Obama may have gotten what he wanted. Israel/AIPAC/PNAC is definitely pissed if they don't get their war.

http://freakoutnation.blogspot.com/2013/09/president-obamas-brilliant-strategy-no.html?m=1

I think this article gives Obama too much credit... it is a bit of an Obamanoid fantasy... Of course, it could be true - but in the context of the drone strikes, the previous middle-east wars and the US' relationship with Israel, it doesn't make much sense.

Also, what would be the long term benefit here? The US looks weaker now. The US isn't getting rid of its own chemical weapons. Assad will look stronger after this, even though we are still helping the rebels. The Russians and Chinese have kinda become the US' enemies.

It would only make a difference if the whole chemical weapons thing was really serious... but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is going on in the world today... and it probably wasn't even Assad... and if it was the rebels, then they will use them again immediately after Assad gets rid of his.

The whole thing is a big mess... if this was the plan from the beginning, it was a pretty stupid one... I'd love to have been there when it was brought up:

White House Staffer: "Hey Mr. President, I have a great idea to make you look like a warmonger, make enemies with Russia, make the US look weak and indecisive, make your UK Prime Minister friend look like he has just had his balls cut off, get the whole world worried that the US is going to stir up a hornets' nest in the middle east again, take up weeks of your time talking about invading another country for no good reason, embarrass yourself completely on the world stage by appearing to turn your back on your campaign promises, lose all credibility in the eyes of the US voter, and (and this is the clever bit), get little to nothing out of it for the US!"

Obama: "Well that sounds like a swell idea... let's ask Joe Biden what he thinks."

That is a very interesting and simultaneously believable/unbelievable take on this whole retarded mess. I have no idea what to make of it, but it sure was a neat little read.

they do get a toothless Syria, remember what happened to to the Libyan govt after they disposed of their ballistic missiles and chemical warheads, they got destroyed.

its a win for Israel.

Good point. You are probably unfortunately right. Fuck this shit! Hope you are doing well. Peace.

Here's what's on MY mind today, and most days: Why do you take news of situations like this at face value, but at other times believe the news is unreal and fake?

Why do any of you at all, believe that, lets say CERTAIN world governments are truly at odds with each other, rather than colluding together towards a common goal? Why is it that so many of you inquiring minds can see through the veil of "Democrat vs Republican" now, and see how they are simply different entities of the same beast, but you STILL believe that world politics are legit?

I personally don't believe there is as much tension as is let on. I think just as it's preferable for a singular nation to use propaganda and control tactics on its population, is it preferable for multiple powerful nations to work together and strengthen the individual regional illusions with a complete, world-pervading illusion of "International Tensions".

Can we start going deeper than even just "Politics in the U.S.A. is a farce" and start understanding that if powerful/evil people are willing to work together to enslave a country, that they are probably willing to work together to enslave a world as well? Is it not beneficial to all "competing nations" to collude behind the scenes and maintain a hold on power overall? Yes, I think it is.

I think you are at a point where I was a little while ago. Things are far more complex than we can imagine sometimes. You have to remember that the international system is made up of people. Lots and lots of individuals, all with their own agenda and goals. So while it is true that powerful people from different nations collude behind the scenes, it does not necessarily mean that everyone has everyone else's back. The nature of business is exploitation, the nature of power is control.

To address your question:

I think it is a question of narratives. The Obama administration has their own narrative or lense through which they see the world. They try to project this view through their propaganda outlets. When we see the news and it fits our narrative, or view of the world, it gets discussed. It really doesn't matter who is saying it, whether it's a lonely blogger or a MSM outlet. News is news. The truthfulness or spin or narrative of the news is always up for debate, but more often than not there are specific details about the news item which you can discern as being real and factual.

So basically. On the world stage, Assad is the kid in the school yard who gets picked on. He hired some bullies to protect him from other bullies, but the other bullies are bigger and stronger than his bullies. So now he's being taunted and pushed around.

Don't ever forget (I'm assuming you are Canadian?) that you probably have lived all your life never knowing war, terror, gore, torture or any of the darkest and most primal parts of the human experience. You don't know what the Syrian people are experiencing, how their lives have changed since the conflict began. War is a terrible terrible thing. It is waseful of the most precious commodity we have; life.

I think there is still a battle going on between good and evil. I wouldn't say one side has it wrapped up and its all an illusion as far as tensions go. I think there still are competing interests at play.

The fact that these ELITISTs not getting their way would fill me with joy if I didn't know that when you back these guys into a corner they get more dangerous.

Very true...

After watching the Homeland Security committee today I fear the US is playing a smart long game. I think the only thing getting them their war will be a direct immediate threat. Which makes me weary that they might try something extreme and very direct.... maybe in the form of another attack on America.

What was discussed at this committee?

It was called something along the lines of “…implications on homeland security” They talked about how a strike or lack thereof, against Syria, will affect US security, overseas and at the “Homeland” it was creepy how much they refer to it as “Homeland”. Anyway, a couple congressmen kept referring to a nuke going off in New York, and they stressed that there is really nothing stopping a large chemical weapons attack in the US as well. Whether it be from Iran or Al-Qaida

http://www.infowars.com/sen-graham-warns-of-nuke-strike-after-missing-nuke-report/

I'm not a big fan of Infowars, but they are the only one covering this story.

[deleted]

This was clearly planned, Obama would not have backed Kerry up if it was off script.

I don't wanna sound like a broken record, but...there's going to be another big event soon. Something to initiate the war.

Israel wants this and they're going to get more than they bargained for.

I believe it is likely at this point that they will simply go to war anyway, citing any number of lies and half truths to get their way and play off any public discontent as if nothing was happening.

Watch the way the talking heads go about discussing the war in the mainstream, they all say well it may not be a good idea but we need to/should go into Syria anyway because (insert pro-war talking point here).

This just bought Syria another few weeks at least. Then if the US continues to make ultimatums in the near-term then the US will look very bad for dishonoring its deals.

I think this is either:

Two factions fighting and the other side just won some standing, because the leading side fucked up.

OR

1 ruling faction who needs to switch currency bases, and is doing so regardless of how previous "allies" feel. (this I lean more toward)

Chem false flag inc.