Radio Host Mike Savage Says Israel Behind Syria War Push

[garym]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BeYxqHXE-I
Interesting, as he is a War Hawk.








Kirkuk To Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?
April 20, 2003, The Observer, Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters)-Benjamin Netanyahu said he expected an Oil Pipeline from Iraq To Israel to be Reopened in the near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948. "It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa, Netanyahu told a group of British investors, declining to give a timetable. It is just a matter of time until Iraqi oil will flow."


"Of course the Iraq war is about oil.
We've treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations, Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back."
General John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander


""Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer." —Rumsfeld


“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”- Aug 2002, Cheney speech



'For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. -Neo Con Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003


"The Intelligence Community was Dead Wrong about weapons of mass destruction."—The President's Commission 2006


10/11/2000 "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." -Bush


"We're not winning, we're not losing." Bush- Dec 19, 2006, interview with The Washington Post


“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” ― George W. Bush


"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," -George Bush 9-18-2003


'Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there.' -Bush 10/7/2004


'The CIA gave us bad intelligence.' ~George W. Bush, July 11, 2003

[garym]

Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons.

Opponents of U.S. military intervention in the civil war-torn Middle Eastern country include Occupy Wall Street, which protests against Wall Street profits; Code Pink, an anti-war group; and the Russians.

Interest groups and activists are ratcheting up their advocacy ahead of the Sept. 9 return of Congress to Washington, when lawmakers will take up Obama’s request for authorization of a limited military strike. The request came after U.S. officials concluded that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime on Aug. 21 fired chemical weapons into rebel-held areas near Damascus that killed more than 1,400 people, including 400 children.'
www.blacklistednews.com/Adelson_New_Obama_Ally_as_Jewish_Groups_Back_Syria_Strike/28633/0/0/0/Y/M.html






Memo to Sheldon Adelson and Morris Amitay: The US government doesn't have to do a military action to protect its alleged "credibility": because at this point, in both the eyes of the American people and the world, it has none.

Obama's "red line" characterization of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is simply yet another geopolitical self-inflicted wound, and now the fate of the world hinges on these ill-chosen words.

And gentlemen, I would strongly caution you that the vast majority of Americans believe that there has already been quite enough American blood and money sacrificed upon the altar of potential Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, and want that process stopped, and immediately.

IF the government of Israel believes that it must "neutralize" Syria as an existential theat, it should do that by using the highly competent, and highly skilled, IDF: it doesn't need the US to go in and do its killing and maiming for Israel. The Israeli military is perfectly capable of taking care of this itself, thank you very much.

Any military action against Syria is almost bound to escalate into a wider regional war, involving Israel, Iran, and Lebanon. Russia is already prepositioning its naval military assets in the Mediterranean.

I would like to remind you that at this time in its history, the US military doesn't have the troop strength, the manufacturing, or the money to insure a successful outcome in a conventional war against Russia; and that is what makes this scenario so scarily dangerous.

And I would like to remind you (just in case both are dealing with Selective MEMRI Disorder) that Syria has a general election next year.

Wouldn't the prudent course of action, and far less expensive in terms of blood and money spent, to support Al-Assad's opposition to the point where that candidate would win the general election in a landslide?!?

Of course, I understand that asking this question is rather disengenuous of me, because the question of timing for such an attack is critical. And this is because the real prize here is Iran, not Syria. What the US wants to have happen is create regime change in Damascus as the prelude to regime change in Tehran, to force it to sell all of its oil in US dollars.

The US dollar has been quantitatively eased into near-worthlessness, and its stature as the world reserve currency is under massive attack. Just today, the BRIC nations resolved to form their own currency reserve to the tune of a solvent 100 billion dollars.

“At the final stage of realization - the initiative to create a BRICS forex reserve pool – the size of its capital has been agreed at $100 billion,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said while opening the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg. Russia, Brazil and India will contribute $18 billion to the BRICS currency reserve pool, while China $41 billion and South Africa $5 billion, according to a press release issued by the BRICS on Thursday.

So in conclusion, gentlemen, the US citizens cannot, at any rational level, back this military incursion into Syria: such an action would be all cost (which we can ill afford, with the economy fragile, and continuing to tank), and of utterly no benefit, to the American people. Our security is not at stake, and Syria's military has not struck any American asset. Such a military act would not only be illegal: it would be immoral in the extreme.

But Msrs Adelson and Amitay, if you really feel that you must act against Syria...here are your rifles, and your bright orange camos (fresh out of Gitmo): I will be delighted to let Syrian President Al-Assad know that you are both on your way!



Interesting accounts of USA using Chemical Weapons on Civilians. Top 10 List
www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about