Nato chief wants Syrian war.

by Stephen Lendman
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen tried having it both
ways.
On the one hand, he said:
"We need a firm international response in order to avoid that chemical
attacks take place in the future."
"It would send a very, I would say, dangerous signal to dictators all
over the world if we stand idle by and don't react."
On the other, he said it's for "individual allies to decide how they will
respond." He "foresee(s) (no) further NATO role."
He still conducts "closed consultations" with allies. He claims he's
seen evidence enough to convince him "not only that a chemical
attack had taken place, but also...that the Syrian regime is
responsible."
He's like other NATO partners. He lied saying so. He'll wage war on
Syria covertly. He's been doing it all along.
Only France openly agreed to join Obama's coalition of the killing.
President Francois Hollande defied French public sentiment doing so.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said:
"This act cannot be left without a response. It's not for France to act
alone. The president is continuing his work of persuasion to bring
together a coalition without delay."
"France is determined to penalize (Assad's) use of chemical weapons
and dissuade (him) with a forceful and firm response."
"The objective is neither to topple the regime or liberate the country."
He lied saying so. Obama wants Syrian sovereignty destroyed.
France joined his coalition. Britain, Germany and other key NATO
allies are on board covertly. Israel's very much involved. So are Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, other rogue Gulf states, Turkey and Jordan.
France's Le Figaro interviewed Assad. He was clear and unequivocal.
"Those who make accusations must show evidence. We have
challenged the United States and France to come up with a single
piece of proof." They've been incapable of doing so," he said.
"Anybody who contributes to the financial and military reinforcement
of terrorists is the enemy of the Syrian people."
"If the policies of the French state are hostile to the Syrian people,
the state will be their enemy."
"There will be repercussions, negative ones obviously, on French
interests," he stressed.
Obama intends lawless aggression. On Thursday and Friday, he's in
St. Petersburg, Russia. He's attending the G20 summit.
Syria will dominate discussions. On September 1, Reuters headlined
"Analysis: Putin sees chance to turn tables on Obama at G20."
Obama's under pressure. Putin forthrightly opposes war. During
June's G8 summit, he "was isolated over his backing for" Assad. He
"scowled his way through talks with Obama."
He "stood his ground. (He) dismiss(ed) Obama's (baseless)
allegations." He calls accusations about Syrian forces using chemical
weapons against its own people "utter nonsense."
US global policy failed, he stressed. Wherever America shows up,
"there is no peace, no democracy, which our partners allegedly
sought," he said.
"After months of pressure to abandon Assad, he is sending a message
to the West that he is ready to do battle over Syria in St. Petersburg
and sees an opportunity to portray the United States as the bad boy
on the block," said Reuters.
" 'Of course the G20 is not a formal legal authority,' " he said. "It's
not a substitute for the UN Security Council."
"It can't take decisions on the use of force. But it's a good platform
to discuss the problem. Why not take advantage of this?" he stressed.
"Is it in the United States' interests once again to destroy the
international security system, the fundamentals of international law,"
he asked? Will it strengthen the United States' international standing?
Hardly."
Obama's intended lawless aggression makes him controversial. Putin
looks saintly by comparison. Obama's due back in Washington after
G20 summit talks conclude.
Expect war any time once he's home. It's unlikely while he's away. He
blundered repeatedly before. He's not foolheardy enough to launch
aggressive war during diplomatic discussions.
According to London's Guardian , Obama intends toppling Assad.
Military action is part of his broader strategy to do so. During
Tuesday's White House meeting, he told congressional leaders:
Attacking Syria "fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over
time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic,
economic and political pressure required - so that ultimately we have
a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but
to the region."
On August 30, a White House press release headlined "Government
Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on
August 21, 2013." It featured Big Lies.
Left unsaid are plans to destroy Iranian sovereignty. Washington
wants pro-Western puppet governance replacing it. War plans are
readied to do so. They may be initiated if Assad's ousted.
Iran is Washington's prime regional target. Longstanding policy calls
for regime change. Attacking Syria is prelude for what's planned.
American lawless aggression masquerades as humanitarian
intervention. There's nothing humanitarian about mass killing and
destruction.
All US wars feature them. They cause horrific human suffering. They
leave charnel house conditions. They're followed by more wars.
They're increasingly without popular support. It doesn't matter.
Imperial priorities count most.
America was never beautiful. It's not now. The nation this writer grew
up in no longer exists. Gangsters run things in Washington.
The criminal class is bipartisan. Support's afforded wealth, power and
privilege alone. Rage for war ties bind. Big Lies launch them.
Fear, misinformation, and deceit proliferate. Media scoundrels
regurgitate what demands condemnation. One war leads to others.
Leaders lie claiming they're waged in pursuit of peace.
Gore Vidal once said "our rulers for more than half a century have
made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that
our government has done to other people, not to mention our own."
Perpetual wars are called noble peace gestures. Waging them assures
eventual mass annihilation. Arnold J. Toynbee suggested they'll leave
only pygmies in remote jungles or perhaps apes and ants behind.
They'll continue "the cultural traditions of mankind," he said.
Dwight Eisenhower warned about military and war-profiteering
industrialists. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist," he said.
Smedley Butler called war a "racket." He did so for good reason. His
1933 speech said:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service
as (a Marine). I served in all commissioned ranks from Second
Lieutenant to Major-General."
"And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class
muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
"I helped make Mexico....safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in."
"I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for
the benefit of Wall Street."
"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909 - 1912."
"I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar
interests in 1916. In China, I helped to see to it that Standard Oil
went its way unmolested."
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a
swell racket."
"Looking back at it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few
hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents."
America's global empire stretches everywhere. Hundreds of bases
support it. So do super-weapons. No public figure today matches
Butler's forthrightness.
No one would dare try. They'd be vilified for doing it. They'd be
defrocked and drummed out of office. They'd risk assassination.
The business of America is war. Perpetual ones never end. Barbarism
defines US policy. Young generations are destroyed at home and
abroad.
Peace is verboten. Humanity hangs by a thread. Eventual annihilation
is likely. What damn fool leader would risk it.
Obama heads where angels fear to tread. If stopping him doesn't
matter most, what does?