Saturday, August 31, 2013
Erdogan wants Syria regime change, not limited strikes
Al Arabiya
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that any international military intervention against Syria should be aimed at overthrowing the President Bashar al-Assad from power.
“A limited operation cannot be satisfactory for us,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying by the NTV news channel.
“An intervention akin to that decided for Kosovo must be launched. An operation of one or two days will not be enough. The goal should be to force the regime out,” he said.
U.S. President Barack Obama said Friday that his administration and the military were looking at a “wide range of options” in Syria but had ruled out “boots on the ground” or a “long-term campaign.”
“We are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act,” he said.
Erdogan, whose country shares a long border with Syria, was once an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but is now one of his fiercest critics.
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday that he is considering a “narrow” and “limited” attack on Syria. Obama said the ground forces would not take part in the attack.
Obama stressed that the main goal of an operation would be uphold the international norm that using chemical weapons is a red line. He said the conflict in Syria should be ultimately resolved diplomatically.
Obama’s efforts to put together an international coalition to support military action have been more down than up.
French President Francois Hollande has endorsed punitive strikes, and told the newspaper Le Monde that the “chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished.”
But British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to win a vote of approval in Parliament for military action ended in ignominious defeat on Thursday. American attempts to secure backing at the United Nations have been blocked by Russia, long an ally of Syria.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged a delay in any military action until the inspectors can present their findings to U.N. member states and the Security Council.
(With AFP and Reuters)
Friday, August 30, 2013
Russian Navy Assault Ships Ready to Evacuate Nationals From Syria
MOSCOW, August 30 (RIA Novosti) – Russian Navy assault ships are ready, if necessary, to rapidly evacuate Russian citizens from Syria, a senior navy official said Friday.
Western nations have been actively discussing possible military intervention in Syria following reports that chemical weapons were used last week near Damascus. The US claims Syrian government forces were responsible, while Damascus says Islamist rebels were responsible.
The Russian embassy in Syria said in February there were an estimated 30,000 Russians living in the country, but other reports suggest the figure could be higher.
Russia has six assault ships stationed in the Black Sea that could move rapidly to the Mediterranean Sea if needed, the navy official told RIA Novosti. “Ships from the Baltic fleet and Northern fleet could join them as well,” he said.
Even ships from Russia’s Pacific fleet, which are currently on anti- piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa, could also be enlisted if needed to ensure a safe evacuation, he added.
A UN inspections team is still compiling evidence on the reported chemical weapon attack. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told journalists that the team will leave Syria on Saturday and release its findings after it has time to analyze the results.
Pending the UN report, several governments have stated they will wait for the team’s findings on whether the Syrian government itself used the chemical weapons. Russian officials maintain that there is no clear evidence that the Syrian military was responsible for the attack, and blocked British attempts Wednesday to get the UN Security Council to issue a resolution against Damascus.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier this week the evidence that the Syrian government was responsible is “undeniable.” Though the US has urged its international allies to push for a strike, President Barack Obama has yet to announce a decision on military intervention.
Possible British military involvement was blocked Thursday after UK Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a historic defeat in a vote in the UK parliament, when a motion calling for a “strong humanitarian response” on Syria was defeated by 285 to 272 votes, The Guardian reported.
France’s President Francois Hollande said Friday the British vote would not stop Paris taking from military action if necessary, Le Figaro reported.
From RIA Novosti
U.N. chemical weapons inspection team wraps up work in Syria
BEIRUT—The United Nations chemical weapons inspection team in Syria was reported to have wrapped up its field work Friday and was preparing to leave the war-torn country on Saturday.
U.N. officials have generally described the 20-member contingent’s work as a success. The inspectors visited several sites of the suspected Aug. 21 poison gas attack and gathered samples, apparently of possibly contaminated soil, tissue and other evidence, and also interviewed victims, witnesses, doctors and others in and around Damascus, the Syrian capital.
The U.N. team spent four working days on the ground in the Damascus area, crossing rebel lines to collect evidence in areas that are, in effect, war zones. The team fell prey to one sniper attack but there were no casualties, officials said.
The Syrian government and the opposition expressed public support for the U.N. mission. Each side blames the other for the incident, which reportedly killed hundreds of civilians, sparking international outrage. Some experts say images uploaded on the Internet of the victims suggest a nerve agent was unleashed, though the photographic record was not conclusive.
The collected samples are expected to be analyzed at laboratories in Europe for traces of chemical agents. Whether the process will take days or weeks is unclear. The team’s mandate is limited to determining whether chemical agents were released, not apportioning blame for the use of toxic substances. Experts, however, have said the findings could provide important clues about who was responsible for the incident.
Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon urged U.S. and other Western officials to give the U.N. an opportunity to do its work before resorting to a military strike on Syria.
“Give peace a chance,” Ban said Wednesday in a speech in the Hague. “Give diplomacy a chance. Stop fighting and stop talking.”
Amid reports of an impending U.S. retaliatory missile assault on Syrian government targets, some have suggested that Washington would prefer to wait until the U.N. contingent departs before mounting any attack. The U.N. says the team plans to leave Syria on Saturday.
From LAtimes
The Chessboard of World War III
If war breaks out in Syria the best possible outcome will be the fall of the Assad regime, approximately 2,000,000 innocent people will perish and the world will witness the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood as the new leaders in Syria. If this is all that happens as a result of Obama’s anticipated reckless actions, we should consider ourselves lucky.
The worst-case scenario includes the entry of Israel, Russia, China and possibly India into the fight. Please note that all three of the four nations have abandoned the petrodollar in favor of a gold for oil scheme, and this fact will prove to be a prime motivator leading to the expansion of the Syrian war.
This article not only details the pattern of the likely fall of Syria, but this article primarily centers on each country’s role in the coming war should the conflict expand beyond the Syrian borders.
Assad Is a Despot but It Is Not Our Business
By anyone’s standards, Assad is a despicable dictator, the type of dictator that blends in well with the scenery of the Middle East. However, the Syrian rebels are worse and if Obama gets his way, they and their backers, Al Qaeda, will soon overthrow Assad and will create a controversial and a fanatically anti-American regime. If Obama gets his way, the Syrian rebels will continue to massacre entire Christian villages and they will continue to release chemical weapons against innocent Syrian people because this are the type of actions consistent with the Muslim brotherhood.Family Ties
I
Malik Obama of the Muslim Brotherhood.
t is difficult for most Americans to fathom that an American president would actually seek to install the Muslim brotherhood as a puppet government on behalf of the bankers that control our government. However, that is exactly what we see in Libya and Egypt. And that is precisely what the Obama’s game plan consists of with regard to Syria and ultimately Iran. And if the facts be known, nobody should be surprised becauseBarack Obama‘s Kenyan half-brother, Malik Obama, manages investments for the Muslim Brotherhood. That is correct, Obama has direct family ties to one of the two major terrorist organizations on the planet and one that has openly declared a jihad war on the West. This same rogue organization is presently murdering scores of Christians while the White House laughs about these attacks. There is no question that Obama is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood and his goal includes the destabilization of the Middle East.
What If War Does Break Out?
Based upon my insider contacts, I have constructed some possible spinoff events which could follow the aftermath of Obama’s launching a decisive military strike against Syria. This analysis is meant to demonstrate the danger and the volatility of the present situation. The players who will decide the outcome of the Syrian war, which could culminate with the outbreak of WWIII, are United States, Russia, China, Israel and possibly India as well as Syria and Iran.United States Options
The United States game plan for Syria appears to be the same strategy as the CIA followed in Libya. The initial US strategy in Libya consisted of launching crippling airstrikes against the Libyan military. The secondary part of this strategy consisted of the CIA arming Al Qaeda backed rebels to launch a ground assault centered on finding and neutralizing the leader of the country.
An airstrike will sufficiently negate the mobility of the Syrian military forces as it did in Libya. This lack of mobility will leave Assad and the city of Damascus extremely vulnerable. As in Libya, Al Qaeda will eventually capture and likely kill Assad just like they did Qaddafi in Libya.
It is no secret that taking Syria, in a relatively short amount of time, is key to blocking a Russian land military intervention because the US would have time to set up its short and medium range missile batteries. The Russians can move as many ships into the Mediterranean that they want, but once these missile batteries are in place, combined with air cover, it is game over for Russia with regard to Syria.
Obama is surely reasoning that if this strategy worked in Libya and it worked in Syria, this strategy was surely work with Iran. After Syria falls, the same strategy will be put into place in Iran only the excuse for attacking Iran will be because of their suspected possession of weapons of mass destruction (i.e. nuclear weapons) in a repeat of what George W. Bush did in Iraq.
Once Iran falls, the Federal Reserve will be successful in preserving the petrodollar from which the rest of the world must first purchase dollars before they can buy precious oil.
The fallback position for the United States would consist of the nuclear option. Do I think that the realleadership in this country will hesitate to use the nuclear option as the strategy of last resort? Absolutely not! With their families safely tucked away in some underground hideout, such as in the bowels of Denver international Airport, these monsters will do whatever it takes to preserve their precious petrodollar.
However, countries not terribly friendly to the global central banking system, also have options.
Syrian Options
Assad has few options.
Assad has very few options at his disposal should the United States decide to attack. Reportedly, Assad has positioned nearly 700 SCUD missile batteries pointed at Israel. The clear reason for this option is to play the blackmail card should the US go ahead and attack Syria. Look for a US first strike to take out as many of the SCUD missiles as possible. Therefore, along with attacking the Syrian command-and-control surveillance apparatus, the simultaneous objective will be to take up SCUD missiles for obvious reasons. However, an American first strike will not get all of the SCUD missiles and the Israelis know it. Historically, when Israel feels the slightest amount of threat, they typically do not hesitate to retaliate or worse yet, proactively attack their enemies with crushing force.
Israeli Options
Israel has very limited options but their prime and immediate goal is the eradication of both the Syrian and Iranian threat to their country. Israel has never been much in favor of absorbing a first strike before responding. Therefore, the United States may not yet to commence the hostilities in Syria, Israel may do it for them if they feel their national security is at risk from the 700 SCUD missiles. What I’m saying here, is that Obama may not have the last word on who launches the first strike. Israel will only go along with the American strategy so long as it’s in their best interest. And with the world waffling in their support of Obama’s impending attack upon Syria, Israel may feel compelled to start the conflict on their own because time is not on their side if the Russians are allowed to consolidate their forces in the Middle East.
Of course, what the United States would like Israel to do is to stay on the sidelines and not offer any military assistance until it is absolutely needed. Suffice it to say, Israel does not trust Obama. While all eyes are on Obama, the world should watching and talking to Israel. Israel is more likely to start this conflict than is Obama.
British Options
Even Britain, who has backed, or co-masterminded every US imperialistic war is saying not to war in the Middle East. Discretion is the better part of valor for the British. The British Parliament looked into the jungle and saw the eye of the tiger staring back and have subsequently run for cover. Britain does not have the stomach for this type of war. However, please realize that the British Parliament is not the British Crown, or the City of London, and make no mistake about it, the British Crown very badly wants this war in the name and the furtherance of central banking goals. Therefore, I am not certain that the recent capitulation by Parliament is the British final word on the subject.
One thing is for sure in that the British Parliament is keenly aware that its enemies can put muscle behind the collective defiance to the petrodollar system, China brags that it can place 100 million men on the battlefield. Russia maintains over 1300 nuclear missiles and India joined the nuclear weapons fraternity a long time ago and the Indians can put a sizable force on the battlefield as well.
As you read these words, you may be wondering if the conflict would escalate into a nuclear confrontation. I have a hard time imagining a situation in which the losing side would not resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a best case scenario. Ask yourself, if your country was faced with economic and military obliteration at the prospect of losing World War III, what would the losing side gain by keeping their nuclear missiles sitting quietly in their respective silos and submarines?
As an aside, it is interesting to note that the British were able to vote themselves out of the war. What does it say about how far has our republic democracy fallen when Congress no longer possess the same power as the Parliament? This makes referring to Obama as a dictator an accurate descriptor.
Chinese Options
How serious are the Chinese and Russians at standing up to the imperialistic United States? Considering that both ChinesePresident Hu and Major General Zhang Zhaozhonghave threatened the United States with nuclear war if they invade either Iran or Syria, I would say that they are very serious. The prudent opinion says that this is the newest version of the “Axis of Evil’s” line in the sand.
China, India and Russia have pinned their economic futures on the fact that they are divorcing themselves from the debt-ridden dollar and are charting a new economic course with gold as the baseline. They are not going to back down.
On the surface, China does not appear to have a great amount of options in the Middle East should the US attack Syria as a necessary prelude to going into Iran. However, China may retaliate in other theaters of action. If Obama attack Syria, I believe it is a given that China will make a move on Taiwan.
I would also look for China to attack the southern underbelly of the United States. For those who lack detailed geopolitical awareness, this would seem like an outrageous statement. However, it is common knowledge that the Chinese are in control of the Panama Canal. These forces would form the main body of a Chinese invasion force going North. China would move through Central America like a hot knife through butter. And it is also likely that the point of the attack will come out of the Sierra Madre’s in Mexico. My good friend, the late ex-CIA operative Bill Pawelec, told me many times that it was common knowledge in certain circles of the intelligence community that the Chinese have a sizable force in the area and that the point of any attack attack would come from this region. Pawelec also told me that Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Southern California would be overrun in less than a week. Unfortunately, some of my unnamed sources today are confirming what Pawelec told me over 15 years ago. The only thing that could stop a Chinese invasion into the American Southwest would be the use of nuclear weapons. And if I were to add my own bit of speculation to this scenario, I would bet that the recent Chinese and Russian joint military maneuvers have incorporated the strategy of tying up American military resources by forcing America to defend its own borders. And the more that America can be forced to defend itself at home, the fewer amount of resources it can commit to the fight in the Middle East.
The strategy available to the Chinese reminds me of why the United States invaded Italy in WWII. Stalin was screaming for the US to open up a second front to relieve pressure from the invading German armies. The US was not ready to invade France, so a compromise solution, the Italian campaign, was acted upon. This I believe will be China’s role in the coming conflict.
India’s Options
The Indians possess nuclear weapons and a large army. If sufficiently motivated a combined Indian and Chinese effort could neutralize American forces in Afghanistan. This could significantly weaken America’s need to respond to Russian and Chinese military incursions around the world.
Russian Options
If I were Putin, I would trade Alaska for the Middle East because the oil would be equivalent and there are more compelling reasons for the Russians to eye Alaska in a coming conflict which goes beyond the need for oil.
In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project(CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States.
These Cold War documents revealed that Stalin had a definitive plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports. Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily.
British geographer and military historian, Sir Halford MacKinder, in 1904, wrote an article that changed how politicians and military men viewed the world. It was a perception that influenced Hitler to send his troops eastward in an attack upon Russia in 1940. It was also the driving force that led to the underpinnings for superpower foreign policy which guided foreign policy for both sides during the Cold War. The theory that had so influenced nearly three generations of strategists, was simply called the Heartland Theory.
Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory viewed geo-political military history as a struggle between land-based and sea-based powers. Mackinder believed the world had become a “closed” system, with virtually no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without creating chaos elsewhere. According to the theory the common denominator for world conflict has been reduced to sea powers vs. land-based powers which would subsequently struggle for dominance of the world, and the ultimate victor would be in a position to set up a world empire. The determining factor in this struggle was physical geography; “Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls”.
Some speculate that Russia has been effectively neutralized in the Middle East. If that presumption is true, it would make sense that Russia would attack the United States through Alaska, whose defenses have been compromised by Obama. Although the United States might be successful in attacking Syria and ultimately Iran, we may face an invasion from China from the South and simultaneously from Russia from the Northwest.
Conclusion
The present set of events in the world reminds one of the days leading up to the commencement of World War I. The stage for WWI was set by a race between competing super powers in Africa. Each side formed alliances and before the fighting broke out on the African continent, Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assassinated and the alliance came into play as WWI began.
In the interest of brevity, I have purposely left some open questions unanswered with regard to the impact of the coming war on the American people. Further, a strong case can be made which implicates this current President and his treasonous actions and motivations. Yes, you are reading this correctly, I believe that the US is supposed to lose the coming war. These topics will be the subject of the next part of this series.
The Common Sense Show
Scientist Claims That Devastating Earthquake Will Hit Mexico City Before Year's End
A Mexico City-based seismologist has predicted an earthquake of devastating magnitude in that city that could potentially occur before December.
According to Mexican Engineer Gabriel Curiel Flores, an earthquake of at least 8 points in the Richter scale is slated to occur before year's end in accordance to a theory he has developed off of records of past seismic activity which predicts future tectonic plate movements.
Curiel Flores runs a website calledPredicTerremotos.blogspot.mx in which he posts the basis of his predictions and explains a theory he developed which he has called "Theory Of Gravitational Forces." According to Flores, the theory helped him accurately predict the earthquake that shook Japan in March.
The theory, which has yet to be peer reviewed and approved by other members of the scientific community, states that earthquakes and other tectonic movements are in fact events that can be predicted and prepared for before they actually occur. Longstanding scientific consensus is that earthquakes are complex events that stem from a number of variable occurrences along earth'stectonic plates and therefore are too complex to predict accurately.
Flores' website has gone viral in Mexico among Twitter users due to a recent surge in earthquake activity that included a 4.5 magnitude movement which took place today. Some users have embraced the theory while others question the scientific validity of it.
In his website, Flores usually addresses his posts directly to Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in an open letter format urging him to take action against what he believes is an imminent disaster that would devastate a city that he claims is "largely unprepared" for an earthquake of a severe magnitude. His claim stems from the fact that several central neighborhoods in Mexico City still host old buildings, which are seen as having poor structural support and that could be in danger in a severe earthquake scenario.
Flores states that he has already met with senior level officials of several government offices that are already aware of his theory but have yet to act upon it. He has also approached the Geological Society of America who redirected him towards submitting his paper to the peer-reviewed publication GSA Today.
Mexico City is no stranger to large magnitude earthquakes. In September 1985, a 8.1magnitude earthquake stuck Mexico City to devastating effects. The death toll from that event was estimated at around 10,000 casualties.
Latinos Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)