What are the US Exec. branch's motivations behind their activities in Syria?

Beyond the assertions of (at the very least,) foreknowledge and extending into direct complicity, some of the evidence of Syria's government using Sarin touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best:

Whether or not Assad has used chemical weapons, the rebels certainly do have them, are capable of manufacturing them, and are prepared for their use:

Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus? And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Syrian government?

An even more important question - how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed over a thousand innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention? In my opinion, US intervention is a foregone conclusion, and the decision to seek congressional approval is political theater at best, and most likely an attempt to achieve a "legal" authorization for metastatic use of force in the region in general like the congressional authorization born out of the aftermath of 9/11. This one would most likely be worded even more broadly to easily allow a spread from western Africa to the far east over the long term as pockets of resistance are "identified," (read: manufactured.)

It is plain to see that the opposition forces have and are willing to use chemical weapons that the Obama administration has condemned the Assad regime for using, leaving the question of where and how they got them aside. My guess is that neither side would have brought them out had it not been for their belief that they would receive extra-national support surrounding their use. If it weren't for Israel's proximity and vociferousness, there likely never would have been enough focus on the world stage for either side to consider the use of Sarin or other chemical weapons. It would have been better for everyone If Russia, Israel and the US hadn't viewed this as a proxy war and shut the hell up about the situation in the first place.

Now, it's too late for that. Now, it's a full-bore push into a conflagration that's likely to engulf the entire middle east in generalized violence, rather than smaller, nationalized pockets while countries and their populations exert efforts of self-determination. Everyone but the parties involved directly should have just stayed the hell out of the situation.

In examining the information provided in the quotes above, the US now looks as, if not more, suspect as it did in manufacturing a rationale for invading Iraq. This will only work to increase anti-US and western sentiment and will almost guarantee a massive influx of newly minted angry enemies to their overall goals from all over the eastern hemisphere. Any claims to a "limited" strike are myopic, and either everyone involved with the decision-making process in Washington are complete morons, or the intent is to start the final middle-east war.

The source for the quotes above is here

 

Nobody really cares who did it. Syrians gassed Syrians.

Hussein Obama is just looking for a foreign adventure to divert attention from his domestic failures.

 

USA is serving the Saudi-Israel gang. That is the real reason why the USA is going to war against Syria.
View attachment 22290

 

I think it's a little bit bigger than that. Yes, he's been a failure, (and not just domestically,) but I believe that this is more than a political maneuver on a left vs. right agenda.

I think that war is the only thing that can distract from the fact that the higher ranks of both political parties and the political establishment in general have repeatedly and consistently been shown as being imperial, hubristic, and partial to the concerns of the nation's non-human (corporate) citizens to the point where they've shredded whatever aspects of the constitution and bill of rights they've seen fit in order to further these traits, regardless of party.

It's getting harder and harder for the majority of the population, both domestically and globally, to overlook these glaring gluttonous and hegemonic desires and the lengths to which the corporate and political machinery will go to in order to fulfill them.

An incursion into Syria will both further those desires and have the added benefit domestically of getting people to invest into one side or the other of the shrewdly constructed but false left-right paradigm that keeps us fighting with each other instead of rising en masse to resist and hold to account a government that has largely abandoned the "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" phrase within the preamble of the constitution.

Partisan bickering only confounds our ability to objectively examine the real causes of the problems that lead to it, and makes creating mutually beneficial solutions close to impossible.

 

Once again, I don't think that's a broad enough perspective. The US doesn't have to do anything for any specific nation and it won't unless it serves a larger geopolitical goal. If the US was being lead blindly about by the whims of Israel, Iran would no longer exist as it does today.

While it would be of benefit of both Israel and Suadi Arabia, US military incursion into Syria would also aid in removing one of the few remaining toe-holds of Russia in the middle east. The aim of the US going forward generally in a geopolitical perspective is to reduce influence and access to resources of possible threats to it's total global control, which are Russia and China. Taking out Syria's government will not only harm Russia's access to the middle-east, but also puts a roadblock in the way of Chinese extraction of resources from Africa via the Mediterranean. It's one of the final puzzle pieces in that particular strategic goal. Pipelines are already next to impossible from the mid-east to China without US approval through the exertion of influence in in puppet and allied governments that were cemented in the last decade through force and finance, and Naval transportation of resources past the US/NATO navy would be very difficult if the US decided it didn't want it to happen.

Make no mistake about it, US foreign policy, while often appearing as focused on the middle east, is firmly rooted in the goal of diminishing the growth of the economies, influence, and militaries of Russia and China since they're the only possible threats to the US' imperial intent.

 

Dream on unskewedewd. When a country contributes a billion bucks to buy a US regime, they are not going to let go.
As for China, they almost own the USA already.
All that jazz about American interests" is false.
America's real interest is written in the Declaration of Independence and is a Divine Mandate “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,”and to have “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”
We are not doing that, and have become a very ugly nation instead of the beautiful people that the Chinese once thought we were:
View attachment 22295

 

That's a pretty confusing retort, if that's what it's intended to be. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong. I was just trying to say that if you take a broader perspective, you'll see that there are more comprehensive motivations than doing the bidding of nations that the US could force to their will if they wanted to. Israel and Saudi are both very powerful in their influence over the US' actions in the middle east, but they couldn't force the US into actions that would jeopardize its over-all geopolitical aims without some form of subterfuge.

China may have economic leverage against the US, but it is far from exerting any internal influence on its foreign policy. That leverage is why the US is seeking to bolster its position by building it's strategic military presence in cyberspace, around Asia and in the Pacific, working to hammer out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, holding joint military exercises with just about every Pacific nation other than China and North Korea, using currency and commodity market manipulations, launching anti-Chinese propaganda bonanzas, and aiming to reduce their ability to harvest resources in Africa (where China's heavily invested right now.)I think, in truth, the US was surprised when it realized that China was actually becoming a threat to its global dominion. I'm not going to go through all the angles that led to my way of thinking around this, but if you're interested, I posted a long (and, admittedly, occasionally speculative) explanation here in a thread about the intelligence black budget.

I've been reading think-tank and official intelligence reports for years that state the strategic objectives of the US are first and foremost to isolate and reduce the sphere of influence of China and Russia as they are the main threats to US global dominance. If you think any nation can throw any amount of money at those objectives and change them, then you're seriously underestimating the US' accurate view of itself as a nation that could take heat from any country (or most coalitions of countries,) and still continue to exert global dominance.

 

It's very clear to me that Israel would like to see the Syrian military eliminated as a fighting force. The Israelis can easily handle a rag-tag army with not much more than small arms if that rag-tag army can keep from killing themselves first. And the U.S.? Well, it's just a client state of Israel with a government totally beholden to AIPAC.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, how can a government like the US possibly be said to be "totally beholden to AIPAC" if Iran still looks and acts the way it does with out having any military scuffles since the imposition of the Shah?

I agree completely with the rest of the post.

 

The fact that we are even considering an invasion of Iran should tell you how beholden we are to AIPAC. But we will get around to Iran with the next president. Syria first.

 

.

I agree. The Israeli's cannot tolerate any dimension of military parity by a nation that has not knuckled under to the Zionist
proposition that Israel has due claim to the lands that they have stolen from their rightful owners in Palestine and who also
supports efforts to control or reverse this act.

Syria has a crude form of parity towards the nuclear arsenal that Israel owns with their chemical weapons. They also
have a strong central government that is hard for Israel and the west to manipulate. They would much prefer some kind
of fractioned "democracy" that they can more easily influence. This is the same for Iran.

 

You really believe that if AIPAC had it's way, Iran wouldn't have been a crater shortly after we invaded Iraq?

I'm not saying AIPAC doesn't hold a huge amount of sway within the US gvt, nor am I trying to facilitate its penchant for holding that sway rather opaquely. Hell, I'm the one that started the N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story thread, but to call the US "completely beholden" to them is hyperbole at best, isn't it? And I'm not so sure that it will take three years before we move on to Iran. I'm pretty sure military action against Syria will beget military action against Iran in one way or another, and AIPAC is banking on it.

 

Seems that unskewedewd is not arguing against the alien influence that drives US regimes to do things harmful to America's true interests. He is arguing about the extent of that influence. While it may not be 100% at present, that is their goal.

If we stop and consider the never ending train of disasters for America that come from our own stupidity and those alien influences, we should be very much alarmed. The current regime is possibly more hooked than the previous regimes which indicates that we are approaching the 100% mark.

And the fact that they have not bombed Iran doesn't prove much because there is much more to the story than the superficial Iran vs Israelis story we see in the newspapers and TV all the time.

Before we can comprehend the situation with Iran, we have to know:
1. That the USA overthrew the democractically elected government of Iran and put in the Shah.
2. That the USA overthrew the Shah and put in Khomeni.

This shows that we don't have the full picture. Most likely the nuclear issue is a smoke screen or cover story for other goals.

That Iran is more Christian than the USA is part of the reason that the USA hates Iran just as the USA hates Christian Syria.