Obama Chooses Intensified but Strategically Useless Violence over Serious Diplomacy in Syria

Last week, Hillary Mann Leverett told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story, see here, that the Obama administration’s recent decision to begin providing direct military aid to Syrian rebels is “a signal to the rest of the world, particularly to…those who are looking to deal with Syria politically, in a negotiated way, that the United States is not serious about that.  The United States is much more serious about ensuring a continued quagmire in Syria, to keep both the Assad government and the rebels essentially fighting each other so that they’re not looking at the United States or Israel in the region”—and, of course, to weaken Iran. 

The Obama administration’s lack of seriousness about a political resolution to the Syrian conflict was plain for the world to see at the G8 summit that concluded yesterday in Northern Ireland.  To be sure, attendees agreed on a vaguely-worded seven-point plan to address the conflict, including creation of a “transitional governing body” for Syria.  They also called for convening a Syria peace conference “as soon as possible.”    

The plan noted, though, that a transitional governing body would be “formed by mutual consent”—a sign that ongoing disagreements over the place of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government in a political process to resolve the conflict had blocked consensus on how a “transitional governing body” should be put together.   And those disagreements are driven by the insistence of the Obama administration, along with its British and French collaborators, on using a political process to effect regime change in Damascus.  As Flynt explained on Al Jazeera last month,

“Hillary and I have been saying for more than two years now, from the get go, that U.S. support for the Syrian opposition was about two things.  One was to use the opposition to bring down the Assad government, to (in their calculation) damage Iran’s regional position.  Secondly, it was about coopting the Arab Awakening:  to show that after the loss of pro-Western regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, a near-miss in Bahrain, that it wasn’t just authoritarian regimes that subordinated their foreign policies to the United States that were at risk from the Arab Awakening—that you could also bring down a regime that had a clear commitment to foreign policy independence…

“Iran, Russia, and other players that have, in popular parlance, been supporting the Assad government have been clear, from very early in this conflict, that they see a political settlement as the only way out of this.  What they have said all along, though, is that they will not let the United States dictate not just pre-conditions for a political settlement, but in effect ‘pre-results,’ by requiring at the beginning that Assad go.”     

In an interview with Charlie Rose before the G8 summit, President Obama stuck to this foolish posture, talking about the imperative of a “political transition” in Syria, not about a genuine political settlement. 

And so, at the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin once again had to make clear that Moscow would not support terms of reference for a Syrian peace conference requiring that Assad leave office.  Likewise, Putin had to reiterate that, from Russia’s perspective, all parties participating in a conference—including the Syrian government—should be free to choose their own delegations.  In Kuwait, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov amplified Moscow’s position:  “We are categorically against…assertions that the conference should be some kind of public act of capitulation by the government delegation followed by a handing over of power to the opposition.”     

After Secretary of State John Kerry’s discussions with Lavrov in Moscow last month, the Obama administration had professed interest in convening a Syria peace conference in June.  This was postponed to July, precisely because of the Obama administration’s arrogant insistence on getting everything it wants, up front—and in a manner maximally damaging to the interests of not just the Syrian government, but also of Russia, China, and Iran—before a political process can start.  Now, The Guardian reports, “Sources said it was now unlikely that a peace conference would take place in July, since the Russian president could not agree with the other G8 leaders on the terms of a post-Assad cabinet.” 

As diplomatic prospects fade, attention focuses on the Obama administration’s decision to “ramp up” (Obama’s phrase with Charlie Rose) U.S. support for oppositionists.  Publicly, the administration justified this with a purported assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies that Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons against rebel fighters.  But, as Hillary noted on CCTV’s BizAsia America last week, see here

“The White House has given us nothing to scrutinize here.  Remember the use of manufactured evidence of Iraq’s WMD—chemical weapons, the same thing we’re talking about here—to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.  After the fact, of course, nothing was found, noting was there.  After that experience, it would behoove all of us to be very careful and to scrutinize whatever we’re allowed to see.  But the White House, so far, hasn’t let us see any of the so-called evidence.”   

As Hillary laid out on both Al Jazeera and CCTV, the real reason for deciding the “ramp up” U.S. military support to the rebels—as White House officials themselves acknowledge—is not the purported use of chemical weapons.  Rather, it’s the decisive difference that Hizballah’s engagement is making on the battlefield, which has fueled concern in the White House and other parts of official Washington that Hizballah and Iran—and, by extension, Russia and China—can’t be allowed to “win” in Syria

So, at this point, the Obama administration’s objective in supporting the rebels is less about overthrowing Assad—for, as both Flynt and Hillary point out, this project has failed.  Moreover, as Hillary notes on Al Jazeera, “[T]he weapons that they’re talking about giving are not going to do anything decisive, strategically, on the ground.”  So what is the objective?  Hillary explains:      

“The long-term plan—you’ve been hearing it increasingly from neoconservative voices, from pro-Israel voices here in Washington—is to keep a quagmire in Syria.  Do not allow Assad to win, under any circumstance, because an Assad victory is an Iranian victory, a Chinese victory, a Russian victory—and a real defeat for the United States.  So I think this is about keeping the parties fighting each other in Syria, so they’re not challenging U.S. dominance in the region

The aim here, again, is not to overthrow Assad.  We [the United States] gave up on that.  For two years we’ve been trying it.  We have given up on that—and particularly with the insertion of Hizballah, there’s been a strategic turn with the taking of Qusayr.  I think at this point it’s almost ‘game over,’ and we’re just trying to keep the people fighting so we don’t have to accept defeat.”

Of course, keeping people fighting in this way will, in Hillary’s words, “just lead to more and more dead Syrians, and essentially we’ll have to come back to the negotiating table, with the opposition even weaker, having even further collapsed.”  But, for the White House, those additional dead Syrians will have helped keep John McCain and Marco Rubio at bay, so that if parts of the opposition accept a deal with the Assad government before the end of Obama’s presidency, it will be harder for Republican critics to score points against him

For those thinking this an overly cynical interpretation, recall Obama’s “decision-making” on Afghanistan.  During his first year in office, Obama acceded to Pentagon requests for additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan—even though, by Obama’s own assessment, this would lead only to more dead Afghans and more dead American soldiers.  But, by sacrificing those Afghans and Americans, Obama hamstrung McCain and other GOP critics, to a point where, as Obama now reverses course and draws down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, his critics are reduced to nattering about the imprudence of pulling out on a publicly announced timetable.  Strategically and morally, this is a pathetic way for the United States to run its foreign policybut it is Obama’s way, and his administration is now pursuing it in Syria

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

 

54 Responses to “Obama Chooses Intensified but Strategically Useless Violence over Serious Diplomacy in Syria”

  1. Smith says:

    fyi,

    I used to think like that. Not anymore. It depends how we define democracy. But consistently the British public is against what British regime does. From Iraq to finances to Syria etc. Theoretically this should not be in democracy defined as a government run by the people. Now it might be argued democracy is actually the PERCEPTION of people ruling themselves. Then I do not have any argument.

    But if not, then in Britain we have a dictatorial regime with monarch at its helm (she is the commander in chief). As for British history, we all know what they have been doing to the world for the past 400 years. It is well documented. A few acts of “magnanimity” here and there are just exception arising from tactical situation on the ground. Otherwise they were out in the world “civilizing” the people (British understatement for genocide).

    The situation is fast deteriorating in the world. And frankly no hope can be seen.

  2. James Canning says:

    I think the Russian position has been sound all along: that the government of Syria cannot be forced to agree to abandon power, as a precondition before a peace conference.

  3. Smith says:

    It is a beautiful article, exposing the hypocrisy of human rights and values propagated in MSM. Today, I was reading a western article, basically describing how successful the sanctions on Iran are, that Iranian public through the election, has started to cry uncle sam, uncle sam and begging US to stop flogging them. The writer goes on to imply that the flogging should not stop until complete capitulation of Iranian public and their subsequent rape (and perhaps genocide). The western history is so full of these heinous crimes. Iran is not the first one and will not be the last. Obama did not start this all either. And to expect, he is going to finish off these policies while being president of a nation built on genocide and (civil) wars is a tall order. Rather child like fanciful thinking.

    Such policies of mass murder and enslavement will not stop until the raw military power in the world is more evenly distributed than now. The only way for this to happen is for more countries specially among developing ones to have massive nuclear weapons arsenals. Only then there is a some chance that western nations that have dominated the world for the past 500 years might be forced to loosen their grip on this planet and let a more equitable and accountable international framework try to bring a peaceful environment. The consequence of humanity not reaching that is either continuing the current situation or extinction of humanity in a nuclear winter. Choose your option. Slavery or extinction. Because west does not want to leave any other option (specially the British). It is really shameful, but its the truth.

  4. Persian Gulf says:

    fyi says:
    June 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    “The sentiment in UK could be very important; …”.

    not necessarily. as a British co-worker of mine used to say, they marched one million men against Iraq’s invasion. and it fell on deaf ears.

  5. fyi says:

    The Leveretts:

    The statement “Strategically and morally, this is a pathetic way for the United States to run its foreign policy” is true but the second part is not quite right.

    It is not “Obama’s way” as such, it is the way Foreign policy has to be conducted in the United States; it is a mark of degeneration in US Body Politic – and not just the 2 parties.

    Mr. Obama is a very gifted politician who knows how to navigate the degenerated politics of the United States, Syria be damned.

    And most Americans cannot care less about Syria or Afghanistan or any other foreign country; US is too rich and too powerful for them to care.

    The best hopeone can have for change is for the US vassals to start hurting, and hurting plenty, for Mr. Obama to change course.

    But I agree with you – this is immoral.

  6. Smith says:

    fyi says:
    June 19, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    “The best hope one can have for change is for the US vassals to start hurting, and hurting plenty, for Mr. Obama to change course.”

    That is a very brilliant statement. Though US has the history of using its vassals bleed to the last drop. Under US vassalage the non-white vassals are seen as expandable strategic assets. I do not think POTUS cares for its vassals enough to change course, unless they are blonde, which is an entirely different matter with its own Ubermensch rights and values.

  7. Nasser says:

    An ode to Washington’s pet monarchs:
    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/why-mideast-monarchies-survive

    – Of course we all disagree but it is still sometimes fun to read the justifications the West often use to justify their continued oppression and plunder.

  8. Nasser says:

    Smith says: June 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Brilliant post. Bravo!

  9. kooshy says:

    نتايج انتخابات رياست جمهوري در سطح بخش

    http://result-p.moi.ir/Portal/Home/default.aspx

    Results of the presidential elections based on each county in a province

  10. kooshy says:

    GCU congratulates alumnus Hassan Rouhani on his election as the next President of Iran

    http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/article.php?id=59642

  11. Pirouz says:

    The Syrian conflict provides some interesting aspects.

    -The United States is in the uncomfortable position of siding with a cause with its most effective battlefield contingent comprised of Jihadi militants the likes of which carried out 9/11 and fought U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    -Hezbollah has recently gained a level of offensive battlefield experience.

    -Contrary to all the fibs and predictions put out by a largely mythical entity called “Free Syrian Army,” the real Syrian Army has proved resilient and effective in years of civil war fighting. Rebel forces are relatively poorly trained and led. Without overwhelming NATO airpower to intervene (as in Libya)
    , they’ll likely never turn the tide against the regime.

    -Scott Peterson of all people recently reported that 4000 Iranian troops were being sent into the conflict. I find that hard to believe. 4000 trained by Iran troops, maybe, but actual evidence is needed.

    -We Americans (even those who voted for Obama, like myself) have to concede that ours is a politically insecure president. And where foreign policy is concerned, timid as well.

  12. kooshy says:

    “-We Americans (even those who voted for Obama, like myself) have to concede that ours is a politically insecure president. And where foreign policy is concerned, timid as well.”

    This guy is a shameless liar, since he became president he hasn’t spoken one word of truth, don’t expect much from him, I don’t want to sound raciest but what the African American community calls him (a house boy) fits him well.

  13. Iranian says:

    Pirouz,

    Scott Peterson always lies about Iran. Ignore his garbage.

  14. Sineva says:

    Nasser says:
    June 19, 2013 at 8:46 pm
    One wonders how much the “writer” was paid for this nauseating sycophantic rubbish,I did have to laugh at his “It’s legitimacy, stupid!” yeah right,the arab despots legitimate?,only in their dreams

  15. Irshad says:

    fyi – what are your views on the Arab worlds political outlook? How can they climb out of the cycle of monrachy-dicatorship-military juntas cycle? Iran had Imam Khomeini to lay out a vision based on Islamic jurisprudence to present a new form Islamic governance, what hopes are there of that in the Arab world? And how do you see the political scene in Syria if the Assad govt. manages to win back Aleppo and stop the rebels? Thank you

  16. fyi says:

    Irshad says:

    June 20, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    I think as long as there is Life, there is also Hope. I do not think that the situation of the Arabs is exactly hopeless; these are the best educated and the most developed Arab societies that have ever existed.

    I think also that one must deal with each country in its own specifity.

    For example, due to historical circumstances, the Monarchy in Morocco has the best chance of evolving into an Islamic Constitutional Monarchy – if the King is willing to take the plunge and of the Ulema are willing to support that project.

    In Libya, in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Southern Persian Gulf we are still in the age of Tribes and Clans – even building a functioning state at the level of Egypt is a problem let alone something along the lines of Islamic Republic of Iran.

    In Tunisia, my hope is that the Ikhwan government will absorb the lessons of Egypt’s Ikhwan – that there is no margin in fighting the Shia or, in fact, no margin in fighting others. That they would follow the policy of “Zero Problems” with everyone and concentrate on development but with more Liberty than was avilable under the previous regime.

    In Tunisia (and also in Algeria) you have very many educated people who read/write French and are more comfortable in that language than in Arabic. I think it will be a good idea for some of them – if they have the inclination and the opportunity to do – to think and investigate the works of Western Thinkers on Freedom and Liberty and develop the ideas of Freedom and Liberty within Islamic Tradition.

    This could help all Arabs and indeed all Muslims everywhere.

    In Syria I expect the hard dictaorship of the Ba’ath State to continue after victory. However, the possibility exists, once the hostilities have stopped, to go through a 2-stage constitutional process there.

    An interim constitution could be agreed upon for a 2 or 3 year transition period in which all parties could participate and get ready for general elections. Once the general elections are held, the new “Majlis” could draft a new consitution and have it voted by the electorate.

    Once the new constitution (the second one) has gone into effect, new elections could be held. I personally think that a system analogous to Lebanon’s confessional system of governance would fiut Syria better than one on Western European models.

    You are correct, in the absence of a man such as the late Mr. Khomeini, Arabs will be meandering hither and thither and will have to learn from experience unfortunately.

    I had great hopes for Turkish experience under AKP but that project failed at the strategic level in Syria.

    Which would imply that “progress” in Muslim polities – including Arab ones -is contingent on each such polity breaking its dependencies on extra-regional and non-Muslim powers.

  17. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    The American middle class has declined in wealth, relative to many other countries, over the past several decades. More than 25 countries have a middle class richer than that of the US. Australia’s middle class is much richer than that of the US, for example. Four times as rich.

  18. James Canning says:

    Persian Gulf,

    Yes, one million Brits marched against joining the idiotic American invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    This does not mean British public opinion is unimporant.

    We should remember that Tony Blair obtained George W. Bush’s promise to pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, if Britain backed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Bush reneged on his promise.

  19. James Canning says:

    Financial Times today has excellent opinion piece on how to move forward with resolution of the nuclear dispute. Key element called for is for actual concessions by the West, on step-by-step basis, for concessions on part of Iran.

  20. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    I see no signs that China seeks the “enslavement” of the people of Iran, by the West.

    Did China seek “enslavement” of the people of Burma?

    Burma’s government implemented reforms to achieve economic growth and lessen China’s control over the economy of the country.

  21. James Canning says:

    The Leveretts are quite right to underline the fact Obama thought a large increase in American troop levels in Afghanistan would only enlarge the insurgency. This was Joe Biden’s viewpoint.

    Hillary Clinton favored trebling the US troop presence in Afghanistan. Obama’s blunder was party her fault.

  22. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    June 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    The Americans sold their jobs to China to pay for their Empire.

    That is all.

  23. Smith says:

    The British perspective:

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579835-west-should-intervene-syria-many-reasons-one-stem-rise-persian-power-can

    “… Any deal offered to Iran should include restraints draconian enough, and inspection intrusive enough, to prevent it from building a weapon surreptitiously, otherwise it would be worse than not doing a deal at all. And such a deal would very likely be unacceptable to Iran.

    The growing risk of a nuclear Iran is one reason why the West should intervene decisively in Syria not just by arming the rebels, but also by establishing a no-fly zone. That would deprive Mr Assad of his most effective weapon—bombs dropped from planes—and allow the rebels to establish military bases inside Syria. This newspaper has argued many times for doing so on humanitarian grounds; but Iran’s growing clout is another reason to intervene, for it is not in the West’s interest that a state that sponsors terrorism and rejects Israel’s right to exist should become the regional hegemon …”

  24. James Canning says:

    Ayatollah Seyed Salman Safavi’s comments on the way forward to resolve nuclear dispute with Iran (in FT today), at http://www.blogs/ft.com/the-world/

  25. James Canning says:

    Smith,

    The Ecomomist offers A Britsh perspective. Not THE British perspective.

  26. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “We should remember that Tony Blair obtained George W. Bush’s promise to pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, if Britain backed Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Bush reneged on his promise.”

    Are you suggesting britain is under the diktat of US?

  27. Rd. says:

    A US spring?

    There was Bradley Manning , then Snowden and NSA leaks, among others..

    now;

    Investigators want missile theory probed in ’96 TWA Flight 800 crash

    One would hope, there would be more patriots who would have the courage and dedication to come forward and spill more of the secrets covered by the degenerate group camping in washington. Of course, they should consider traveling to a democratic and free society before showcasing the truth.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original/

    I just wonder, if the degenerates in washington would be handing out the Legion of Merit medals to the navy ship that shoot down the TWA flight as well!!! Some navy.. knows how to shot down defenseless passenger planes.

  28. James Canning says:

    Rd.,

    No, British foreign policy obviously is not controlled by Washington. If Parliament refuses to back David Cameron’s desire to ship weapons to Syrian rebles, we will see a vivid demonstration of that fact.

    Sadly, Tony Blair played a key role in selling the idiotic invasion of Iraq to the American people.

    That Blair obtained Bush’s promise to pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza gets very little attention. Sadly.

    That Blair would want the US to pressure Israel to end the occupation shows that British foreign policy is not controlled by the US.

  29. Rd. says:

    James Canning says:

    “No, British foreign policy obviously is not controlled by Washington. If Parliament refuses to back David Cameron’s desire to ship weapons to Syrian rebles, we will see a vivid demonstration of that fact.
    Sadly, Tony Blair played a key role in selling the idiotic invasion of Iraq to the American people.”

    Apparently, Bliar was able to sell that idiotic idea to the british parliament too?

    Are you suggesting the british parliament too is under the us diktat?

  30. nico says:

    fyi says:
    June 20, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    “James Canning says:June 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    The Americans sold their jobs to China to pay for their Empire.That is all.”

    Not correct.
    That is first and foremost an ideological and DIRECT result of the enlightment.
    It seems you do not grasp the ideological alchemy of the western civilization.

    The atheist messianic movement born out of the enlightment is based upon man being the center of the universe.
    That is the root of the economic growth paradigm and ideology. Actually man should manage the universe which should be instrumental to its blossoming.
    Thus materialism is directly linked to the the enlightment and atheism and they feed upon each other.

    In the tradtional and former religious world that was not the case as man is the creature of god and should live its mortal exustence to reach heaven in a perfect afterlife.

    The enlightment is a religion whithout god, messianic as that, and try to impose itself to the world.

    The Chinese bought the religion and they are welcomed to join the brighter future of the one world and global capitalist order.

    Obviously there are many shades, schools and schism in the atheistic religion.
    The main atheistic school being the well known caiptalism against communism.
    Another being the globalists against the nationalists.

    My take is that the US is the flag bearer of the globalist, capitalist, atheism.

    As in all religion, it is not immune from extremism and mad leaders.

    What you see with the job off shoring is a religion gone mad that is fighting its inquisition in ME.
    What you see is a religion in decline for having gone too far and putrefying by its inherent excesses by not having counterweight to channel it and keep it fit.

    When you compare the Iran’s “mullahs” to the western great defenders of human rights. Who is mad ? Who is the extremist ?

    For sure the human right thematic is used for cynical purpose by the west, but do not underestimate the many who truly believe in it like some kind of bible !
    That is why human rights have such traction in the west whitin this blind and inquisitory idelogy.

    When compared to the western religions,

  31. kooshy says:

    “One would hope, there would be more patriots who would have the courage and dedication to come forward and spill more of the secrets covered by the degenerate group camping in washington”

    Better to take public transportation than driving in and around Los Angeles, one would never know they may just hit a tree at 4:30 am.

  32. Rd. says:

    fyi says:

    “And most Americans cannot care less about Syria or Afghanistan or any other foreign country; US is too rich and too powerful for them to care.”

    Unfortunately, the public in US is only amused by entertainment, be it some one’s murder trial, US pres election mud trowing, or a mass shooting. This is not to say every one is a ‘bad’ person. It is analogues to someone with terminal cancer. Even with one organ inflicted with cancer, the other organs may be just fine and healthy. However, the patient has given up hope and is just laying in bed (passing time) awaiting death. The US body too, is inflected with the degenerate cancer of congress, the lobby, the giant corps and their wall street banksters, the corp prostitute journalist, etc.. The public has given up hope and feels helpless. They are just hanging there passing time awaiting…..

  33. nico says:

    James Canning says:
    June 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    “Rd.,No, British foreign policy obviously is not controlled by Washington.”

    Do you mean like the US vetoing the UK sovereign right to leave EU ?
    No need to say when the US are denying the UK their sovereign right, then UK foreign policy is totally subjugating to the US whims.
    That UK try to influence and manipulate US is obvious, but whrn the US decide, then the UK comply.

    You position is ridiculous and delusional… As usual.

  34. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    June 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    “That Blair would want the US to pressure Israel to end the occupation….” was thoroughly delusional had Mr. Blair really believed it.

    That was his sop, his alibi, his smoke-screen for gullibale Englishmen.

    US did not UK to inavde and destroy the Ba’athist Iraq; UK insisted on being there to be – in Mr. Blair’s word “on the right side of the United States.”

  35. Rd. says:

    “Better to take public transportation than driving in and around Los Angeles, one would never know they may just hit a tree at 4:30 am.”

    executive executions are now part and parcel of this freedom loving, r2p government. and I wonder, where are those organizations like, Reporters without border or The committee to protect Journalist, raising questions and reporting on this case?

    Oh wait, I forgot, these organization are related to that other organization which was likely involved in having a tree jump in front of his car and igniting a fire!!!

  36. kooshy says:

    fyi says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    “US did not UK to invade and destroy the Ba’athist Iraq; UK insisted on being there to be – in Mr. Blair’s word “on the right side of the United States.”

    Well since the day Mr. Churchill had to kiss Mr. Roosevelt’s ass on that ship, that’s how it has been, all that the Europeans specially the Brits have learned they are able and can do is leaking American’s obese ass whenever they can. In other words that’s called accepting limited sovereignty in exchange for inexpensive subsidized security.

  37. BiBiJon says:

    Rd. says:
    June 20, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Nah. Just a feeble attempt at showing how the government is really under scrutiny, and how the media is watchful. The media credibility has to be raised so when the media tells us recording ‘meta data’ on the world’s population is kosher, the public buys it.

  38. nico says:

    fyi says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    “US did not UK to invade and destroy the Ba’athist Iraq; UK insisted on being there to be – in Mr. Blair’s word “on the right side of the United States.”

    That is true.
    However, you should not underestimate the common set of values shared by western nations and their godless religion extremism.
    France at some point in 2003 tried to drive the US back to their sense.
    However as of today the powerfull human right actvists and globalists inside the country won the ideolical battle and sane people are marginalized.

    My take is that Blair was in part cynical, in part delusional.
    But above all, an oprtunistic and godless extremist who bought in the clash of civilization.

    As of today, all the leaders in EU biggest countries are in the same league.
    See Barroso, Monti, Hollande, Cameron, etc…

    Germany is a special case as they still believe as always has been the case in the Volks.
    Meaning the pure ethnic german roots. They still apply the right of blood as the sole origin of the nationality.
    Today they are still in a position of submission and intellectual self loating as per the wwii defeat.
    However they are not atheist universalist as France and the UK.

  39. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    You mean Blair was somewhat cynical, in backing idiotic US invasion of Iraq in order to obtain Bush’s backing for his effort to get Israel out of occupied territories?

    Yes, Blair was delusional about “democracy” etc etc etc. Blair’s backing was a crucial element in the entire scheme to set up illegal invasion.

  40. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Both France and Germany tried to block idiotic US invasion of Iraq.

  41. James Canning says:

    Kooshy,

    Britain has spent a lot of money on defence since the Second World War. Much more than most European countries. And at times Britain spent even more than “necessary”, in order to have independent weaponry (that is, not obtained from the US).

  42. James Canning says:

    fyi,

    Blair indeed was foolish enough to convince himself the idiotic invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

  43. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    Washington has voiced its opinion on merits of Britain’s staying within the EU, but it appears there will be a national referendum on the issue. Which would control.

  44. James Canning says:

    Nico,

    China operates under a structure combining hyper capitalism with one-party rule. With very considerable material success.

  45. Smith says:

    Three things you “did not” know about Iran’s sustainable transport system: http://thecityfix.com/blog/3-things-you-did-not-know-about-iran-sustainable-transport-elise-zevitz/

  46. Persian Gulf says:

    http://iusnews.ir/?pageid=186790

    این جماعت هنوز هم همونطوری فکر می کنند. هیچ چیزی تغییر نکرده.

  47. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    June 20, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    It used to be called National Socialism.

  48. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    June 20, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Mr. Blair was not foolish; he was duplicious.

  49. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    June 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    Yeah,sure he did,once again you give these people way to much benefit of the doubt,blair could not have given two sh!ts about palestine or its people,he went along with the war because thats what good poodles do

  50. Unknown Unknowns says:

    Rd. says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    “Oh wait, I forgot, these organization are related to that other organization which was likely involved in having a tree jump in front of his car and igniting a fire!!!”

    Exaaaaactly.

    It is becoming clearer to more and more people that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and of course George Soros’s ever-popular Open Society Foundation are nothing more than fronts for Bilderberg-CIA psyops with supposed street cred for the credulous.

    I love watching the Enlightenment Project unravel, don’t you? And as Nietzsche once said, “That which is falling should also be pushed!” Or, perhaps more appositely, as Kurtz cried into the Heart of Darkness, “The horror! The horror!!!”

  51. Sineva says:

    James Canning says:
    June 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    There is no comparison between iran and burma,the burmese junta made a few token reforms and that was sufficient as far as the west was concerned

  52. James Canning says:

    Sineva,

    The big difference between Burma, and Iran, is two-fold. One is simply that Israel lobby did not oppose the dropping of sanctions. Another is that Burma was not suspected of wanting to build nukes.