The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Whats it gonna take to stop this genocide.

Certainly not a cruise missile attack carried out by the US Navy. How many innocent civilians would be killed as a result of "collateral damage?" What assurances would there be that none of the missiles would strike a target incorrectly reported to be a military one when in fact it could be a hospital, a school, or a factory where civilians are employed? If the Assad regime does in fact possess chemical weapons, would a missile strike eliminate or diminish such stockpiles, and if so then how? By blasting them? Wouldn't that release an enormous cloud of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, potentially killing thousands of innocents in the surrounding area? These are all logical and pertinent questions that no one in Barry's administration has even attempted to answer.

[rickoff]

Some timely petitions you might want to sign....

A Call for Eric Holder's Resignation & Prosecution

1,083,855 Letters and Emails Sent So Far

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



200,467 Letters and Emails Sent So Far

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defund Obamacare NOW

682,877 Letters and Emails Sent So Far

[aljhoa]

By Rep. Ted Poe
Published August 28, 2013

Syria's other ally, Russia, said that U.S. military intervention would be catastrophic.
There will be consequences for the United States if it gets directly involved in this war that will extend far beyond the borders of Syria.

What is the legal authority of the president to go to war?
According to a former professor of constitutional law:
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack
in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I could not have said it better myself.
That sentence was uttered by candidate Barack Obama in 2007.
Read more:
If Obama plans to strike Syria, he must first ask Congress for the green light | Fox News

Al

[jdodson]

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack
in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

When has the Constitution ever stopped Obama before? Obamacare is unconstitutional, not to mention Obama very well may not even be a legal president.

I'm impressed by Obama's decision. He absolutely could have unilaterally ordered a strike. I think the only thing that stopped him was the drop he would have taken in the polls.

Many people are sick of the never ending war in the middle east.
They have been at war long before America was born and many of them don't want democracy.

In Syria its a civil war, both sides have killed many people on the opposition. Who are we to decide the murderers on one side are better than the other? Neither want democracy, correct? If we help the rebels (who may be no better than Al-Qaeda) and they gain leadership, would they be any less violent towards the people who dissent?

[Dave45]

I dont understand where they get these poles their always talking about, they say 49 percent are for the invasion, this 49 nine percent must be on mars because everyone I talk to is against any kind of intervention.

Someone with computer skills should setup a voting board on facebook where Americans had to log in and could only vote once.

Lets take our own poll.

I call BS

[dutchdivco]

Hey, all

Rick, your point about the 'war on Poverty' is a good one, i.e that the Gov't's actions have made matters worse. Without Welfare, its up to non-profit organisations, i.e. churches. And what is the underlieing principle of church 'poverty programs'? "If you feed a hungry man today, you will have to feed him again, tomorrow. However, if you teach him to FISH,...."
They do NOT tend to create programs, the net effect of which is to KEEP people in Poverty.
A lot of people are talking about ways to reduce the cost of College tuition. A (unfortunately small) group of people are saying the BEST thing to do; get the Government OUT of funding college. Costs have gone up in DIRECT proportion to tha amount of available Gov't funding, for many years.

AS a kind of extension of that "Hows that hpey-changey thing working for you, now???", I wonder what those who were drinkers of the kool-aid, 'hard-core' O'bummer supporters and absolute Bush-haters are feeling now, as O'bummer seems to be morphing into BUSH, more and more each day?

After all, he INCREASED drone strikes, and now seems to fully support unilateral military action in the middle east, to address a ? 'weapons of mass destruction' claim.
I actually heard Barry trying to justify an action against Syria, by saying these chemical weapons could possibly be used agains US, i.e. the U.S.

BOY, is THAT a stretch, as while Syria may well have a large stockpile of chemical weapons, they are battlefield weapons, and no one has said anything about them having rockets capable of hitting the U.S.

I did see a former U.N. weapons inspector saying they CAN tell if SARIN came from Syrian Government stockpiles or not; it will have preservative in it, which some home-brewed version wouldn't have. But, still doesn't rule out the possibility of the 'rebels' getting ahold of some FROM the Gov't stockpiles. And, many of the rebels are former Gov't soldiers, who defected.

I suspect the main reason the U.N. inspectors were NOT under a mandate to detirmine WHO used the chemical weapons, is that in this situation, in the 'fog of war', it would be impossible to detirmine with any certainty, at least with the resources they have available.Jim

[dutchdivco]

John Kerry; surreal

This last week; the 'darling' of the liberal anti-war movement, from his "What do you say, to the last man to die in vietnam?" line, to his vociferous critisism of Bush for "Going to war in Iraq based on "cherry-picked" and even 'manufactured' evidence of weapons of mass destruction, now taking up O'bummers arguments for 'action' (not clear WHAT action, or what its intended to accomplish) in Syria.Just,....well, bizarre!Jim

[Mad Scientist]

I dont understand where they get these poles their always talking about, they say 49 percent are for the invasion, this 49 nine percent must be on mars because everyone I talk to is against any kind of intervention.

Someone with computer skills should setup a voting board on facebook where Americans had to log in and could only vote once.

Lets take our own poll.

I call BS

DRUDGE REPORT did that to other day.

He got slightly different results then those pole numbers.

With close to 500,000 votes 92% said we should stay out of Syria.

[rickoff]

I did see a former U.N. weapons inspector saying they CAN tell if SARIN came from Syrian Government stockpiles or not; it will have preservative in it, which some home-brewed version wouldn't have. But, still doesn't rule out the possibility of the 'rebels' getting ahold of some FROM the Gov't stockpiles. And, many of the rebels are former Gov't soldiers, who defected.

Yes, the presence of a preservative in the Sarin would offer no proof whatsoever that it was manufactured for, or used by, the Syrian government forces. Actually, there is some evidence that the rebels have been stocking Sarin and other chemicals which were packaged at a Saudi chemical factory, and may have caused a Sarin release by mishandling the stock.

Also, as this Russia Today (RT) newscast claims, Syrian government forces found a rebel controlled chemical storehouse with toxic chemicals labeled as packaged in Saudi Arabia. A Russian delegation is now said to be coming to Washington to address Congress and present their evidence of rebel use of Sarin in an attempt to convince Congress that a vote to attack the Assad regime would be a mistake.

[dutchdivco]

Hypocrisy's abound

Rick, as our resident researcher/historian, did 'we' i.e. the U.S, or the 'international community', do ANYTHING i.e. 'military action', when Saddam Hussien used chemical weapons on 'HIS' own people? (Actually, he would say they weren't HIS people, I believe they were 'kurds'?

So much fr this so-called 'international norm', supposedly recognised since WW1!

And even so, what a rediculous 'international norm or international law', that you can kill as many of your people (reportedly over 100,000) as you want, using 'conventional weapons', mortars, tanks, bombs from planes, etc. and 'thats o.k.', but if you kill 1000-2000 using chemical weapons, well, THATS a 'red line'.

Quite frankly, O'bummer is actually starting to make Bush 2 look good! After all, ALL 'intelligence agencies' thought Sodamn Insane HAD 'weapons of mass destruction', and he DID have Colin Powell go before the U.N, and at least present a case! Granted, much of the info he presented turned out to be BS, but, hey, O'bummer ain't even doing that!
And, I'm sure you've all noticed, while he and his keep saying 'limited action', and 'only to 'punish' assad for using chemical weapons, and NOT about regime change, and NOT with 'boots on the ground', the motion before Congress would grant him unlimited authorisation, similar to the bill passed that authorised Bush, right after 911, which is what 'allowed/authorised' him to not only go into Afganistan, but Iraq.

Whats he got now, 9 ships poised of the coast, getting 'in position'? Doesn't seem very 'limited' to me! Also, (just curious); A tomohawk cruise missile has like an 8000 mile range; so exactly WHY is it these ships are moving in so close, when they could accurately hit Syria from 8000 miles away???

Anyway, the whole thing is BS, and the guy is not only tone deaf, trying to figure out what he's doing is such a mystery, cause I don't think he knows, himself!!!

Not at all sure he'll GET his resolution, or what he'll do if he doesn't! To the degree that congress 'represents' the American people, they shouldn't vote to authorise anything, and THIS is the kind of vote where the sheeple ARE paying attnetion, and I think many are going to be very concerned about voting FOR, when it could hang around their necks, next election. Jim

[jdodson]

Surprise, surprise Boehner supports Obamas strike.
Hopfully the 2010 tea party republicans wont roll over so easily.

One early sign that these Republicans differ from their predecessors was their willingness to accept the defense sequester, the automatic military cuts that horrified many older Republicans. This was interpreted mainly as a reflection of the importance they place on reducing the deficit, but it also reflects an isolationist streak that didn’t exist five years ago. See, for example, this tweet from Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who was elected in 2010: “[George W. Bush]-era foreign policy is nearly extinct among GOP grassroots. Some Rs in DC either didn’t get the memo or haven’t been home in a while.”

so exactly WHY is it these ships are moving in so close, when they could accurately hit Syria from 8000 miles away?

Probably because America has the worlds largest military. They have nothing better to do, than be ready to invade another country. This is why its known as the war machine.

John Kerry
He says america will not go to war....news flash, a military strike is an act of war.
Syria and its allies will retaliate against us...then boots will be on the ground. (our ships are ready for this)
The American People are not stupid, No country in the world supports a strike by the U.S. military.

[Mad Scientist]

did 'we' i.e. the U.S, or the 'international community', do ANYTHING i.e. 'military action', when Saddam Hussien used chemical weapons on 'HIS' own people?

Yes I believe we did. Weren’t we the ones that sold him the chemicals?
Of course we then turned around and used his chemical stockpile as an excuse to invade.
So if that was a good game plan for Iraq why would we not use it again in Syria?

Surprise, surprise Boehner supports Obamas strike.

Does anyone still believe that on major issues that there is a dimes worth of different between the democrats and republicans? With all of the changing back and forth over the years nothing has really changed.

[aljhoa]

In The Making

PUTIN VS OBAMA


Al

[rickoff]

Rick, as our resident researcher/historian, did 'we' i.e. the U.S, or the 'international community', do ANYTHING i.e. 'military action', when Saddam Hussien used chemical weapons on 'HIS' own people? (Actually, he would say they weren't HIS people, I believe they were 'kurds'?

Yes, as MS pointed out, the US actually was the supplier of the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein used, both in attacks against Iran and against Kurdish tribes in northern Iraq. And the use of these chemical weapons became a strong selling point for labeling Hussein as the bad guy who needed to be taken out. Of course he was a bad guy for doing what he did, but what about the American bad guys who made that possible? Were they ever indicted, prosecuted, and executed for their part in these atrocities? Hell no.

Whats he got now, 9 ships poised of the coast, getting 'in position'? Doesn't seem very 'limited' to me! Also, (just curious); A tomohawk cruise missile has like an 8000 mile range; so exactly WHY is it these ships are moving in so close, when they could accurately hit Syria from 8000 miles away???

Actually a Tomahawk cruise missile has a maximum range of 1550 miles at a cruise speed of 550 mph. But you make a good point, which is that these ships don't need to be parked right off the Syrian coast. As such they become sitting ducks (remember how British warships were damaged by Argentine forces in the Falkland Islands conflict of 1982?), and of course if one or more are hit (either by Syrian forces or a false flag event) that would be a call for taking down the Assad regime through an escalation of naval and military actions. Thus, this could be precisely the reasoning behind stationing the ships so close. In other words, our military want to give Assad the best chance possible for a direct hit upon retaliating for a US missile strike. Of course the military, and Barry's regime, might argue that getting in this close would allow us to conclude a missile strike and take out retaliatory positions before Assad would have a chance to retaliate. That might sound reasonable, but cruise missiles can fly in below radar detection, just a few feet above the water's surface, so a position of 500 to 1,000 miles out would be equally, if not more, feasible and stealthy.

Not at all sure he'll GET his resolution, or what he'll do if he doesn't! To the degree that congress 'represents' the American people, they shouldn't vote to authorise anything, and THIS is the kind of vote where the sheeple ARE paying attention, and I think many are going to be very concerned about voting FOR, when it could hang around their necks next election. Jim

I think we can assume that the Senate will give their rubber stamp of approval, although Rand Paul has said that he will lead the fight against that in the Senate, and is urging Americans to send the Senate a loud and clear message. You can do exactly that by going here: (click the image)


It's anyone's guess how the House will vote. Establishment Republicans McCain and Graham have both made statements supporting Barry's plans for an attack, and it looks as though House speaker Boehner is also onboard. You can be sure that there will be a lot of arm twisting and sweet deals going on behind closed doors to convince a majority to go along, so a YES vote is entirely possible unless vast numbers of the American public express outrage. And even then, Congress will probably ignore the public outrage and do what the Ruling Class wants, just as they have done in other instances.

[aljhoa]

Not at all sure he'll GET his resolution, or what he'll do if he doesn't! To the degree that congress 'represents' the American people, they shouldn't vote to authorise anything, and THIS is the kind of vote where the sheeple ARE paying attnetion, and I think many are going to be very concerned about voting FOR, when it could hang around their necks, next election. Jim

By Chemi Shalev | Sep. 4, 2013 | 12:30 AM |

The American Jewish establishment jumped off the fence on Tuesday and came out in full support of Congressional approval of President Barack Obama’s plans to launch a military strike against Syria’s chemical weapon capacity.

The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations said in a statement that “failing to take action would damage the credibility of the U.S. and negatively impact the effort to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capacity.”

The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC urged Congress to “grant the president the authority to protect America’s security interests.” The lobby’s statement said that “barbarism on a mass scale must not be given a free pass.”

ADL National Director Abe Foxman told Haaretz that from a “moral perspective” there was “nothing to debate” because of “our own people’s experience with gas.” In addition, he said, the threat to America’s national security interests in the Middle East, in which Israel has such a high stake, “go above and beyond any political consideration.”

U.S. Jewish groups call on Congress to approve use of force against Syria’s Assad - Jewish World News Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz

Al