population an hour and a half later?

Is it possible that chemical weapons were released by the rebels -- unintentionally?

Explain the 90-minute time interval between the rocket launch and chemical weapon attacks.

Has forensic evidence been gathered at the scene of the attack which would confirm the use of rockets to deliver the gas?

If there was a rocket launch would you supply evidence of wounds from the rockets impact and explosion?

What is the source of the government's analysis?

If the rockets were being tracked via "geospatial intelligence," what were the geospatial coordinates of the launching sites and termination locations?

Claim #7: The administration claims 1,429 people died in the attack

Secretary Kerry claimed 1,429 deaths, including 426 children. From whom did that number first originate?

Claim #8: The administration has made repeated references to videos and photos of the attack as a basis for military action against Syria

When and where were the videos taken of the aftermath of the poison gas attack?

Claim #9: The administration claims a key intercept proves the Assad regime's complicity in the chemical weapons attack

Will you release the original transcripts in the language in which it was recorded as well as the translations relied upon to determine the nature of the conversation allegedly intercepted?

What is the source of this transcript? What was the exact time of the intercept? Was it a U.S. intercept or supplied from a non-U.S. source?

Have you determined the transcripts' authenticity? Have you considered that the transcripts could have been doctored or fake?

Was the "senior official," whose communications were intercepted, a member of Assad's government?

How was he "familiar" with the offensive? Through a surprised acknowledgement that such an attack had taken place? Or through actual coordination of said attack? Release the transcripts!

Was he an intelligence asset of the U.S., or our allies? In what manner had he "confirmed" chemical weapons were used by the regime?

Who made the assessment that his intercepted communications were a confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the regime on August 21st?

What is the source of information that the Syrian chemical weapons personnel were "directed to cease operations"?

Is this the same source who witnessed regime officials mixing the chemicals?

Does the transcript indicate whether the operations they were "directed to cease" were related to ceasing conventional or chemical attacks?

Will you release the transcripts and identify sources of this claim?

Do you have transcripts, eyewitness accounts or electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or other regime officials which link the CW attack directly to President Assad?

Who are the intelligence officials who made the assessment -- are they U.S. intelligence officials or did the initial analysis come from a non-U.S. source?

Claim #10: The administration claims that sustained shelling occurred after the chemical weapons attack in order to cover up the traces of the attack

Please release all intelligence and military assessments as to the reason for the sustained shelling, which is reported to have occurred after the chemical weapons attack.

Who made the determination that was this intended to cover up a chemical weapon attack? Or was it to counterattack those who released chemicals?

How does shelling make the residue of sarin gas disappear?

The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world. Congress must be provided answers prior to the vote, in open hearings, not in closed sessions where information can be manipulated in the service of war. We've been there before. It's called Iraq (emphasis added).

You can visit Dennis Kucinich's website at www.KucinichAction.com

LABOR'S "SOUTHERN STRATEGY"

Don't Let Up

Article by David Macaray; taken from Counterpunch.Org

Not counting all the other bad things that have happened recently (e.g., Wisconsin public workers denied collective bargaining, Michigan becoming a right-to-work state, Obama’s NLRB appointees hanging in limbo, the Democrats’ betrayal of EFCA legislation, etc.), two ambitious AFL-CIO endeavors have failed spectacularly:  Organizing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and gaining a significant foothold in the Deep South.

As for attempting to penetrate Wal-Mart, the House of Labor deserves credit.  Even though they failed to organize even one of the company’s nearly 4,000 U.S. stores (with 1.3 million employees), they should be applauded for having taken on what they knew would be a monumental task.  Besides the tens of thousands of man-hours dedicated to the organizing drive, the AFL-CIO was rumored to have spent a whopping $40 million on the effort.

Consider the challenge they faced.  In order to get a majority of hourly Wal-Marters to vote to join the union, the AFL-CIO had to suppress two formidable employee fears:  The fear of being fired if the company got wind you were interested in joining up, and the fear of being absorbed by a group of corrupt, money-grubbing Communist thugs, which is more or less how Wal-Mart’s propaganda machine portrays labor unions.

Which brings us to the American South.  With all the Rust Belt and foreign industry relocating to the South (there are approximately forty automobile plants—including parts and assembly facilities—already in Dixie), it made absolute sense for unions to make a serious run at them.  Alas, organized labor has had little success in getting workers in the Deep South to join up.

You hear lots of reasons for it.  Some say it’s old-fashioned Republican politics.  Others say it’s the “Wal-Mart syndrome,” a case of working folks simply falling for the loathsome propaganda.  Others say it goes all the way back to the Civil War, where you had the Union vs. the Confederacy, arguing that the word “union” still has a decidedly negative connotation.

Accordingly, when you approach someone and ask if they’d like to “join the union,” you are, in a sense, asking them to commit treason….asking them, symbolically, to join Sherman in his march through Georgia.  That may be a dumb theory, but I’ve heard dumber.  In any event, you have working people down there who’d rather walk around with four teeth in their mouth than belong to a union dental plan.

Southern workers may be stubbornly proud and hard-headed, but they’re not stupid.  If you could somehow demonstrate to them that unions provide undeniable on-the-job benefits and advantages, they would jump on board in an instant.  And that’s what labor unions need to do:  Demonstrate their good side.

Twenty years ago, the labor writer Tom Geoghegan suggested that organized labor move their headquarters from Washington D.C. and relocate to the South, set up shop in cities like Atlanta, Memphis, and Montgomery.  You hire local people to work in your offices, give them union pay and union medical benefits, and let word-of-mouth do the rest.  Think of the Teamsters relocating to Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  What a public relations coup that would be!

Inspired by Geoghegan’s idea, here are some other things unions could do to gain a foothold in the South.  One thing the AFL-CIO has plenty of is money; they can afford it.

Go to every high school that’s in need of new football uniforms, and offer to pay for them.  Do the same with band uniforms and instruments.  Offer to donate money to buy new school office equipment.  Make sure they know who’s supplying the cash.  Make sure they know it’s the Teamsters or the Longshoremen (ILWU) or the Carpenters.

Go to as many rural high schools as possible and set up scholarships in the name of the union.  They don’t have to be thousands of dollars each; they can be a few hundred dollars.  But offer as many as possible, because every scholarship, no matter what its value, is going to make the recipient feel terrific.  The USW (Steelworkers) could set up something like the “High School Steel Boy or Steel Girl of the Year.”

Sponsor Labor Day picnics and barbeques.  Pay for all the food and beverages.  Pay for entertainment and things for the kids to do.  Do the same on the Fourth of July.  Make your union’s presence known by showing the community your good side.  Undoubtedly, some will see this as trying to “buy” their goodwill.  Fine, let them think that.  But keep doing it.  Don’t let up, because you have a great deal to offer.  Pretty soon they’ll come around.

Finally, hire a big-name professional driver and sponsor a NASCAR entry.  Call the car the “Proletariat Special” (I’m joking).  But I’m serious about getting involved with NASCAR.  It can be done.  It’s all about high visibility and altering long-standing perceptions.  Without that—without changing perceptions—unions have practically no chance whatever of making headway in the South.

David Macaray, a LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor” 2^nd edition), was a former union rep. 

 Dmacaray@earthlink.net

Putin Alone at G8

Article by Stephen Lendman
re-posted from Veterans Today

On June 17, G8 leaders began two days of talks in Northern Ireland. Seven nations want escalated war on Syria. Putin’s alone. He’s an outlier for peaceful conflict resolution.

Obama’s hands are bloodrenched. He bears full responsibility for ravaging Syria. It’s been ongoing since early 2011. It was planned many years earlier.

On Monday, Obama lied saying:

“We’re not taking sides in a religious war. Really, what we’re trying to do is take sides against extremists of all sorts and in favor of people who are in favor of moderation, tolerance, representative government, and over the long-term, stability and prosperity for the people of Syria.”

“We share an interest in reducing the violence, securing chemical weapons and ensuring that they are neither used nor are they subject to proliferation.”

“We want to try to resolve the issue through political means if possible, so we will instruct our teams to continue to work on the potential of a Geneva follow-up.”

Since conflict began, America’s been arming, training, funding and directing death squad fighters in Syria. They’re imported from dozens of regional and other countries.

According to Mossad-connected DEBKA file (DF):

“NATO and a number of European governments, most significantly the UK, have started airlifting heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels poised in Aleppo to fend off a major Syrian army offensive.”

On June 17, “first shipments” arrived. They were airlifted to Turkey and Jordan. They include “anti-air and tank missiles as well as recoilless 120 mm cannons mounted on jeeps.”

They’re heading for insurgents in southern Syria and Aleppo. More weapons arrived Tuesday.

According to DF, “27 aircraft landings were counted in the last few days.” Expect more to follow.

Obama’s in Northern Ireland talking peace. He does so duplicitously. He prioritizes war. He bears full responsibility for raging conflict. He’s doing it in multiple theaters. He’s escalating it in Syria.

America’s on a precipitous slippery slope. Obama’s heading it for full-blown tyranny. He leads a nation in decline. It began long before his presidency. He’s escalating what others began. He’s menacing humanity in the process.

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, Syria’s a “no win for the West.”

“Whatever the United States and western European states do (will) have dire negative consequences for them. This is a perfect lose-lose situation for the dominant forces in the world.”

“The war is already spreading and could get totally out of control. It is not at all impossible that the interveners win out, and the whole of the Middle East finds itself in one gigantic, uncontrollable, endless war.”

“The key phrase is ‘out of control.’ ” America and complicit partners can’t succeed. Escalated conflict is a lose-lose for the West and regional nations.

Gideon Rachman is Financial Times chief foreign affairs commentator. On June 17, he headlined “The west’s dominance of the Middle East is ending,” saying:

“Those calling for deeper US involvement in the Syrian conflict are living in the past.” America’s military is still the world’s mightiest. It’s influence is ebbing.

It ravages and destroys countries easily. It’s inept at nation-building. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya explain best. Puppet regimes are hated. Daily violence persists. US dominance is resisted.

People want their sovereignty respected. “The era of direct colonialism in the Middle East ended decades ago,” said Rachman.

“The era of informal empire is now coming to a close.”

The late Chalmers Johnson perhaps explained best. “We have met the enemy and he is us,” he said. He quoted Pogo saying so. America’s policies have been arrogant and misguided for decades. It’s too late for scattered reforms.

Hegemonic overreach is too deep-seated. America’s plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires. It’s unwilling to change. It’s headed for isolation, bankruptcy and tyranny.

It’s permanently at war despite no enemies. It’s secretive, lawless, duplicitous and unaccountable. It’s totally out-of-control. It’s republic hangs by a thread. It makes more enemies than friends.

Paul Craig Roberts calls Washington “insane.” It’s “double-speak is now obvious to the world.” Obama threatens possible WW III. Doing so “means the end of life on earth.”

Russia and China know if Syria falls, Iran’s next. If puppet leaders replace the Islamic Republic’s independent government, Moscow and Beijing are Washington’s next targets.

Roberts believes both countries are preparing for an eventual showdown. The prospect should terrify everyone.

“Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.”

Obama’s heading America for more war. He’s doing so unconscionably. He’s doing it based on lies. He blames Assad for US-sponsored crimes. He’s done it since conflict began.

Putin’s alone among G8 leaders. He wants him stopped. He and Obama met privately for two hours. They’re deeply divided on Syria. London’s Telegraph highlighted their differences.

On June 17, it headlined “G8: Barak Obama and Vladimir Putin grim-faced on Syria disagreements,” saying:

Their views are polar opposite. “In a photo-op after talks there was no sign of the chumminess that characterised meetings between Obama and Medvedev, who once went for lunch at a burger joint outside Washington.”

Relations are increasingly frosty. Brave face pretense can’t conceal it. Obama demands Assad must go. Putin insists Syrians alone must decide who’ll lead them.

He wants escalated conflict stopped. Obama prioritizes it. Libya 2.0 looms.

On June 18, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “President al-Assad gives interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.”

Syria’s “dealing with a form of guerrilla warfare,” he said. Government forces are prevailing. They’re doing so decisively.

“We are confident that we can successfully fight terrorism in Syria, but the bigger issue is the ensuing damage and its cost.”

“The crisis has already had a heavy toll but our biggest challenges will come once the crisis is over.”

“(F)oreign interference” bears full responsibility for ongoing conflict.

“Nobody can know what the Middle East will look like should there be an attempt to re-draw the map of the region.”

“However, most likely that map will be one of multiple wars, which would transcend the Middle East spanning the Atlantic to the Pacific, which nobody can stop.”

It’s happening now, he said. Ahead he expects much worse. We’re “witness(ing) the domino effect of widespread extremism, chaos and fragmentation.”

America, Britain and France want regional “puppets and dummies to do their bidding and serve their interests without question.”

“We have consistently rejected this. We will always be independent and free.”

Escalating conflict will backfire. Heavier weapons sent terrorists assure blowback. “Europe’s back garden will become a hub for terrorism and chaos, which leads to deprivation and poverty.”

“Europe will pay the price and forfeit an important market. (T)errorism will not stop here. It will spread to your countries.”

“It will export itself through illegal immigration or through the same terrorists who returned to their original countries after being indoctrinated and trained more potently.”

Allegations of Syrian chemical weapons use are “ludicrous,” Assad said. Where’s the proof, he stressed?

“Had they obtained a single strand of evidence that we had used chemical weapons, do you not think they would have made a song and dance about it to the whole world?”

“Then where is the chain of custody that led them to a such result?”

“The terrorist groups used chemical weapons in Aleppo. Subsequently we sent an official letter to the United Nations requesting a formal investigation into the incident.”

“Britain and France blocked this investigation because it would have proven the chemical attacks were carried out by terrorist groups and hence provided conclusive evidence that they (Britain and France) were lying.”

“We invited them to investigate the incident, but instead they wanted the inspectors to have unconditional access to locations across Syria, parallel to what inspectors did in Iraq and delved into other unrelated issues.”

“We are a sovereign state. We have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France.”

“They will only be allowed access to investigate the incident that occurred in Aleppo.”

Chemical weapons allegations reflect “an extension of the continuous American and Western fabrication of the actual situation in Syria.”

“Its sole aim is to justify their policies to their public opinion and use the claim as a pretext for more military intervention and bloodshed in Syria.”

Assad wants conflict resolved diplomatically. He’s eager for legitimate dialogue to do so. He won’t negotiate with terrorists. No one should! Doing so assures greater conflict, not less.

He calls legitimate opposition parties ones against terrorism. Their aims are political, not belligerent. He rejects foreign interference.

He wants Syria’s sovereignty respected. He wants Syrians alone to choose who’ll lead them. International law supports him.

In 2014, his term ends. “When the country is in a crisis, the president is expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility and resolve the situation, not abandon his duties and leave.”

He calls doing so “treason.” Syria’s “biggest challenge is extremism,” he says. He’s committed to defeating it. Polls show Syrians overwhelmingly support him.

They do so for good reason. The alternative is Western domination. It assures protracted violence and instability. It’ll replicate conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Palestine.

Syrians want peace and stability. Achieving them requires routing death squad invaders. It means thwarting imperial Washington.

It menaces humanity wherever it shows up. Imagine if Syria was its Waterloo. If that’s not worth fighting for, what is?

Note: Summit leaders ended two days of talks. Their final communique stressed holding peace talks as soon as possible.

No mention of Assad was made. Putin won’t endorse his stepping down. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov explained. He did so separately, saying:

“This would be not just unacceptable for the Russian side, but we are convinced that it would be utterly wrong, harmful, and would completely upset the political balance.”

The final communique text can be read in full.

A Final Comment

Dam Press’ June 17 Arabic language article was translated into English. It’s important reading.

Ahead of meeting G8 leaders, Putin visited David Cameron in London. He delivered a message. It’s meant for America, Britain, France, and other anti-Assad belligerents.

It’s unambiguous. Russian S-300 missiles in Syria will target Washington’s Patriot installations if used against Assad.

More advanced S-400s may be delivered. They’re by far the most advanced air defense system. They exceed anything America or other Western countries have. They’re extremely effective. So are S-300s.

Moscow will also supply Assad with state-of-the-art 24-Barrell rocket launchers. They’re considered the most advanced artillery weapon of its kind. They able to destroy threatening targets on Syria’s borders.

He may send other sophisticated weapons. He opposes arming insurgents. He deplores sending them heavier weapons. He’s against Obama’s planned escalation. He’s drawn his own red line. He won’t tolerate crossing it.

Russia’s a powerful adversary. It’s nuclear arsenal matches America’s. It’s weapons are very sophisticated. It has regional interests vital to protect.

It’s concerned about Washington’s longstanding intentions. If Syria, Iran, and other independent countries become US vassal states, targeting Russia and China follow.

Assad wants Syria’s sovereignty respected. Iran’s President-Elect Hassan Rohani demands the same. Both leaders have every right to do so. They prioritize independence and freedom. So do Moscow and Beijing. It remains to be seen what follows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author: Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He writes forMoneyNewsNow.com and VeteransToday.com.

He is also author of the celebrated books “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity” and “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War“.

Lendman also hosts his own blog at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

He is host of a progressive radio show with cutting-edge discussions and distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

The Death of the Western Statesman

"Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" ----Marley's Ghost (A Christmas Carol)


For the past one-hundred years, the West has been influenced by the notion that selfishness is a virtue. No one more conspicuous than Libertarian ideologues Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. But it doesn't take just one "intellectual" to steer the course of a nation's history into a different direction. It takes a concerted effort. It requires coordination from the vast houses of "expert" opinion. Academia, Psychology, Media, and the corporations that fund them for their own selfish and often times destructive gain. 

A highly insightful documentary, "The Century of the Self," chronicles the rise of this Selfishness-is-Virtue notion. That human beings are ends in and of themselves and that satisfying their inner desires is that end. Big Business has capitalized on this for decades, bringing forth products that they claim identifies with a person's character (i.e cars, clothes, house), preying on people's inner longings for something more than things with....you guessed it---things. 

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, herself another "Libertarian", proclaimed that there was no such thing as society. Ayn Rand said the less fortunate don't deserve any love. Ronald Reagan said government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. These individuals were a microcosm of the true mind and intentions of the reactionary ruling class that dictated them. Many articles too numerous to count have been published about the inconvenience of government, and that basically the individual's desires and personal ambition is threatened or hampered by the state. By the "individual" of course they mean the rich.

The mental degradation that the West has suffered from precedes people the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan however. This degradation is deeply rooted in the idea that in that government only hurts society when it intervenes. That rain or shine, society must left to its devices, free of state intervention. It goes back hundred of years when the Venetian Oligarchy almost helped destroy Western civilization.

One gets a glimpse of this by seeing the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. The lack of Statesmanship in Europe during its economic depression led to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini, and in turn WWII as we have known it, and indirectly with the creation of the Zionist Regime in Israel. 


Marley's Ghost from the Charles Dickens classic A Christmas Carol, " stated, "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" 
For decades the true ideal of statesmanship has been under attack from very powerful forces. No one knew this more than President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he implemented the New Deal and envisioned a country where the shackles of poverty and destitution would one day be removed. The opposition he faced was so tremendous and cancerous, that it still exists to this day. And though his legacy continues to outlive any president after him, this legacy is being rapidly undermined by this cancer that has managed to outlive him. An attack against Statesmanship has been going on for decades without much resistance. There are many names for this cancer: Oligarchy, Ruling Class, Reactionary, Fascist, Authoritarian, etc. Any of these terms will suffice. 

The main engines of the modern nation-state: The social safety net, infrastructure, public education, manufacturing, and national banking have all been undermined, coming apart at the seams, not because of their inherent flaws as the reactionaries in power and institutions of "higher learning" would have you believe, but because they have been victims of covert and overt onslaughts. Whether it be COLA re-adjustments (like the chained CPI) to starve these programs, denial of funding, or brazen recklessness in allocations of funds from the coffers of these programs. 

What is a Statesman/woman

A statesman/woman is any citizen with the desire and will to help leave society better than they found it. Mankind is their business. It doesn't matter what occupation they have, whether it be garbage collector, plumber, doctor, head of state, bus driver, administrative employee. A citizen's highest duty is to make or keep society better when they leave it for their children. This is known as societal trusteeship, where the living inherited from the dead what they must pass on to unborn generations. The  The golden biblical rule, Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, is key to this concept. This principle drives us to be more than what society simply expects (depending on which society one lives in). It can bring virtues out of us we never thought we had. After all, corporate executives and other members of the ruling class have children too. 

The Problem with the Virtue of Selfishness

If every citizen decided to chase the so-called ideal of fulfilling their inner desires, society would be ravaged in all aspects of the word. It is a self-defeating position, because human desires can never be satisfied. We are told that it is best for the state to sit down and twiddle its thumbs and allow the "individual" to do as they please, because for whatever reason their desires are rational and when they benefit, all of society benefits. By individuals of course, they mean the rich and the corporations they run. What's more depressing is the fact that even after this idea has unraveled where Corporations do as they please and so does poverty (which is continually on the rise all over the world), and the world is facing incremental unrest and misery partly caused by this notion (evident in institutions like the IMF and World Bank), they still insist on this concept.

The culture of selfishness and corporate greed is so pervasive in Western Culture especially American, that poverty has exploded, bridges and roads and such are crumbling, wages have declined and unemployment is on the rise, despite what Wall Street and their politicians along with media mouthpieces would have you believe. Yet these same individuals who tout that the state is not to intervene domestically in aid of ailing citizens and institutions, are the same individuals who say that the state should be granted limitless amounts of money to wage war on other countries, and not to have its funds cut. As if the institutions of war are not part of the state (fascism is the likely term for this). 

As liberal news show host Rachel Maddow pointed out in a Lean Forward commercial on MSNBC, that a corporation would not build a bridge. It doesn't profit from such a venture and so will decline to do so. Same goes for housing for the poor, for revitalization of roads and tunnels, investment in education and schools, and so forth. And if a corporation or an individual will not build it, then who?

A statesman understands that his job is merely a little piece of the big picture. Ultimately the heart of statesmanship is about people, not the state as some may aver. And once the main objective of statesmanship (which is the betterment of the human condition) is undermined, society will be begin to unravel.

The decline of the West is in large part due to the death of the Western Statesman. The lack of vision and love for countrymen in public officials and policy (foreign or domestic) which have been preceded by vulture capitalist interest, and the passive and/or witless approval of citizens to continue to see this perpetuation of degradation in the western body politic are two unequivocal culprits. 


You can contact Lawrence at Killerteddybear666@gmail.com

An Untold Story in Syria?

There could be an unconventional rising intelligence campaign that is helping Assad's Syrian military make the significant gains it is making right now, leaving the terrorists in tremendous disarray. It's important to note that once the terrorists in Syria capture a town, their rule is so medieval, so incompetent, and so oppressive, that the locals they attempt to subjugate rapidly reject them.

Why is this important to note? Because of the swift advances by the Syrian troops in retaking the towns. This may indicate that the Syrian Army is receiving cooperation from locals in towns they are re-capturing, which could quite possibly explain why the Syrian military moves through neighborhoods to decimate terrorists cells with efficiency, causing them heavy losses.Perhaps the people of Syria are helping the Army locate the exact position of terrorist gatherings in the towns they capture. 

One of the primary principles of war, according to Suz Tzu, is the moral support of the sovereign ruler. In other words, if the people do not support the ruler, he is doomed to forfeit his ultimate victory. This could help explain why the Syrian army is making huge gains against the terrorist factions, among many factors. 

Who knows?

 

What We Can Learn From the Rich and Powerful

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me --F Scott Fitzgerald.




Indeed, they are. In all our contempt towards the rich and powerful, our condemnation of their arrogance and profligacy, disgust at their manipulative behavior, anger against their corruption, and fear of their systematically psychotic behavior, we forget that there are certain things we can learn from them. 

The ruling class have a different perspective than just the average commoner of society (you and me). It is their ability to see the broad spectrum of things that we as commoners often overlook, instead busy with the menial tasks of everyday life, too caught up in our own little little worlds to notice that the rich and powerful have much influence over even that as well.

Take for example the case of economic ideology. The rich and powerful know what benefits them. While they carefully devised schools of thought and "think tanks" that preached opposites ("Free Market" Vs. "Keynesian-ism") in order to divide the populace and control the national discussion on economic policy either way, they themselves did not adhere to these mere things as principle, while fooling us to go against our own self-interest.

While the American majority was busy adhering to the ideas of economics like doctrines, the rich and powerful could not care less. They operated on one principle......if it benefits you, employ its devices. Is it so surprising then that when one looks at the historical archives, one can find that the rich and powerful of the world funded (and even to a large extent created) Communism (an ideology that threatened to strip them of their wealth) and Nazism? And continues to fund extreme movements around the world for their sinister goals?

Why? Because they didn't see economic or political systems as doctrines, but rather as tools. And they employed them wherever they saw fit. When the so-called "Free Market" benefited them, they employed it everywhere they saw fit. Whether it was to rob workers of their pay in the late 19th century Western world, or to extract the natural/national resources of poorer continents/countries in the early 20th century and beyond (and in so doing keeping them poor), they did so. 

In the wake of the global banking crisis that led to the World economic depression beginning in 2007-08, the very same supporters of "Free Marketeer-ism," who the very system they praised would see to it that they collapse on their own greed, all of sudden became the biggest proponents of government intervention in the economy, or as they like to term it, "socialism." Having always hated the poor and middle class and decrying people for accepting social services from the government agencies that those people have every right to, they instead became the biggest "welfare recipients" in the history of mankind. 

When they were done using a tool, they put it back in the box. And when done using another, so the same. Still the citizens of the world (including me) did not catch up to this.

Another example is when the U.S.A and the rest of the Western ruling class members devise secret operations to overthrow democratically elected governments, replacing them with repressive regimes, all while paradoxically justifying it in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," and decrying "dictatorships," the very same political system they claim to be against. 

The rich and powerful know that in order to keep in power, and to justify their lunatic behavior, certain structures must be kept in place; such as laws, systems, administrations, bureaucracy, and courts that all rule in their favor.

What can we learn from all of this?

Number one: systems are there for us, not the other way around. The other way around discourages human freedom and individuality, promoting false collectivism and in turn eventually an identity crisis. All these factor into the reason for the lack of resistance against the oppressive state the rich eventually create. 

As systems are tools, they are to be used appropriately. Giving them names like "Socialism/Communism," "Capitalism/Free Market," which caused wedges between people is counter-productive. In either systems, you will find that there are rich and powerful people, which further enforces the point. One kind of system may work very well for one situation, but not perform the same in another. Also, to take one idea and try to stretch it beyond its limits is the tragedy of the human endeavor. We must view systems as what they are: human creations that can be applied accordingly and in bits and pieces to wherever it is appropriate.

It is not good enough just winning a battle against social, economic injustice. A framework must be put in place in order to secure the victory. Once a city is captured, the wise general fortifies it against further incursion. That is what we must learn. Once the interests of oligarchy takes over a system like a cancer, then begins the process of consolidating this take-over. We too, can learn from that on path to victory. 

It is time to broaden our horizons. It is time to see things the way the rich and powerful do. Because if we don't, things will not change for the better.

Assessing Options for Syrian Victory

What needs to be known about the Syrian conflict is known. That much is true.

We know that the mercenaries fighting the Assad regime are foreign-backed with links to Al-Qaeda, like brigades such as Jahbat al-Nusra, the most extreme of the extreme leading the charge in the great campaign of destabilization as part of the U.S foreign policy of Redirection. We know that much if not most of the militants fighting the Assad regime are not even Syrian nationals, and are in fact committing countless war crimes and inflicting unimaginable human suffering upon the Syrian people. That they have made statements such as the willingness to sacrificing half of Syrians for their cause. We know they do not represent the interests of the Syrian people in any spectrum and we know that a Syria under their rule will spell genocide for the Syrian people.

The conflict in Syria has been reported extensively by excellent reporting from Landdestroyer, Stopimperialism, PressTV, Historian and author Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, Anti-War, and countless more.

While the genuine media sources have been reporting scrupulously on the conflict which is in principle a foreign invasion by Western proxies, I believe personally, what has been missed in conjunction with the constant repetition of truth, is the constant proclamation of clear and robust extensive solutions to addressing this crisis.

The path to victory for Syria will not be an easy one. The nexus of barbarism that the Syrians and their government contends with is deeply determined, foreign, relentless, desperate, armed to the teeth, and drowning in cash. They are arrogant, hypocritical, guilty of the very crimes they accuse the Syrian government of committing, and they do not give a hoot and a howl about international law while pressing other nations to abide by such principles, thereby setting a carefully crafted cassus belli for so-called "humanitarian war."

Syria is the victim of U.S imperialism because it refuses to be a part of the Western Sphere of Influence of Viking Capitalism. Nationalism, as Syria clearly portrays, is an enemy of Western/Israeli hegemony. The West, not understanding the enlightened concept of diplomacy, is prompt to resort first (and last) to military might and other overt (and covert) operations.

The following are a platform of solutions that I believe are necessary and very viable options for Syria, if it is to achieve victory.

The Maximization of Allied Power and Influence
Russia, China, Iran, and Hezbolla are Syria's allies, if not formally, then informally. Unsurprisingly this is a nexus that Washington knows or feels it must destroy in order to attain what it calls "Full Spectrum Dominance." The conflict in Syria has claimed much more than 70,000 lives, displacing an even more lugubrious amount of Syrians. In his article, Russia needs wake-up call on Syria and Iran, political analyst Finian Cunningham stresses the importance of Syria's allies to reject their futile attempt at negotiating with the U.S to bring an end to this conflict.

In the article, he states:


Is Russia sleepwalking when it comes to defending allies Syria and Iran and ultimately its own vital long-term interests?

It seems that Russian leaders are befuddled by the conflict raging in Syria, sensing rightly on one hand that the Western powers and their Turk and Arab proxies are conducting a low-intensity war for regime change. Yet, strangely, on the other hand, Moscow appears apathetic or blasé about the West’s criminal geopolitical agenda. -- Finian Cunningham, Russia needs wake-up call on Syria and Iran

He calls for Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov, to scrap the ridiculous notion of working with “American colleagues” and “the unity of the international community in the fight against terrorism.” 

In response to Lavrov's quote, he states:

That atrocity in Damascus was indisputably the work of Western-backed terrorists who are funded, armed and directed by Western military intelligence to wipe out the government of President Bashar Al Assad. 

This kind of indiscriminate mass murder has proven to be standard operating procedure for the Western proxy army in fulfilling long-held Western plans for regime change in Syria. 

Despite cynical claims by Washington, London, Paris and Berlin of supplying “only non-lethal” military equipment to Syrian militants, Russia is well aware that these Western governments are arming this network of killers to the teeth and providing the logistics and intelligence to expedite the terror against civilians. Previously, Russia has itself highlighted and condemned the supply of American anti-aircraft missiles to the armed groups. So let’s disabuse this notion of “colleagues fighting international terrorism”. The so-called “colleagues” are fomenting terrorism via well-worn Western channels Al Qaeda and other Saudi-backed extremist mercenaries. ---Finian Cunningham, Russia needs wake-up call on Syria and Iran

Russia has a naval station in Tartus, the port city of Syria. It has vital economic interests in a region abundant in resources. The destabilization of Syria will force the Russians to move out, taking away a key strategic military and economic position. As Russia knows indubitably that the West began this horde of terror in Syria, it has every right to blatantly give any means of support in aid of its beleaguered ally. Russia has to understand that the March of Western Imperialism comes to a grinding halt if the Imperialists fail inside Syria. Iran seems to be the only ally stepping up its efforts to aide Syria. Recently, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry paid a visit to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to urge him to stop Iran from using Iraq's airspace to transport aid to Syria. Of all the allies, Iran understands more than anyone else what this conflict in Syria implies for its interests in the region. 

An article on Bloomberg by Dmitri Trenin, titled Syria could unite Russia and China against the U.S, fails to mention the fact that this conflict was a Western conspiracy and is being fueled by NATO, Gulf monarchs, and Israel and instead frames Assad as a bloodthirsty dictator. He further on urges Russia to throw its own ally under the bus. However, he does make the interesting point that the Syrian conflict could most likely unite Russia and China, creating a sort of Eastern NATO. Putin has asserted that Syria will not be another Libya, making good on his threats to veto any and all U.N resolutions that prompt military intervention. However with Russia's ambivalent posture towards the West, it is unclear exactly where Russia truly stands. Judging by actions, Russia is not as serious (or at least acting as serious) as it should be about Syria. 

China also has economic and military relations with Syria, dating back decades that it stands to lose should it allow the West to purge Syria.

China, Russia, and Iran have to come together in robust fashion. They have to understand, that the road to Tehran that begins in Damascus, ultimately leads to Moscow and Beijing, repelling the Western onslaught, will halt the locomotive that is Western Imperialism right in its tracks. This is their chance. Will they take it (together), is anybody's guess.

What must be done

It is no longer tenable for Russia and China to mainly just sit by the side-lines and apply soft pressure, allowing this criminal conflict to continue to unfold. Russia and China should couple their political clout of vetoes with intensifying efforts of aid to the Assad regime, both economic, humanitarian, and military. It must continue to expose this Western/Saudi/Israeli-backed atrocity by drawing a hard line and vehemently condemning what is in reality a Western operation, making its case and humiliating the West for its sheer hypocrisy and depravity. It must follow Iran's lead. 

As Finian Cunningham put it quite simply yet very cleverly, "Why talk with arsonists when the house is burning?"

Which brings me to my next option....

Assad Must Step Up Efforts to Unite the Syrians and Condemn this Conspiracy in the Public Forum...

In this time of crisis, the Syrians need a stronger and much more assertive Assad. Period, dot. There is no other way around it. He could serve as the symbol of unity for the Syrian people, including peaceful anti-Assad protesters. There's a few ways he can do that:

Syria is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. It composes of not only Muslims, but Christians and Catholics, Druze, Alawites (Assad's sect), Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, among others. One important thing to understand is the influence of religious leadership. The Syrian militants have staged bombings of mosques, destruction of churches, and killings of beloved key religious leaders, including names like Mohammed al-Bouti. Assad must take the option (as best as he can) of gathering together the clerics and other religious leaders of the different communities to urge the Syrians under their religious influence not to stand for this, but instead unite and drive out the terrorists invading the nation.

Assad must have a discussion with the new elected Pope Francis I, and make his case; that his regime is the only thing at this point in time protecting Christians and Catholics and Shiites from jihadi genocide. It must be mentioned the fact that if the Assad regime falls, leaving Syria prey to warlord-ism, sectarianism, it will not bode well for the other vast communities (not just religious) of Syria. The Pope's initiative will be to denounce this conflict and call it for what it is, shining a spotlight on the reality of what the fawning corporate media have conveniently failed to report.

This will no doubt put pressure on the Pope and other religious leaders, who with their stature, will be compelled to respond to this moral dilemma or face the tarnishing of their names. If the Pope no doubt cares about the Christian community in Syria, then he knows what to do. This issue is too pressing to ignore especially for the religious leaders inside Syria. Whether they dislike the Assad regime, is of no importance at this point in time. The primary objective is stopping this Western/Saudi/Israeli-backed jahidi incursion. On the other hand, Assad must make clear his intentions of further substantial and transparent reform in order to further appeal to the Syrian people and hopefully invigorate them.

This brings me to the next option.........

Military
This is Syria's primary option that it is stressing so far (and reasonably so). The regime holds air superiority over the militants. The option of air strikes seem plausible in the campaign against foreign mercenary invasion, but have inflicted a number of civilian casualties, causing parts of Syria to become war-torn, where a basic standard of infrastructure has been severely damaged. Whether this has proven effective (and how effective) is quite unclear to me at this point. The militants lack manpower as well, only able to temporarily hold at most a village or a neighborhood until they get driven from their position by the Syrian army. From what it sounds like, the Syrian military seems to be showing much constraint, as they have been all throughout this conflict. But the reality of this conflict seems perpetual as more and more militants are crossing the border in hopes of overthrowing Assad's regime.

But Assad may want to re-think how he is fighting these terrorists. Possible future ambush missions seem like a viable option, as well as clandestine border raids of incoming militants. Routes of logistics to re-supply the militants inside Syria can be seized and in turn used against the militants. It has been confirmed by numerous sources that there are U.S-NATO special operations forces inside Syria. This isn't surprising as the opposition isn't well-organized. That means someone has to be leading the charge. As this is a Western project, it is obvious who is.

Also part of this lead, is the CIA. The New York Times, in their article, stated explicitly:

"A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said."--- C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition.

Iranians are masters at counter-intelligence, according to one U.S official. And with the help of the other intelligence services of its ally, Syria can begin a campaign to purge the nation of the these imperialist clandestine cells operating to overthrow Bashar Assad. 

One of the great weaknesses of the militants is that they are bitterly divided. Campaigns to undermine and remove leadership will highly compromise this Western Imperialist project. Civil war is a term often used to refer to the conflict inside Syria, but it seems anytime, the militants may be primed to stage their own deadly infighting (causing a civil war inside a "civil war"). Assad's commanders can take advantage of this infighting among the rebels, dividing and subsequently conquering them. Captures and legal/humane interrogations (this must be emphasized due to the negative connotation due to torture by the U.S), if feasible must also be explored. 

Why They Want Syria to Fall

As was stated before, Syria is is not beholden to U.S imperialist dominance. It refuses to attach itself to the branch of Western neo-colonialism that has proved so deadly for the past century. As a penalty, Syria is the victim of overt and covert operations. This conspiracy was revealed as far back as 2007 by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh who's article explicitly stated:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. --The Redirection

Syria and Iran along with Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, represent the Shia arc of dominance as depicted below. 

(The Shia crescent doesn't just represent the balance of power against the U.S puppet gulf  Sunni states, but also as a vehicle of stability in the region much to the benefit of Russia and China)

Iran loses its greatest ally in the region and so does Hezbollah, if Syria falls. It becomes easier for the U.S to undermine Iran further as it stands much more isolated in the region. By breaking this arc of dominance, the U.S can therefore march onward. However if this project fails, a project in which the West has invested much money and criminal energy towards, the Locomotive of Western Imperialism comes to a grinding halt. The road to Tehran lies in Damascus and ultimately to Moscow and Beijing. 

Zbiegnew Brzezinski, national security adviser to former President Jimmy Carter and mentor of President Barack H. Obama, once presented his profane imperial model in his book, The Grand Chessboard, stating:

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (this excerpt from the book, along with its emphasis were attained from this link.)

This reality of the U.S funding, arming, and backing terrorist groups exposes the fraudulent "war on terror." It shows that Al-Qaeda and other mercenaries are simply pawns in the U.S geopolitical chess game, serving both as casus belli for imperial aggression, and patsies in destabilization.

Russia, China, and most of the middle east and even the world stand to lose, even the U.S, who cannot show anything for its insane adventurism these past decades except for the rise in arms sales and an untold number of casualties abroad and impending austerity and economic implosion at home.    

Israel also stands to gain if the West fractures the Middle East, causing partition states, warlord states, rump states. This will make Israel easily the most dominant and most important player in the middle east, much to the detriment of everyone else. From my position, Syria must clearly stress any and all options. The West is intensifying its efforts, it's time for Syria and its allies to do the same. 

The world must stand against this criminal sanction of violence by the West and gulf Arab states. In this age of easy access to readily available information, it is no excuse to not understand the horror and implications that is the invasion in Syria.