Home | About | Donate

In Syria, US Ditches Diplomacy to Maintain 'Absurd' Regime Change Policy


#1

In Syria, US Ditches Diplomacy to Maintain 'Absurd' Regime Change Policy

Jon Queally, staff writer

Russia on Thursday refused to comment on reports it has sent combat troops into Syria as an attempt to bolster the armed forces of President Bashar al-Assad which continues to wage violent battles with the Islamic State (ISIS) and other militant factions in a civil war that long ago metastasized into a regional crisis.


#2

It's called "staying the course."


#3

I thought WWIII would start over the Iran issues, not Syria.

Bummer.

This is more idiocy from the US government. It's like they're trying to trigger Armageddon or something. Strange thing for a supposedly secular state to do.

Or maybe there's another issue here. Growth is slowing down in the Capitalist's world, maybe they just want to destroy lots of stuff, and kill millions of people, in order to have 'growth' in 'our' economy again.

Either way, it's evil.


#4

There seems to be no talk whatsoever even in the alternative media what the victory of the Wahhabi extremists will mean in Damascus (there is no moderate opposition; that was always Washington propaganda). Al Qaeda/al Nusra/Islamic State will engage in a bloodbath of horrific proportions as they view the Alawites as heretics and the Christian and Sunni supporters of Assad as secular and not much better than the Alawites. Washington will watch and do nothing, in fact Washington knows it is going to happen just as well as I do. There isn't much moral difference between the Islamic State and the United States.
Peace
Po


#5

Our "national" intere$t$ at work...


#8

Thanks, Jon. Well-written and sourced article.

Common sense continues to gasp for air.


#10

Yea let's have Regime Change where it's needed the most, right in Washington D.C..


#11

Oh, Russians call them advisers too.

Here's hoping the Russian 'advisers' and the U.S. 'advisers' don't end up fighting each other. Then we'd have to bring in 'soldiers'.

So we can replace Assad with ISIS.


#12

So now the US and the Coalition of the Killing show there hand. Why don't they approve of the Russians joining the fight against Islamic Extremist in Syria? Maybe the coalition of the killing knows that Russia might also attack there special ops. people dressed up like Isis. The same special ops. that are really there to target the Syrian Army and Assad. The US even requested that certain countries deny Russia air space on flights landing in Syria from Russia. The biggest deterrent to the coalition of the killing to attacking Syria. Would be to for Russia to set up missile defense systems inside Syria. I have heard reports that Putin sent Russia's largest Nuclear Submarine of the coast of Syria.


#13

I thought the whole Washington idea overthrowing Assad was to support the "democratic" opposition of the Arab Spring. Looks like the "democratic" opposition turned out to be ISIS. Looks like Washington need to remember the first rule of holes....if you find yourself in one- stop digging. Fighting Assad is helping ISIS..duh.


#16

Doesn't the authors know that the US war industry thrives on conflicts especially in the Middle east? The MIC profits both from arms sales to the Arab Sheikhs as well as use the conflict to ask for bigger pentagon budget. Funny, I thought that was a well established fact.


#17

Get rid of the fat US based global corporations and you shall have more peace


#18

True that ISIS is a creation of Washington. And Putin is well aware of that fact. But Putin is, politically, a master chess player while Obama plays political checkers. He has just put Obama in check from taking out Assad.

Brilliant move by Putin! What he has done is send Russian troops into Syria to battle ISIS a false American enemy thereby: putting Obama between a rock and a hard place.


#19

The figure head in the white house is obliged to perform according to the will of the 1% who sees money in stirring up the Middle east.


#20

No need to believe that. The US is supplying ISIS with equipment via the Iraqi "army". The instability is beneficial to the war makers. They must be stopped by any means necessary.


#21

Not sure I agree. The basic tone is that the West wants to end the fighting and/or defeat ISIS. Is this so? They might be alright with defeating Assad and then engineering whatever new regime they decide to impose on the Syrians, but the basic idea that they want to end war is naive. If war ends in Syria they will just set up the gig elsewhere. It's too big a money spinner. Journalists should factor this in to their reporting. Otherwise they are unwitting shills.


#22

For the love of god, why can't we just leave other countries alone for once. In my entire lifetime (born in 1950) we have been involved in a war somewhere, every single stinking decade. We don't have the money for all this destruction. We have TOO MANY problems in our own country that we need to take care of. It's about damned time we start minding our own damned business and try to get along with our fellow humans.


#23

John, has our country ever done anything for purely altruistic reasons? If we have, I certainly can't recall it. If someone here, anyone, can come with something please advise. I would really like to know.


#26

Hmmm. I didn't get that basic tone--that the West wants to end the fighting. I got more that that is what they say they want to do, while actually ensuring neverending war. Perhaps i read more into it than was meant.

Either way, yes, the idea that TPTB want to end this is just not true, as we see from the "uproar" over the agreement with Iran.


#27

Of course we do. Money isn't real and they can print as much as the banks say they need. These are deliberate choices being made and none of it is based on not having enough money, expect the greed of those who want all of a fictional commodity that can be manufactured by command. Is there really anything crazier, religion excepted?