President Obama to Address the Nation on Syria

I see the congressional vote to go to war in Syria as a sham, and a win-win for Obama.

If he doesn't get approval he wins. He will have someone to blame (congress, and the UN) when Syria tares itself to shreds, and the UN will love him for not taking action in Syria in the first place. He would have plenty of reason to come up with new false flag attacks on american soil, and blame it on Syria, Iran, or Al-Qaeda. Then he may go against congressional approval and strike anyway, or call for another vote.

If he does get approval, he wins. He gets to carry out strikes, thus pushing around Assad, and trying to cause fear in the hearts of other Middle East countries that oppose us, in order to change their governments into something we have more control over. Of course the UN will despise him, but I think they already do, as most countries do, without fear of becoming an "Enemy of the States."

In both of these scenarios, he gets to carry out his agenda in full effect without hesitation. Obama wants to strike, and all signs point to certainty.

Obviously Obama will have to reiterate the need to punish those responsible for this attack. That would be the FSA Rebel Terrorists then. The UK supplied the ingredients to make Sarin Gas to the rebels and so did Saudi Arabia. The US supplied Weapons and Logistics. So Saudi Arabia, US and the UK Government should also be punished. So where does Assad and his people fit in? Oh yeah! That big pipeline that they are building. The one going from Iran running through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The one that will be supplying Europe with a heap of Gas. Will the US be involved in that one? Nope. Will the UK be involved in that one? Nope! Will Russia. Yes. Russia already supplies Europe with most of it's Gas.

Does that mean the US and UK will lose out in a lot of money? Yes. Also so will Israel who is trying to expand it's Leviathan Gas field with the help of the UK and US and trying to steal Syria's reservoirs.

So am I saying that this Chemical Attack is just a smokescreen or False Flag attack so that the US and it's NATO allies can steal Syria's resources and then go to war with Iran?

HELL YES!!

Will Congress be persuaded to pass the vote for that attack? Probably! Since most members of Congress will probably be in the pockets of the Zionists then I think this will be more than a 'probably'.

The US, UK and Israeli Armies are ready for the green light. They have been ready for months. This attack will happen. No doubt about that. It's how it get's covertly voted in is the big question. They need to pass it in a way that it doesn't make the public suspicious. Like they did with attacking Iraq using the BS excuse of AQ and OBL being responsible for 9/11. The US are very well practised in deceiving their unwary population. Look at all the wars they have gotten them into with the Bogus excuse for the War on Terror!

Even if Obama goes ahead and attacks Syria and successfully changes the regime ,I am sure people of Syria plus ,Russia,Iran and Hezbollah would not let Americans to have a minute of peace as long as they are in there....I am sure any installed puppet after Assad will face permanent oppositions from the worst kind for years to come or as long as still alive....This looks like a very unlikely scenario,unless of course all parties involved except the poor people of Syria are in it together.

reply to post by shapur


Like I wrote before, it's game over for the alliances that are opposing the US. UN diplomacy is the best card they have to stop the US juggernaut from advancing to any place it wants. Generation big gaps have opened up in some technological areas. A 20 year lead is mammoth to say the least.

reply to post by boncho


Both Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda are currently backing the rebel forces in Syria and I suspect that is a factor in why Obama et al are wishing to also support the Syrian Rebels if only to undermine what would happen should the rebels manage to overthrow Assad. No action basically equates to a likely formation of a country whose leadership may be both hostile to Israel and the US as well as possessing whatever remnants of war stores that Assad held. Syria is, geographically, in a position from which to launch an attack on Israel and they would not need to convince the Syrian people into such a foray due to Israel's own invasions into Syria and its possession of Golan Heights. Removing Assad basically eliminates a threat against Israel but, without involvement to temper future decision making/diplomatic relations, it could simply replace it with a more vicious threat.

Problem is, I suspect that the rationale behind it may be flawed if I'm correct. The reason being is that, as Obama has said, there will be no "boots on the ground". If he is aiming to sway the minds of the Syrian rebels (non-Al Nusra/Qaeda), then what will be on the ground still is solely Al-Nusra/Qaeda. Bleeding next to a man fighting to help you has more impact than remotely sending in air strikes. Thing is, Obama would not be able to convince the American public or Congress to send in ground forces on this one because of the risks. That's not even considering the already potentially tattered diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. It could very well be a zero sum game for US involvement.

Really, if the primary area of concern is that there could be a risk to Israel or Jordan, then both of those countries should be the ones considering entering into the fray against Assad. Both Israel and Jordan have the most to lose and to gain by such an endeavor but only if they played it right and did not act as invaders but as supporters of the Syrian people. It's their minds that need to be won as the article you found suggests.

Just my thinking on the matter with what little I know.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


If the congress approves and Obama launches the strikes, then mere missile strikes say a dozen missiles hitting few targets would not stir up the pot by much. Assad might even suck up and do nothing.


Anything elaborate and consequences would be catastrophic. WMDs might be used with relish and luxury. Obama is wise and calculative enough. He will not escalate situation beyond a tap on the hands.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

If the congress approves and Obama launches the strikes, then mere missile strikes say a dozen missiles hitting few targets would not stir up the pot by much. Assad might even suck up and do nothing.


Anything elaborate and consequences would be catastrophic. WMDs might be used with relish and luxury. Obama is wise and calculative enough. He will not escalate situation beyond a tap on the hands.

Then there is no point in bothering.

This is just another lie to make people think it will be no big deal. This is the same thing kerry says... that it won't escalate. This is just to get the military in there to do a little seemingly harmless trigger pullin. It is just to get them in there and open it up.

Then there is no stopping it.

If It is just going to be some small thing.... then why do so many on here pull for this little small non effective thing?

It doesn't fool anybody. Stop kidding yourself.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


US does not have balls to get its military into even half prep theater like Libya and Syria is a hard hard nut to deal with. Elaborate bombing is only thing US would do if matters escalate. If needed then, military in there would be Jordan, Turkey and Saudi not US or UK or France etc.

If I were Assad, I would suck up 12-16 Tomahawks hitting empty barracks or junked tanks depot. Israel bombed his nuke research station in 2007 and Assad did not do anything. Probably he replied via Hizbulloh and terrorism adventures. That is the way he will reply for pin prick attack also.

However, any elaborate campaign, then be prepared for a) mini World War in the region b) WMDs flying around like loose cotton in a friendly pillow fights.

Russia won't join in but will supply weapons........won't leave Assad to the fate of Gaddahfi. Iran will initially via proxy and later in full force. Main question is that of Iraq, what will Iran controlled Iraq do? Afghanistan will heat up again from both Iran and Pakistan efforts. Iran because they need to create diversion for the US. Pakistan because it needs US money to stop the AQ types from running attacks on the US forces. Pak encourage AQ attacks in order to squeeze more bucks from the Uncle Sam.

Nopes!! Barak O is much clever and calculative, expect the pin pricks not the intervention.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Btw, Pravda says Comrade Gennaddy Zuganov, the communist chief in moscow says after Syria it will be Russia facing the attack. Go figure !! Sometimes, Commies do also come up with solid predictions

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” Palin

just sayin

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

US does not have balls to get its military into even half prep theater like Libya and Syria is a hard hard nut to deal with. Elaborate bombing is only thing US would do if matters escalate. If needed then, military in there would be Jordan, Turkey and Saudi not US or UK or France etc.

If I were Assad, I would suck up 12-16 Tomahawks hitting empty barracks or junked tanks depot. Israel bombed his nuke research station in 2007 and Assad did not do anything. Probably he replied via Hizbulloh and terrorism adventures. That is the way he will reply for pin prick attack also.

However, any elaborate campaign, then be prepared for a) mini World War in the region b) WMDs flying around like loose cotton in a friendly pillow fights.

Russia won't join in but will supply weapons........won't leave Assad to the fate of Gaddahfi. Iran will initially via proxy and later in full force. Main question is that of Iraq, what will Iran controlled Iraq do? Afghanistan will heat up again from both Iran and Pakistan efforts. Iran because they need to create diversion for the US. Pakistan because it needs US money to stop the AQ types from running attacks on the US forces. Pak encourage AQ attacks in order to squeeze more bucks from the Uncle Sam.

Nopes!! Barak O is much clever and calculative, expect the pin pricks not the intervention.

edit on 2-9-2013 by victor7 because: (no reason given)

this really doesn't make any sense when the US is basically trying to lay it's balls across the worlds nose.

"pin prick" attacks could be orchestrated without this huge "to do"

Throughout history they have held strikes in numerous places without most of the public even knowing about it.

I don't pretend to know what will happen like I'm reading it from a manual (like some) but I can lay out some conjecture as well... and I say that the US will keep up with that "pin pricking" until Iran jumps... which is exactly what they want. Then it will be as though western lead forces or Israel have been suddenly attacked by Iran after their harmless little pin prick endeavors. If everyone just ignores this strike because they know it's bait (which is why Syria has not yet hit Israel back).... the US will keep it up. This will not be the end of it. This is not going to make anything go away. To continuing fueling it until violent reactions across borders are obtained is the goal right from the beginning. So again, if this is just a pin prick... it's pointless. It's just an endeavor within a series and part of the larger instigation to war. The US has absolutely no problems spending the lives of it's own serviceman to fuel a large war when they think that war will never hit it's borders.

It wouldn't surprise me if the forces there we'd expect to retaliate do nothing because shooting back in foreign lands and starting something bigger is exactly what the US wants and not where the true battlefront is.

Keep it up, Washington. Every dog has it's day.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


There is no end to argument and creation of possibilities. Call it false flag or whatever, but use of WMDs is not acceptable in this world in 2013 and beyond. Period!

However, instigating civil wars in third world countries in the name of changing regime and removing dictators and resulting in 100K and more killed and 5 million displaced........................IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE !!!!!!!!!

A devil who is smiling is still a devil. Just because US is hiding behind its Arab poodles in this instigation, does not mean US is innocent and not complicit in this tragedy of human beings.

reply to post by victor7


Spot on! There is no place for that on this planet or any other planet...or Universe! There's an old story about Mars that involves the Zeta's and the complete devastation of the civilization that originated there millions of years ago. The moral of the story: We cannot continue down the warpath, for the path ends with our complete destruction.

People of the U.S. if you've already decided that the crap these politicians are feeding you is a lie, then good, if not, let me show you just what those who want military action against a country which has already had thousands killed and millions displaced, really think about the seriousness of the matter, John McCain everybody:

US Senator John McCain has been caught playing poker on his iPhone during a key hearing about the possible use of military force in Syria.

news.sky.com...

Incredible

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

That's it? That's what you've got.

I'm opposed to military action against Syria. Did what I could, wrote my congress(wo)man to express my opinion. Don't like McCain one bit...
But you really think that clip is meaningful?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

That's it? That's what you've got.

I'm opposed to military action against Syria. Did what I could, wrote my congress(wo)man to express my opinion. Don't like McCain one bit...
But you really think that clip is meaningful?

Got your goat didn't it?

Not meaningful enough to warrant it's own thread but meaningful enough to mention

And apparently McCain will now oppose a draft resolution of any strike and here's his explanation on his phone antics:

www.liveleak.com...