WAR is comming soon in Syria. with Russia later.

[WhyteCheddar]

LOL. Iran hasn't attacked another country in 214 years. We attack other countries nearly seasonally based on lies in order to install central banks for our Oligarchs.

Which country is 'dangerous?" Amazing what propaganda can do to the human mind.

He were are, possibly at the threshold of WWIII. Putin just dispatched another dozen ships. Our criminal government may just be so bold as to attack Syria based on the same, tired false flag lies all for the benefit of the trillionaire banking elite.

... and STILL there are Americans so deluded they support it. Although, granted, only about <10% are this stupid this time around.

Americans do not want more more war. By We the People means nothing, what we want does not matter.

Most adults are smart enough to know not to fool with a rattlesnake even though they have never been bitten. They recognize the danger. To suggest Iran is no threat is simply ridiculous. Volcanos go generations without doing any damage.
You need to break up your daily sheeple indoctrination with a little reality every now and then. Brainwashing sucks no matter where it comes from.
Are there evil stooges in our government? Hell yes. Should we suspect them of heinous atrocities? We'd be stupid not to. But please Burt, come up for some air once in a while.

 

[michaels]

I dunno,

After everything, I have to say that a very dark part of my soul is amused by this.....

Rumsfeld, architect of Iraq war, says Obama hasn?t yet justified Syria attack ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[michaels]

Just to clarify,

The same dark part of me that finds it hilarious that a 2009 Nobel peace prize winner is about to launch an illegal war.....

 

[erudne]

I tell you I don't think Barry will back out of this, he has his marching powder and is following someone else's orders, I think this is his Riechstagg Moment and that a whole bunch of bubblegum is coming down on whitey before this is over. His aim is to impoverish and destroy the American PPL while he ends up as the Grand Caliph w/blue turban. The man is a moron but he's got a playbook that has yet to fail him and he has years to go as Prezzy

 

[MikeE]

I tell you I don't think Barry will back out of this, he has his marching powder and is following someone else's orders, I think this is his Riechstagg Moment and that a whole bunch of bubblegum is coming down on whitey before this is over. His aim is to impoverish and destroy the American PPL while he ends up as the Grand Caliph w/blue turban. The man is a moron but he's got a playbook that has yet to fail him and he has years to go as Prezzy

It is because of this kind of crazy talk that no effective opposition to the real offenses of the Obama administration has yet developed. People hear this type of stuff and think "better the devil I know..."
In the UK, where politics is a bit more sane, Parliament just told David Cameron to fuggedabboudit when it comes to Syria. A large group of Conservatives joined the opposition, as did Labor members voting against their own leader.
We need to tell our congress critters to demand Congressional approval for any military action. Find your US rep here:
Find Your Representative · House.gov
Meanwhile - this is as good an analysis of the situation as I have found:
<broken link removed>

 

[sheepdip]

these people have been fighting with each other since the first camel turd hit the sand. nothing will ever change that.

 

[Burt Gummer]

All of this can be summed up in three words - The Petro Dollar.

 

[ATCclears]

Whoa, rebels admit to AP that they mishandled chemical weapons and caused the incident? If true, I'd love to see how the Pinocchio President handles this one.

» Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones&#039; Infowars: There&#039;s a war on for your mind!

 

[ocarolan]

To suggest Iran is no threat is simply ridiculous. Volcanos go generations without doing any damage.

In many ways, it's enlightening to compare Iran to Cuba. Both countries ticked off Uncle Sam by going commie and nationalizing their resources. This screwed over a lot of powerful foreign investors, who complained to the US. We put them in the penalty box, but the rest of the world really didn't care.

Decades later, these countries are still in our penalty box, and occasionally get used as a bogey-man. From what I can tell, they really don't return our antagonism. Castro and Khomeini used to spout slogans, and their heirs still do the same, but the people really don't care.

I think most of our anti-Iran folks have probably lived in the US their whole lives. Live in Europe or India for a few years, and it might give a more complete perspective on how other Westerners view Persia.

 

[erudne]

Iran has thousands of agents in the US. Destroy the water supply delivery system to any city, say a desert city, Billions in damage. Katrina in reverse

 

[ATCclears]

White House peeved at Pentagon leaks - POLITICO.com

White House peeved at Pentagon leaks

Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes.

But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself.

"Deeply unhelpful," was how one West Winger described the drip-drip of doubt.

"They need to shut the f--k up," said a former administration official. "It's embarrassing. Who ever heard this much talk before an attack? It's bizarre."

An obvious example was a report in Thursday's Washington Post in which current and former officers listed their worries about Syria:

"I can't believe the president is even considering it," said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. "We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war."

Far more damaging have been a series of disclosures that more subtlely undermine Obama's claim that the Syria action will be quick and clean, punitive and tailored. Earlier this week the New York Times reported on doubts that the main weapon likely employed against Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Tomahawk cruise missile, would have a meaningful impact on the regime's chemical weapons facilities which are widely scattered and likely to be well hidden. This graf, I'm told, chafed in particular:

The weapons are not often effective against mobile targets, like missile launchers, and cannot be used to attack underground bunkers. Naval officers and attack planners concede that the elevation of the missile cannot entirely be controlled and that there is a risk of civilian casualties when they fly slightly high.

The back-and-forth is hardly unprecedented; For decades, military officials -- the people who actually have to implement war plans -- have been a source of dissent. Think Pentagon Papers. And Obama officials say the criticism isn't coming from Secretary Chuck Hagel and his cadre of top aides but lower-ranking brass.

One top leader who has been publicly skeptical of the costs and dangers of getting involved in the Syrian civil war is Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey who offered a cost estimate of $1 billion per month for a no-fly zone and buffer-zone ground force during congressional testimony earlier this summer.

During the same appearance Dempsey predicted such areas could become sanctuaries for Islamic radicals and said even a limited strike, of the type being contemplated now, could cost "billions."

 

[Burt Gummer]

The liars are just at it again, and sadly they will succeed because Americans are willfully ignorant.

 

[ctj]

Syria is not about chemical weapons. It is about the petrol dollar and the survival of the US.

The US, UK, and France know that BRICS will be moving away from dollar backed transactions. Syria’s strategic location and alliance with Russia will ensure that Gazprom will have total dominance of the natural gas market over Europe. The Saudi are scared bubblegumless at this outcome and they are encouraging the ouster of Assad. Obama and Congress know exactly the outcome of a doomed petrol dollar. This roll the dollar plays is only thing left holding it up. When trades no longer accept dollar, money will rush back to the US. We’ll get hyper inflation beyond belief … our way of life will be gone. Why do you think congress is as quiet as a mouse?

 

[erudne]

3 day weekend, lots can happen, I'm thinking Cyprus (in The US)

 

[Burt Gummer]

CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors | The Daily Sheeple

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/war-...he-american-people-are-being-zombified_082013

 

[unklekippy]

CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors | The Daily Sheeple

War Within 72 Hours: ?The World Understands that the American People Are Being Zombified? | The Daily Sheeple

Anyone caught in as many lies as the MSM wouldn't have a reputation to speak of any more. As long as the lies are in favor of The King, what happens to 300 million Americans means nothing.

Of course Anderson Cooper is a liar. He finally told the truth about his sexuality after 45 years of lying. I don't care who anyone sleeps with, but a liar is in fact a liar.

 

[ATCclears]

CURL: Obama&#39;s 2014 calculation: Let&#39;s have a war - Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The first rule for President Obama: It's all about 2014. The second rule for President Obama: See Rule No. 1.

Make no mistake: The president couldn't care less about the plight of Syrians, the 1,500 gassed to death &#8212; including nearly 500 children. It's all about 2014. Win the House, reign supreme.

Consider this: Mr. Obama made his dramatic Rose Garden statement on Saturday &#8212; then headed to the golf course. Congress has no plans to cut short its 30-day vacation, and the president did not call lawmakers back. So much for urgency.

The conventional wisdom is, as usual, wrong. Losing the congressional vote won't be an embarrassment for the president, as all the talking heads are still parroting. A loss would be a double win. First, because a "No" vote would allow the foreign policy neophyte to walk away from his blundering "red line" declaration on chemical weapons ("I wanted to go in, but Congress said no"). And second, should Republicans who voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars now oppose Syria, the president would be armed with clear "evidence" that their opposition is purely political.

Keep in mind: This president knows no other way to campaign than to blame others. He'll batter Republicans for all of 2014 as obstructionists should they be the reason the effort fails.

But the bloviating politicos are also wrong that the "Republican-controlled House" could reject the plan for partisan reasons. It is Democrats who seem most squeamish &#8212; and they were the most vocal in demanding their say before intervention in Syria. Remember, two years ago, as the president prepared to bomb Libya, 70 Democrats joined Republicans in voting against military operations. Mr. Obama bombed anyway.

Still, the entire fiasco has been hard to watch &#8212; "Amateur Hour" indeed. The president declares a "red line," then sees the Syrian dictator cross it again and again. The Nobel Peace Prize winner declares he'll take America to war &#8212; but only then does he seek partners and only to find a "Coalition of the Unwilling." The United Nations says no, the Arab League says no, China and Russia say no &#8212; and even the United Kingdom says no (mainly because Brits did not want to have another U.S.-led war jammed down their throats).

Back home, polls find 80 percent of Americans want Congress to decide, and nearly half oppose intervention. So the president &#8212; hoping to appear magnanimous &#8212; declares he'll seek authorization (read: Share the blame).

Still, the president and his secretary of state are absolutely right. "The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity," John F. Kerry said. Mr. Obama, in his most powerful passage, said: "Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?"

Of course a firm response is the correct action. And Mr. Obama didn't need authority to do so in Syria, just as he didn't in Libya. While Republican support on the Hill now would help Mr. Obama save face after his "red line" throw-down, striking Syria with a few cruise missiles &#8212; however fleeting and ineffectual that would be to the course of its 2-year-old civil war &#8212; would also send a signal to the real target: Iran. That's why, most likely, Republicans will support the president after rewriting the White House's draft resolution.

Now, it is up to Mr. Obama's own party: Does he still hold sway over Democrats? Will they bend to his will? Already, many seem to running for the hills. And if they don't, will the president have the temerity to order strikes anyway?

Whatever happens, this much is clear: We're no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters' phone lines, the NSA's surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

And the most presidential. That, he knows, will play better in the midterm elections, whichever way Congress votes.

Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at [email protected] and on Twitter @josephcurl.

 

[MikeE]

Experts fear War Plan Overlooks Risks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/w...-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html

 

[MikeE]

And another, by Glenn Greenwald:

<broken link removed>

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Most adults are smart enough to know not to fool with a rattlesnake even though they have never been bitten. They recognize the danger. To suggest Iran is no threat is simply ridiculous. Volcanos go generations without doing any damage.
You need to break up your daily sheeple indoctrination with a little reality every now and then. Brainwashing sucks no matter where it comes from.
Are there evil stooges in our government? Hell yes. Should we suspect them of heinous atrocities? We'd be stupid not to. But please Burt, come up for some air once in a while.

Tell me when Iran has ever attacked the USA?