Obama meets John McCain in terms of the US Congress and the war on Syria.
According to several reports from Washington, it is to expect that the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, US President Barack Obama, will meet with the US Senator John McCain at the White House today in order to debate the plans of a US-led military intervention in Syria and how to sell this idea of a US strike on Damascus to the US Congress, where the majority seems to be very sceptical in terms of another US-led war against the next country in the Middle East.
However, Barack Obama seriously needs the approval by the US congress in order to wage war on Syria without the fear of an impeachment trial against him.
It seems therefore very logical that US President Obama, who has intensified his lobbying for the military action against Syria in the recent days, meets with Senator John McCain at the White House in Washington in order to discuss the plan of a military strike on Syria and how to convince the members of the US Congress from this plan in order to get the OK for war by the Congress.
Barack Obama wants to obtain the support of John McCain for the US-led military intervention into Syria, that will never turn out to be a “limited” strike on Damascus, but is able to turn out as a full-scale war with dire consequences for the Syrian people and even for the entire Middle East.
Further, several political analysts have also warned against the possibility to trigger the next World War (WWIII) in terms the United States launch their attack on the Arab country – under consideration of Syria’s allies such as Iran, but also in regards of possible reactions by Russia and China.
The members of the US Congress from both parties in the United States have already stated that they are currently not able to support the recent draft resolution, which will authorize the US President Obama to launch a military attack on Syria. However, US President Obama has the possibility to convince the members of Congress and not to mention the power and influence of the Israel Lobby (e.g. AIPAC) in the United States and especially in Washington, of course.
In terms of the Israel Lobby, it is clear that it supports airstrikes and cruise missiles attacks on Syria, although there is a potential threat for the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv that religious fanatics then gain more power in Syria and when they have destroyed the secular Syrian nation, they might turn against Israel and their backers and supporters in the United States and Europe, including France and Britain. Also the usualwar profiteers and banksters in the United States and Europe support the possible war on Syria, of course. They are interested in new pipelines through Syria as well as in the Syrian natural gas and oil.
While the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has rejected the American claims that his government in Damascus would have used chemical weapons against the own people in Syria, it seems that today will turn out to be a very important day in regards of a possible US-led strike on Syria.
Not only that Obama will meet with John McCain at the White House, but also U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, a warmonger, and Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence, although “defence” seems to currently be the wrong term for him, will appear in front of the US Congress on Tuesday to convince the members of Congress to support the war on Syria.
Both US politicians still use the phrase that the strikes on Syria will only include “isolated military attacks” for a limited time in order to overthrow the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and to give a “military response” for the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against their own civilians.
Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia
However, Washington has the power to start a war on Syria, but the US administration will never be able to control the war on Damascus and to limit such a military attack against Syria. Washington is not capable to decide when such a war against Syria shall end again and thus, there is no possibility of a “limited military strike on Syria” for “just a few days”.
In the meantime, the known anti-war activist and author, Noam Chomsky, made some reasonable statements in terms of a possible US-led strike on Syria and said that any US-led attack on Damascus without the support by the United Nations (UN) / US Security Council (UNSC) would be a war crime, regardless of the possible approval by the members of the US Congress. Noam Chomsky made his new remarks after the statement by US President Barack Obama that he will seek the approval by the US Congress to launch the US-led military intervention (war) into Syria.
The known anti-war activist Noam Chomsky said in his new statements that the international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed and that the same applies for the credibility of the claims by Washington against the Syrian government in Damascus. Further, the US administration has “fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when everything else fails – the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world.”
The anti-war activist Noam Chomsky made his new statements in regards of the possible US-led attack on Syria in an email to HuffPost. It is to note that the author has travelled to the region some time ago in order to learn more about the conflict and crisis in Syria.
His comments after his recent trip to the Middle East implied that he supports the so-called “Syrian rebels” and a possible attack on Syria in case the negotiations about a political and peaceful solution for the Syrian conflict will fail. He said after his trip to the region that he believes that “you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option.”
However, his new statements in the email to the HuffPost imply that he rejects any military strike without an approval by the United Nations / UN Security Council. For example, anti-war activist and author Noam Chomsky wrote in his email to HuffPost that any aggression without the authorization by the UN “would be a war crime, a very serious one.”
One comment