RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "Although the Obama administration still hopes to avoid military intervention in Syria and is publicly backing a U.N. effort to broker a cease-fire this week, it has also stepped deliberately onto a slippery slope that is likely to lead to more intervention."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Syrian National Council at the Istanbul Congress Center. (photo: AP)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Syrian National Council at the Istanbul Congress Center. (photo: AP)

US Likely to Intervene in Syria

By Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times

09 April 12


Intervention is likely, and the United States won't wait as long as it did in Bosnia.

he interventionist liberals of the Obama administration were a doleful bunch last week. It was the 20th anniversary of the siege of Sarajevo, when a Bosnian Serb army battered a city full of civilians with artillery while the United States issued ineffective cries of alarm. The comparison with this year's massacres in Syria was painfully apt.

Now, as then, the United Nations Security Council has asked both sides to stop shooting, to no great effect. Now, as then, the United States and its allies are rejecting the idea of military intervention as too difficult, too risky, too likely to add to the violence instead of ending it.

In Bosnia, it took the United States more than three years and many massacres to decide that diplomatic measures and sanctions weren't enough. But finally, in August 1995, then-President Clinton ordered airstrikes against the Bosnian Serbs; that turned the tide of the war and led to peace negotiations within weeks.

But there's one big difference between the situation in Bosnia and that in Syria: This time, the clock is moving faster.

Although the Obama administration still hopes to avoid military intervention in Syria and is publicly backing a U.N. effort to broker a cease-fire this week, it has also stepped deliberately onto a slippery slope that is likely to lead to more intervention.

Unlike with Bosnia, where the United States and its allies initially sought to be neutral in a civil war, this time the U.S. has already chosen a side: It has called on Syria's dictator, Bashar Assad, to step down, and it has embraced the opposition Syrian National Council.

At a meeting in Istanbul last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced an escalation of U.S. aid to the opposition. In public, she pointed to a doubling of medical and other humanitarian aid, plus the provision of communication equipment. Less publicly, officials confirmed that the new package also includes "non-lethal" help that will go to the Free Syrian Army, the newly formed opposition armed forces, including night-vision goggles and U.S. intelligence information such as early warnings of Syrian troop movements.

And while the United States has decided not to provide weapons to the rebels, it isn't objecting to military funding or arms shipments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab states that would like to see Assad fall.

In the short term, the administration says it still hopes former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan can arrange a cease-fire, and that Assad will - improbably - decide to step down.

But I couldn't find anyone in the administration last week who believed that outcome was likely. For one thing, Assad believes he's winning; there's no reason for him to surrender now. The best hope seems to be that the government crackdown will become less lethal.

If the pace of the killing slows, that could buy time: time for economic sanctions to undermine the regime, time to cajole Russia to switch sides and help pull the rug out from Assad, but also time for the opposition and its new army to organize themselves into a more effective force.

If those measures fail to bring Assad down, the administration appears divided on how quickly to move toward military intervention. The Pentagon is reluctant to get involved in another war, as the Pentagon usually is. Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, has also weighed in against any post-Libya temptation to "militarize" another problem. Clinton's State Department has sounded the most hawkish notes - in part, perhaps, because it's Clinton who has delivered most of the administration's public declarations that Assad must go.

But even the administration's humanitarian hawks don't think the moment for U.S. or NATO military intervention has arrived yet.

They'd like the U.N. Security Council to give its blessing first, or - if Russia and China continue to resist - at least NATO. They'd like the Syrian opposition to be better organized, with more assurance that military aid wouldn't fall into the hands of radical Islamists. They'd like Turkey to establish safe havens for the opposition along its border with Syria.

Eventually, though, the question of military intervention will change from if to when. The United States is already a little bit pregnant - already committed to helping Assad fall. It's merely looking for the least violent, lowest cost way to get there.

In Bosnia, it took more than three years for the United States to overcome its reservations and resort to military force. But that was a generation ago, when the idea of humanitarian intervention in a civil war was still novel. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+23 # MidwestTom 2012-04-09 09:24
Why are our committing our military to another war, one that has the prospect of getting much larger? In Bosnia neither of the two sides were backed by another militarily strong country. That is not the case in Syria. Why not let the Syrians fight it out. Why do we, a broke nation with an outsized military have to get involved in every conflict on earth. There is no oil in Syria. Syrians did not attack us on 9/11. Obama ran as a peace candidate. Does he now think a war will help his re-election?
+18 # cadan 2012-04-09 10:13
Yes ---- why oh why oh why does our government want our broke nation to go massacre a bunch of Syrians?

And not a thought of a vote in Congress (not that they'd have the sense to vote against a war).

I think the only thing this guarantees is that more and more countries will feel that they absolutely must have a few nukes so that foreigners don't dare come intervening.

Maybe Reagan really was right, and the nukes really are peace keepers. Except that it is not our nukes that will do the peace keeping.
-1 # mjc 2012-04-09 10:37
Why not let the Syrians fight it out??? You didn't get the message in the blog that Assad is continuing his bloody massacre because he IS winning. It isn't a fight amongst equal groups at all and lots of civilians, children especially are killed for no good reason except that they live in a neighborhood under fire from the tanks and missiles.
-1 # Glen 2012-04-09 15:10
Did you not get the message that Russia has sent troops into Syria? Who the hell wants a world war?
-2 # mjc 2012-04-10 08:28
I see the isolationists in this country are thriving. The UN IS the body to stop these massacres but you apparently don't give a damn to help a people who are systematically being ethnically cleansed. Good example of a man doing nothing to avoid being involved.
0 # Activista 2012-04-10 11:59
Russia did NOT send troops into Syria
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-04-09 17:57
This is different from what other nation in chaos? Syria as many has been fighting for is their war, their beliefs. We have no business to go near Syria.
This is not for America but perhaps for Israel....not a good thing. Keep our noses out of other people's business, until we can clean up America.
0 # mjc 2012-04-10 08:34
Absolutely. Please refer to my post below. We waited far too long to get some understanding of the violence in Bosnia and we are doing it again in Syria. The reason the UN was created was to bring conflicts like this to the other member nations in order to end the internecine violence and the killings of so many civilians.
+1 # James38 2012-04-11 11:25
This is an inhumane and erroneous comment. Inhumane because it condemns the civilian protesters in Syria to continued massacre by Assad, and erroneous because MidwestTom is amazingly ignorant of the fact that Syria has significant oil deposits and that much of the Syrian economy is dependent on exporting oil.

All of the people giving this comment up votes are apparently also ignoring or ignorant of these facts.

There seems to be some sort of knee-jerk negative response to the use of US forces in just causes. Iraq was a mistake, a truly horrible mistake by the GW Bush Mis-Administrat ion. However, the assistance given to Libya and that being considered for Syria are of a different order altogether. We need to discuss these differences and try to understand a new course for the use of military force in the future.

While any use of military force indicates a failure of society to live up to reasonable expectations, we obviously have an immature society. However there is a new vast problem we face that has hardly been taken seriously by the governments of the world. That is Climate Change, caused by overpopulation and heedless consumption of resources, especially fossil fuels.
0 # James38 2012-04-11 11:27
Unless the world unites, and quits the use and development of huge military forces for useless conflicts, we will squander our time and energy until we are doomed to climate disasters that can only be avoided by correct action very soon. We must convert the Earth to non-fossil energy, and that includes building the new and very safe Generation 3 and 4 reactors. Generation 4 reactors are not only very safe, they can use existing stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as fuel, solving the storage problem and giving us power for hundreds of years.

There are many repressive dictatorships that need to be dismantled, and the idea of "National Sovereignty" needs to be re-defined. No dictator should be given the respect due to a democratically elected leader, (and that, rather clearly, applies to the stolen election of GW Bush. His war was the action of a dictator, not a democratically elected President. Bush, Condi, Cheney, Tenet, and other top W administration officials who knew full well that Saddam did not have WMD, should be tried as war criminals.

+1 # James38 2012-04-11 11:28

We need serious discussion, not assertions of ignorance and repetitions of propaganda. Many commentators in this discussion are failing to check their facts before writing a comment. Please use the resource of the Internet to learn some things, not just to repeat propaganda you have heard from others. It can be tricky at first, since many sites exist that support any old idea. However, a diligent search will eventually turn up good information.
-2 # mjc 2012-04-09 09:54
Assad's government via the military have already killed something like 10,000 Syrians and execute any possible "rebels" almost every day, according to some observers. The United States would better focus whatever pressure is possible on the Russians because it just doesn't seem any sort of niche for military intervention here except in secondary areas like the night goggles and facilitating the refugee problem. Not sure what quid pro quo could be available for the Chinese but there are some issues that could be weighed in to favor Russian support.
+17 # Archie1954 2012-04-09 10:11
"US likely to intervene". What nonsense! Everyone already knows that the USD supplied armaments to the rebels to get the whole civil war thing started in the first place. The intervention has already destabilized the country which is exactly what US terrorist objectives do.
+9 # John Locke 2012-04-09 12:07
I had thought since Russia was backing Assad that we would not dare to intervene; now I see we are using subterfuge through other countries. I also suspect now that we may actually commit forces or at least drones!

Syria was one of the Countries Murdoch supported neo-con PNAC planned to attack along with Iran! Murdoch’s stooge who runs the Weekly Standard…Willia m Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. This is what the right wing war mongers want, and this is what will happen no matter who is in the White House. It’s a done deal, its just when!
-12 # Robt Eagle 2012-04-09 14:31
Woah Archie, wasn't the rebel peaceful protests just like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, then Assad started having his military kill the women and children? Come on, peaceful protest never leads to police action unless the police are the bad guys, like right here in the US, per most folks on this site. So, what to do...let thousands die at the hands of Assad, or fund the Syrian rebels? I have an idea, instead of giving those massive donations to RSN site(this site), donate to the UN peace initiative, yeah, that will fix everything, won't it?
+11 # cadan 2012-04-09 15:25
I think supporting RSN is one concrete thing to do to make a better world, simply because it gets the facts out. On those occasions when you don't agree you can comment (as you, and i, do).

The main stream media (MSM) are not our friends, and have lost whatever interest they ever had in just letting the facts be known.
0 # James38 2012-04-11 10:32
Yo ho, Eagle gets the wrong spoon in the wrong pot and stirs like crazy, again. Wonder how the chocolate mousse will taste in the Pizza sauce?
+2 # James38 2012-04-11 10:19
Archie 1954 - Do you have ANY evidence to support this assertion? This is the first time I have heard this, and not being part of "Everyone", I have some serious doubts.
+16 # burner 2012-04-09 10:26
I suppose the bilderbergers have decided to invade every country that doesn't agree to sell them their oil or chemical companies; why are they allowed to get away with this? because all the governments like hillary clinton etc are bilderbergers, or CFR members; now that they own the press they have arranged that no one talks about this. They fabricate lies in order to try to justify going into these countries and killing and maiming millions of innocents, this includes former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia. The true 'terrorists' are right at home being paid for by your tax dollars, truly amazing.
0 # James38 2012-04-11 10:39
Hmm, conspiracy theorists and isolationists abound. We really need to fund education before this country falls totally apart from lack of historical awareness and honest news.

The whole right-wingnut/r eligionut faction is supported on a solid foundation of misinformation, lies, and ignorance. When those ingredients are moistened with copious amounts of frenzy-sweat and alligator-tears it sets up real firm in the minds of the poorly educated.
+12 # Dorcas Black 2012-04-09 10:49
I feel for the Syrians being slaughtered, but having served in the military, I, like the Pentagon, am very reluctant to intervene with U.S. armed forces. It doesn't surprise me that the loudest voices in the Obama administration in favor of intervention are those who never served.

I have less problem with logistical support and would like to see the U.S. help assemble a coalition of other nations that might be willing to intervene on the ground. But I don't think there is much to be gained by us continuing see ourselves as the only policeman around.
+6 # Martintfre 2012-04-09 10:51
What part of not our business dont they get?

How well did that work out in Libya - now run by the Muslim Brotherhood - and AlQaeda ? Or Egypt -- now run by the Muslim Brotherhood...

Obama Promised to end out war mongering - but he lied Obama simply is Bush III
We need Ron Paul to stop our endless War mongering.
0 # RSN rocks 2012-04-09 11:18
The eternal question is: How much evil must we commit in order to do good? Clearly in Iraq, we committed far greater evil than the supposed "good" of transforming Iraq into a model Middle East democracy (didn't happen) or finding those WMDs (NOT!) or punishing Saddam for his role in 9/11 (double NOT!) Ditto for Afghanistan. At least in Libya and Egypt we got rid of the dictators (yes, I know we helped create those monsters) without setting up military bases there. We should've intervened in Bosnia sooner -- thousands of innocent civilians would be alive today. It was too little too late. Let's intervene in Syria before its too late there. Just funnel the money we give to Israel to military and non-military aid to the Syrian rebels!
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-04-09 18:03
Israel and Syria do not get along...perhaps we should stay out of there business and funnel the money into America to provide jobs for Americans and let those who have warred for centuries, clean up their messes.
Democracy must come from within...You cannot give any freedom...Has not worked since Reagun.
+2 # Dion Giles 2012-04-09 11:19
In how many countries has US military intervention given Al-Qa'eda a toehold already? Is Syria to be the next one? Is the plan for Syria to be taken over by Al-Qa'eda followed by Israeli intervention later to get rid of them -- and to expand Eretz Israel?
-2 # Stephen 2012-04-09 11:19
Syrians today fired across the Turkish border at the refugee camps there. Turkey might enforce a no-fly safety zone for refugees in the border regions, a zone which could be expanded on humanitarian grounds. Assad is finished; patience as he massacres more and more people will give way to a determination to get rid of him.
+9 # FLAK88 2012-04-09 11:19
I would perhaps consider some action if it was UN sanctioned and organized. PERHAPS. However, I 100% oppose anything that would involve us going out on our own. Those things always end badly ...
-2 # Dion Giles 2012-04-09 11:26
Assad makes peaceful promises and they keep breaking down. This suggests that the military thugs, not Assad, are calling the shots. In that situation, forcing Assad to step down may not be the smartest move. Better perhaps to help him grow a spine.
+3 # daveapostles 2012-04-09 11:27
Let the Arab League, Saudis, Turkey etc sort it out. You have expended enough lives in futile actions. The military should not be more than peacekeepers under the blue flag of the UN.
+13 # Anarchist 23 2012-04-09 11:36
Considering that our intervention in Iraq resulted in over 1,000,000 Iraqis dead, in Viet Nam over 3,000,000 dead and birth defects from Agent Orange still occurring to this day ( I was just there I saw them with my own eyes)and ongoing deaths in Afghanistan, our intervention in Syria would be the 'cure' being worse than the 'disease' War- it may well begin May 10.
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-04-09 18:07
We were supposed to be rid of agent orange but now it may be on our market shelves in corn, in grains, flour but esp in animals food from cow to guinea pigs. I hope all the officials eat it first.
-1 # Activista 2012-04-10 12:10
Quoting Anarchist 23:
Considering that our intervention in Iraq resulted in over 1,000,000 Iraqis dead
and more than
after 2003 - 1,000,000 Iraqis refugees (from Iraq Freedom) to Syria has traditionally served as a refuge for exiles and displaced peoples in the region, and notably maintained a pan-Arabist tradition of keeping its borders open to other Arabs since 1960.[2] Since 1948, several waves of Palestinians entered the country, where over 400,000 live today. During the July War of 2006, around 100,000 Lebanese citizens fled to Syria to find short-term shelter.[3] Syria welcomed several small waves of Iraqis beginning in the 1930's, including exiles from political opposition movements and later Shi'a and Kurds seeking refuge from the Hussein regime. Syria closed its border with Iraq in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, though it was re-opened in 1997. By 1999 the flow of Iraqis into Syria resumed, and by 2003 an estimated 250,000 Iraqis had fled to Syria. -
+8 # 2012-04-09 11:56
This writer ought to read about the innocent Serbs killed by Clinton before he praises Clinton's intervention. Atrocities were committed by all sides during the Kosovo conflict, but post-war analysis from impeccably neutral reviewers indicates that the Kosovar fatality figures were hugely exaggerated.

Regarding Syria however, our involvement is already under way. At the recent confab in Istambul, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States would contribute an additional $12.2 million for humanitarian aid to Syria, bringing the U.S. total since the uprising began to $25 million, as well as "communications equipment" to "help activists organize, evade attacks by the regime, and connect to the outside world."

We've clearly already taken sides and, while both sides seem unworthy of our support, if the rebels succeed in establishing yet another sharia-governed state, we will be responsible for the inevitable persecution of Jews, Christians, Alawites, Twelvers, Ismailis, and Druze -- not to mention the inevitable degradation of women.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-04-09 18:09
Got the Degradation of women here in USA, seems that is what Nations must want. Do not think it will be that easy.

I would like to see Hilary to go to Syria and fight alongside the women. Then let her come and speak to us.
+18 # genierae 2012-04-09 12:03
I was very glad that Hillary Clinton wasn't elected president because she was such a warmonger and now she is in a position to influence Obama to make war. We have NO business in the middle east, we are in decline as a nation, and we must STOP trying to force our will on other countries. Just as in Iraq, the Syrian people are the only ones who have the right to oust their dictator, and if it is violent, that is up to them. It makes me sick to think of how my government allows the Palestinians to be brutalized by the dictator government of Israel, where is our intervention there? NO MORE WAR!!
+9 # cordleycoit 2012-04-09 12:22
Hey these are the people who brought us Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the military geniuses who slaughter our troops their troops and all the civilians we can bomb. These guys are nuts thinking they can do it differently. Nothing brings fighting men together with their bare hands or small caliber rifles Who have defeated the American presence time after time. Have a great war minus me and my children.
+3 # dick 2012-04-09 12:23
The White House is no doubt asking itself, "What morally & legally righteous response to ASSad will GET US RE-ELECTED?"
-1 # John Somebody 2012-04-09 12:46
Mid West Tom thinks, "In Bosnia neither of the two sides were backed by another militarily strong country". Strange he's forgotten Russian support for Serb nationalists, which kept NATO out for too long to stop the Srebreniza etc, massacres.

Archie 1954, thinks that, "Everyone already knows that the USD supplied armaments to the rebels to get the whole civil war thing started in the first place". Nausea appears every time,someone tells me, that "everyone knows" something, that I have no reason to know. Who do they mean by, "everyone", and why do they talk like that ?

Consider please, the next time any of you get threatened by fascist counter demonstrators, and the cops just stand around, having a laugh. If then they get pressured by the general public, to "do something", will you appreciate protests against the cops being forced to do what they ought to do ? Of course, in the long run, the cops are part of the problem. And the public's reliance on them, in the long run, is also used to decieve people about the function of the police. That it suits governments purpose for victims to beg for action, before more are slaughtered, does not diminish the fact, that if the immediate action is not taken to prevent immediate slaughter, there will be slaughter. And fascists like Assad, will take comfort from immitation lefties doing their part.

What to do,about the bigger, more subtle iron fist/velvet glove fascists is sepearate issue
0 # cadan 2012-04-09 16:57
I believe Archie 1954 is right, that the rebels are being armed by our government.

It's our modus operandi.

Does the government even deny it?

(Note that if one of our puppets in the area is supplying the arms, it's really the same thing as if we were, as they wouldn't have the arms otherwise.)

This is why wikileaks is so valuable (to provide documentation of what we know is true).
+1 # James38 2012-04-11 10:47
I asked Archie for evidence. You say you "believe". Where is the evidence? Or are you just doing the "religious" thing of believing in the "Invisible Sky Fairy"? Maybe "everyone knows" the "Sky Fairy" is arming the rebels?
+1 # James38 2012-04-11 11:10
I think you are on the right track, John. Lets hear some more from you.

I have an equally nauseated reaction to the "everyone knows" bit. The mullah's call to faith from the Minaret of Ignorance.
+3 # wfalco 2012-04-09 13:35
I don't see U.S. intervention in Syria happening. We are over-extended and the mission is unclear.
The policy makers of the corporatist, military/indust rial organized crime syndicate are not interested. Syrian atrocities are in the news so it is given some lip service by our State Dept.

The syndicate certainly has zero interest in a humanitarian mission. Clinton's Bosnian intervention was,primarily, a result of European pressure(Tony Blair.)
Also there are certainly similarities between Libya and Syria.Both rebellions are understandable from the viewpoint of the rebels. However,there is one huge difference. Libya had Quaddafi. He was a famous devil going back to the 80's. We ran our smear campaign against him(some deserved)for decades. Assad? Citizens of the U.S. do not know this man. He has not been demonized and is an unknown.
So what would the reason be for intervention?
+10 # Activista 2012-04-09 13:51
Syria is part of US-Israeli - Saudi new Iran war. Who is allowing, paying, providing logistic for looted arms from Libya now in Turkey, used by terrorists in Syria? Look at "liberated Libya" - the same objectives, the same US NEOCONS are behind.
Compare Syria to our "liberation" aka DESTRUCTION of Libya - how ANYBODY can believe Hillary war propaganda? In referendum 60% of Syrian voted 80% for for political (NOT military) change.
+9 # James Marcus 2012-04-09 14:16
Washington Desires to 'Broker Peace' (how appropriately tongue-in-cheek !) , in yet another Country.
This is worse than'Lucy, Charlie Brown and the Football'.
Yet another Intervention-fo r-Peace, by the World's Biggest War Machine.
Ah, More Dollars For Daddy.....
(don't forget to train your kids to volunteer for Military service!)
+10 # vproodian 2012-04-09 14:40
simple facts 101.-
A.- The writer calls Assad a dictator (no question about that), while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are simply called "states". Forgets to mention that those too, along with ALL the GCC emirates, are bastions of democracy and human rights... while being absolute monarchs.

B.- Mr. McManus deliberately fails to mention that Assad has accepted the Annan plan (which includes a cease fire), while the so called opposition refuses.

C.- Does Mr. McManus have any idea about how many innocen women, kids and elderly have been massacred by the Free Syrian Army (AKA libyan, Gulf and Afgan mercenaries and religious zealots)?

D.- The "Syrian problem" is not about democracy and human rights. Its about toppling the regime within the framework of regional strategic change. Any 10th grader in the Middle East knows this better than Mr. McManus. (Sorry to say).

Oh well, who cares?!

Another piece of brilliant war propaganda.
0 # James38 2012-04-11 11:04
War propaganda? Did vproodian read the same article? This one says, "Although the Obama administration still hopes to avoid military intervention in Syria and is publicly backing a U.N. effort to broker a cease-fire this week, it has also stepped deliberately onto a slippery slope that is likely to lead to more intervention."

Doesn't sound like "war Propaganda" to me. It sounds like an honest attempt to analyze the situation.

vproodian says, " Mr. McManus deliberately fails to mention that Assad has accepted the Annan plan (which includes a cease fire), while the so called opposition refuses."

How and where he justifies "deliberately fails to mention" I couldn't guess, but Assad only needs to quit the killing and use of military force to repress peaceful protests. Then he could simply hold an election, and be voted out of office, no further conflict. Right?

If you think Assad has any interest in a resolution that doesn't include him in power, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-04-09 18:15
Let Hilary lead the charge in person. She and her spouse started many ruses so she will not stop.
Never thought she was such a blood sucker...Well, Hilary you go and you fight alongside, then you come back and tell us all about it like an adult.

I am glad you are not President,.
-1 # Activista 2012-04-09 20:20
Quoting KittatinyHawk:
Let Hilary
I am glad you are not President,.

It seems that Clintons are running US foreign NEOCON policy/Obama - and (AIPAC is running Clintons).
So as foreign policy goes - Hillary is a president with McCain, Lieberman and Graham calling the shoots. Check: McCain, Graham, Lieberman Unveil Resolution Calling For U.S. Help In Arming Syria Rebels
0 # Activista 2012-04-09 21:17
Syria's Christians Fear Persecution, Being Forced Out If Assad Is ...
Mar 9, 2012 – In addition, thousands of Iraqi Christians sought sanctuary in Syria, which today has an estimated 2.5 million faithful who have traditionally ...
and US media is SILENT ... CENSORED .. just WAR propaganda
-1 # Jane Gilgun 2012-04-10 09:16
Stop. Think. In the US we are letting children and families die through abuse and neglect. Where is concern for the suffering all around us. Should we not take out the log out of our own eyes before we judge others for the speck in their eyes. Let the UN intervene in Syria. It's their job.
-1 # Activista 2012-04-10 11:57
Quoting Jane Gilgun:
Stop. Think. Let the UN intervene in Syria. It's their job.

UN became extension/pawn of USA imperialistic policy. Study UN/NATO "liberation aka destruction" of Libya.
The same pattern is applied to Syria. Wish the author used Libya NOT Bosnia in his analogy for "free" Syria.
0 # Activista 2012-04-10 22:18
US Military Spending and the National Debt:
Roots of the 2008 “Crash” of the Global Capitalist Financial System
By Hassan Ali El-Najjar, Ph.D.
search above - there is almost 1:1 correlation.
And Obama is INCREASING military spending and national debt - it is military stupid - NOT job growth what today (2012) NEOCONS are spending $$$ on.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.