Poll: 60% of Americans Opposed to Syria Attack, Just 9% Support it

Are you talking about the same Obama who massacred countless Libyans, including children?

THAT Obama?

‘Violent chaos’: Libya in deep crisis 2 years since rebels took over
excerpts

“We do not feel the taste of happiness, security and stability,” a resident of Tripoli is cited as saying by Libya Herald, “nor did we have any benefit from the government. People are now feeling insecure and live in fear because of killings that are being witnessed all over Libya.”

“I am not sure that it will be right to assume that there is a government in Libya. There is no army, no police, armed militias are in control. There is violent chaos,” Yehudit Ronen, professor of political science at Bar Ilan University, told RT.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) says a wave of assassinations has killed dozens of politicians, activists, judges and members of security agencies.

“All we hear is very troublesome, because we hear about clandestine detention centers, detention centers that are run by militias that are not accountable to anybody,” Juan Mendez, UN rapporteur on torture told RT.

Meanwhile, work at Libya's oilfields and ports have been regularly paralyzed because of sporadic strikes by security guards

"Libya has lost $1.6 billion in oil sales since July 25 until today," Oil Minister Abdelbari al-Arusi was cited by Reuters on August 16.

Libya's Prime Minister Ali Zeidan even promised to use military force to prevent striking at the country's main ports. Libya’s two main crude oil terminals have however remained shut, which means the country’s economic recovery after the 2011 unrest has been derailed.

“Libya has become AQIM’s [Al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb] headquarters,” the intelligence source was cited as saying.

Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-Africa Newswire, predicts that the instability in the post-Gaddafi Libya will only get worse.

“This kind of revolution has been detrimental to the wellbeing of the Libyan people. What we’ve seen over the last few years is a total disruption of Libyan society. There’s no plan for the national restoration of Libya. Many of the key political players involved in an attempt to run Libya right now are divided over tribal, regional as well as political levels,” Azikiwe told RT.

“And until the general national council government there reigns in the malicious and tries to bring about some type of national reconciliation process, the economic decline and consequently the social instability will intensify.”

more
http://rt.com/news/libya-gaddafi-fall-anniversary-981/

Oh sure .. Obama has done such a marvelous job of destroying Libya .. I'm real sure he cares NOT about what a little Syrian girl has to say.


Well done quoting Putin's mouthpiece, RT is the Russian version of Fox News. For a more balanced view from the left.

While no one deserves to die in a war, of the estimated 30,000 Libyans to die in the struggle to overthrow Mummar Ghadafi, no one else can be said to have had it coming more than Mummar Ghadafi. Not only did he rule for more than 40 years by using terror (he had tens of thousands murdered), he conducted his 10-month campaign to stay in power with the utmost brutality. Most of those 30,000 souls were Libyan civilians killed by Ghadafi with artillery, tanks, snipers and cluster bombs. He targeted civilians to the end and so made the U.N. mission to protect them synonymous with ending his rule. So I find it odd that many on the left single out the killing of Mummar Ghadafi to demand investigation and justice for.

During the 10-month revolutionary struggle the goal of the vast majority of Libyans was to overthrow Ghadafi but the cynical left developed its own narrative for what they referred to as “regime change,” a regime change they opposed. They had no opinion on the struggle in Libya until NATO got involved, then “as they saw it” it was just another “War for Oil”, just another Iraq. As spectators to history, they declared “we’ve been through this movie before.” Usually that meant the rebels and the National Transitional Council (NTC) were seen as agents of imperialism, and the depth and breath of the Libyan opposition was denied. This was all done in the name of “opposing our own bourgeois” but its central foundation has been a cynical appreciation of the revolutionary movement of the Libyan people.

A year ago, this whole crowd was sure that NATO intervention would lead to a NATO occupation of Libya a la Iraq or Afghanistan. Clearly that hasn’t happened. Those that predicted such NATO “boots on the ground” – and that’s what they meant at the time – were wrong. That did not happen.
That is just one thing, on top of many, many things they got wrong about the Libyan revolution, but rather that admit they were wrong about that and maybe some other things and being so bold as to make a reappraisal of their views on Libya, they cling to those views.

They welcome any bad news from Libya and use it to support their view that the revolution in Libya is a bad thing and shouldn’t have happened. They find themselves quoting favorably from the mainstream media that has it’s own reasons for pouring cold water on post-Ghadafi Libya. They take every outbreak of violence and every injustice still happening in revolutionary Libya, blow it all out of proportion, and talk of “chaos” in Libya.
The post war violence in Libya is nothing like it was in Iraq, and for that matter still is eight years latter. The electricity is still on in Libya. Schools are back in session, mail is being delivered, oil production is back up, Internet is back up, and people are getting back to work. But these anti-interventionists-turned-counter-revolutionaries only look for signs of “chaos.”

Over 2.7 million people have registered all over Libya for national elections on June 19th or early July [there is talk of a short delay as I write this]. Misrata and Benghazi already had local elections. Libyans all over the world are registering at their still functioning embassies and all these people can talk about is “no functioning government” in Libya.

They still promote the view that the Libyan Revolution is a fake one ginned up by western imperialism and the NTC NATO puppets. I have some questions for these folks. If the Libyan revolution was orchestrated by U.S. imperialism and the NTC, a NATO “puppet regime”:

1.) Why are there no NATO bases in Libya?
2.) Why are there no NATO troops in Libya?
3.) Why did they refuse to turn over the so-called Lockerbie Bomber as demanded by the West?
4.) Why did they stop and expose the CIA’s special rendition program in Libya?
5.) Why is the revolutionary commander of Tripoli Head of the Military Council of Tripoli, Abdel Hakim Belhaj suing former British foreign minister Jack Straw?

During the Libyan Revolution, the pro-Ghadafi forces, with help from Russia and Iran, developed this fantastic network of Internet websites and blogs that spread Ghadafi’s war stories far and wide so that they would be replicated so many times that they would be the first thing found by the search engines. Now that the real facts of the situation in Libya last year are coming to light, we are in a position to compare the Ghadafi lies, and those of his parrots with the reality on the ground. Let’s take just one example – the March 19 NATO bombing of Libya. From the AJE tapes released last month of phone calls between Qaddafi and his cronies we have this.

A crowd of hundreds, many wearing green to show their support for Muammar Gaddafi, gathered in Tripoli on March 20 for a mass funeral. They were burying dozens of civilians – some of them children – killed overnight in NATO airstrikes.
Or so they were told. Among the thousands of wiretapped conversations obtained by Al Jazeera are several which show this “funeral” was actually a bit of stage-managed propaganda, organized by Tayeb El Safi, one of Gaddafi’s most trusted henchmen.
The day before the funeral, El Safi and an unknown caller can be heard joking about a NATO airstrike which destroyed an office used by Gaddafi’s aides.

El Safi: They hit our location [laughter].
Caller: The office?
El Safi: Yes, the office. The office where we used to meet, the High Commission for Children.
Caller: No! [laughter] When?
El Safi: We need to put children there and take the media there in the evening. Tomorrow, let’s organize a huge funeral in Green Square [Martyrs’ Square]. We need to get some coffins. From here and there, you know what I mean. We need revolutionary youth with green flags and pictures of the leader.
El Safi and his aides moved ahead with the plan, but they encountered a problem: The cemetery they planned to use couldn’t accommodate the huge number of “martyrs” the government planned to bury.
Caller: The cemetery of Al Hani only has three available places.
El Safi: Okay, move them to Al Hansheer [cemetery]. Get ready, I’ll tell you now.
Caller: How many?
El Safi: 48 martyrs.
Witnesses would recall later that the funeral did seem a bit odd – that no family members showed up to mourn their dead relatives. “We didn’t know who they were. There were no death certificates. There were no relatives who later came for them,” Faraj Al Ghyriani, a Tripoli resident who attended the funeral, told Al Jazeera. “I know that inside the coffins were just people who died of old age, or mercenaries. They were so stupid that they had the same name on two different coffins.”



Read more: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=851
 
I don't think there is even the remotest possibility of troops on the ground but it is very scary nonetheless. What is even worse is that Iran is finally starting to become less belligerent, any action against Assad will encourage the hardliners.

I hope you're right but I don't trust Obama on this.
 
Even your opening line acknowledges daylight between GWB's foreign policy and Obama's. How many innocent civilians were killed in Libya, how many Americans? How much Money was spent? Who pledged ground troops? Who allied with the United States?

The difference is insurmountable to your point!

I'm going to take this as an acknowledgment that you actually want to talk about this.

First, acknowledge that you couldn't refute what I said about the false Viagra rape story .. which they took to the UN ..

Does this ring any bells?

06_DYER---US-United-States-Secretary-of-State-Colin-Powell-holds-a-vial-at-UN-Security-Council-briefing-Feb-5-2003---UN-Photo-Mark-Garten.jpg


Are you SURE you want to talk about this?
 
I just saw a little Syrian girl, maybe six or seven, on TV:

"Does Obama want his children to be like us? Does he want us to grow up knowing he didn't help us?"

Humanitarian aid should be sent, but military intervention should not.
 
elephant-in-the-room1.jpg


Libya on the Brink of Chaos
August 23, 2013
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/08/23/libya-on-the-brink-of-chaos/

Libyan Deputy PM Resigns Amid Ongoing Chaos and Violence
AUGUST 7, 2013
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/08/07/libyan-deputy-pm-resigns-amid-ongoing-chaos-and-violence/

Oil sector chaos in Libya threatens national lifeline
August 26, 2013
http://www.gulf-times.com/opinion/1...or-chaos-in-libya-threatens-national-lifeline

Oil Spot Price: Brent Jumps on Syria Tension and Libya Output Drop
August 27, 2013
http://invezz.com/news/commodities/...-jumps-on-syria-tension-and-libya-output-drop

QUESTION: Who made incredible amounts on money during the invasion of Iraq?

QUESTION: Who in the fuck do you think is going to make incredible amounts on money when we attack Syria?

warisracket.jpg
 
So what your operative theory here, BAC? I'm not quite sure I follow. The US used (or allowed to be used) chemical weapons against Syrian civilians to blame Assad's regime so that it could fire air strikes to drive up the price of crude so that oil companies could earn a bit more profit?
 
So what your operative theory here, BAC? I'm not quite sure I follow. The US used (or allowed to be used) chemical weapons against Syrian civilians to blame Assad's regime so that it could fire air strikes to drive up the price of crude so that oil companies could earn a bit more profit?

Start from here .. the US is supporting Al Qaida.

The US is supporting known terrorists who have used chemical weapons before.

The US is supporting Al Qaida terrorists disguised as 'rebels' .. which is exactly what we did in Libya .. which is why the US is not trusted to be honest about what's happening in Syria.

Syria was next on the MIC target list and has been for at least 10 years. This is not news.

The US is supporting Al Qaida .. not the Syrian people. It's the exact same thing we did in Libya.
 
Start from here .. the US is supporting Al Qaida.

The US is supporting known terrorists who have used chemical weapons before.

The US is supporting Al Qaida terrorists disguised as 'rebels' .. which is exactly what we did in Libya .. which is why the US is not trusted to be honest about what's happening in Syria.

Syria was next on the MIC target list and has been for at least 10 years. This is not news.

The US is supporting Al Qaida .. not the Syrian people. It's the exact same thing we did in Libya.


Oh, I see. It's all so perfectly clear now.
 
I'm going to take this as an acknowledgment that you actually want to talk about this.

First, acknowledge that you couldn't refute what I said about the false Viagra rape story .. which they took to the UN ..

Does this ring any bells?

06_DYER---US-United-States-Secretary-of-State-Colin-Powell-holds-a-vial-at-UN-Security-Council-briefing-Feb-5-2003---UN-Photo-Mark-Garten.jpg


Are you SURE you want to talk about this?

I wont refute your statement, mostly because its illrelevant to what I am saying.
 
So what your operative theory here, BAC? I'm not quite sure I follow. The US used (or allowed to be used) chemical weapons against Syrian civilians to blame Assad's regime so that it could fire air strikes to drive up the price of crude so that oil companies could earn a bit more profit?

Do you think we have seen any evidence it was Assad? I am just wondering, what do you think his reasoning would be? He was not in a desperate situation, he has to know the US, including under Obama, does not flinch at forcible regime change, and Obama stated in no uncertain terms that chemical weapons was a line in the sand. Do you have any idea why he would invite the US to come in and institute regime change? The UN inspectors are still investigating from what I read this morning, is it wise to wait for their report?
 
Do you think we have seen any evidence it was Assad? I am just wondering, what do you think his reasoning would be? He was not in a desperate situation, he has to know the US, including under Obama, does not flinch at forcible regime change, and Obama stated in no uncertain terms that chemical weapons was a line in the sand. Do you have any idea why he would invite the US to come in and institute regime change? The UN inspectors are still investigating from what I read this morning, is it wise to wait for their report?


I respect Juan Cole's opinion on the matter:

Some have asked why the regime would risk using poison gas when it has been making gains against the rebels. But the regime’s advances are minor and tenuous. It only took the small town of Qusayr with Hizbullah help! And ‘advances’ in Homs were just scorched earth destruction of neighborhoods. They were offset by loss of a major air base near Aleppo, key for resupply of troops up there because roads north are insecure. The regime can only advance here or there, but doesn’t have manpower to take back substantial territory.

My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldn’t be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it.

I don’t find the ‘false flag’ narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible. Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle? Killing hundreds of women and children from your own clans would be objectionable to at least some in any group of fighters. The fighters in Rif Dimashq are not the hardened Jabhat al-Nusra types. Besides, capturing and deploying rocket systems tipped with poison gas is not so easy; even just operating them takes training.


http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html
 
I wont refute your statement, mostly because its illrelevant to what I am saying.

It is entirely relevant brother. You don't want to acknowledge that.

Bush lied, Obama lied .. lots of innocent people died.

At least you didn't repeat the ridiculous lie that Obama ended the war in Iraq. At least you aren't that lost. :0)

NSA, NDAA, Patriot Act, civil liberties, intervention, for-profit wars, anti-americanism .. the similarities are so numerous as to almost make the two administrations indistinguishable.
 
Bush lied, Obama lied .. lots of innocent people died.

NSA, NDAA, Patriot Act, civil liberties, intervention, for-profit wars, anti-americanism .. the similarities are so numerous as to almost make the two administrations indistinguishable.

That's why at times I refer to Obama as Bush III.
 
"My guess is that..."

I find it unwise to intervene militarily in a country based on Juan Cole's guess. I also feel that since the UN weapons inspectors are still investigating (well this is at least according to what I read this morning),Obama would be very wise to await their report.

(1) I'm not advising military action.

(2) I agree that the UN investigators should be permitted to do their job.

(3) I was just responding to your question about whether I thought Assad was responsible for the attack and what his reasoning might be.
 
Back
Top