Video - German journalist Lars Schall talks with J. Michael Springmann - 'Is the Whole “War on Terror” a Fraud?'

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMfiGseUIc&feature=youtu.be Is the whole "War on Terror" a fraud? Published on Apr 15, 2015 "In this exclusive Foreign Policy Journal interview, German journalist Lars Schall talks with J. Michael Springmann, the former head of the U.S. visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and author of the book "Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World"." ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Is the Whole “War on Terror” a Fraud? by Lars Schall       April 15, 2015 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/04/15/is-the-whole-war-on-terror-a-fraud/ ꕤ

WikiLeaks: Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists - Nafeez Ahmed

ꕤ Article SOURCE alternet | here Wikileaks' Cables Suggests that Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists Cables released by Wikileaks demonstrate that control of the world's strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed / Foreign Policy in Focus December 16, 2010 Among the batch of classified diplomatic cables recently released by the controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, several have highlighted the vast extent of the financial infrastructure of Islamist terrorism sponsored by key U.S. allies in the ongoing "War on Terror." One cable by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 notes that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Despite this, “Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT [Lashkar e-Tayyiba] groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda.” Clinton raises similar concerns about other states in the Gulf and Central Asia. Kuwait remains reluctant “to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait.” The United Arab Emirates is “vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks” due to lack of regulatory oversight. Qatar’s cooperation with U.S. counter-terrorism is the “worst in the region,” and authorities are “hesitant to act against known terrorists.” Pakistani military intelligence officials “continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban [and the] LeT.” Despite such extensive knowledge of these terrorism financing activities, successive U.S. administrations have not only failed to exert military or economic pressure on these countries, but in fact have actively protected them, funneling billions of dollars of military and economic assistance. The reason is oil. It's the Hydrocarbons, Stupid Oil has always been an overwhelming Western interest in the region, beginning with Britain’s discovery of it in Persia in 1908. Britain controlled most Middle East oil until the end of World War II, after which the United States secured its sphere of influence in Saudi Arabia. After some pushback, Britain eventually accepted the United States as the lead player in the region. “US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilization of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance”, reads a 1945 memo from the chief of the State Department’s Petroleum Division. Anglo-U.S. geo-strategy exerted this control through alliances with the region’s most authoritarian regimes to ensure a cheap and stable supply of petroleum to Western markets. Recently declassified secret British Foreign Office files from the 1940s and 1950s confirm that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely created to retain British influence in the Middle East. Britain pledged to protect them from external attack and to “counter hostile influence and propaganda within the countries themselves.” Police and military training would help in “maintaining internal security.” Similarly, in 1958 a U.S. State Department official noted that the Gulf sheikhdoms should be modernized without undermining “the fundamental authority of the ruling groups.” The protection of some of the world’s most virulent authoritarian regimes thus became integral to maintaining Anglo-U.S. geopolitical control of the world’s strategic hydrocarbon energy reserves. Our governments have willingly paid a high price for this access – the price of national security. Still Funding Radicalism One of al-Qaeda’s chief grievances against the West is what Osama bin Laden dubs the “Crusader-Jewish” presence in the lands of Islam, including support for repressive Arab regimes. Under U.S. direction and sponsorship, many of these allies played a central role in financing and supporting bin Laden’s mujahideen networks in Afghanistan to counter Soviet influence. It is perhaps less well understood that elements of the same regimes continued to support bin Laden’s networks long after the Cold War – and that they have frequently done so in collusion with U.S. intelligence services for short-sighted geopolitical interests. In fact, Afghanistan provides a rather revealing example. From 1994 to 2001, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the Clinton and Bush II administrations covertly sponsored, flirted and negotiated with the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, former White House Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia about the “covert policy that has empowered the Taliban,” in the hopes of bringing sufficient stability to “permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan.” The Great Game is still in full swing. “Since the U.S.-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong U.S. support” reported the Associated Press in 2005. “The pipeline would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes. The project’s main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank” – in which the United States is the largest shareholder alongside Japan. It so happens that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still under de facto Taliban control, where NATO war efforts are focused. Other evidence demonstrates that control of the world’s strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". For instance, the April 2001 study commissioned by then-Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed official fears of an impending global oil supply crunch, energy shortages, and “the need for military intervention” in the Middle East to maintain stability. Energy and Iran Other diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show clearly that oil now remains central to U.S. policy toward Iran, depicting an administration desperate to “wean the world” off Iran’s oil supply, according to the London Telegraph. With world conventional oil production most likely having peaked around 2006, Iran is one of few major suppliers that can potentially boost oil output by another 3 million barrels, and natural gas output by even more.  The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample pretext for isolating Iran. But the U.S. anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. In a series of dispatches for the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh cited U.S. government and intelligence officials confirming that the CIA and the Pentagon have funneled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy – officially confirmed by a U.S. Presidential Finding in early 2008 – began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict. Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy – Robert Gates – as his defence secretary. As former National Security Council staffers Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett observe, Obama’s decision earlier this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and the Middle East marked an “intensification of America’s covert war against Iran.” This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert U.S. support for anti-Shi’ite Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the stated objectives of the "War on Terror." Unless we recognize that controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive. Beyond Dependency While classified covert operations continue to bolster terrorist activity, the Obama administration struggles vainly to deal with the geopolitical fall-out. Getting out of this impasse requires, first, recognition of our over-dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources to the detriment of real national security. Beholden to the industry lobbyists and the geopolitical dominance that control of oil provides, Western governments have supported dictatorial regimes that fuel widespread resentment in the Muslim world. Worse, the West has tolerated and until recently colluded in the sponsorship of al-Qaeda terrorist activity by these regimes precisely to maintain the existing global energy system. Given the convergence of peak oil and climate change, it is imperative to transition to a new, renewable energy system.  Such a transition will mitigate the impact of hydrocarbon energy depletion, help prevent the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming, and contribute to economic stability through infrastructure development and job creation. By weaning us off our reliance on dubious foreign regimes, a shift to renewables and away from supporting oil dictatorships will also make us safer. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010). He blogs at The Cutting Edge. SOURCE alternet | here ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Another great article. I'm hopeless at taking everything in at once.  Will have to do some really brief notes for myself. So when the West isn't actively sponsoring Middle Eastern terrorism, the West overlooks sponsorship of terrorism by British-installed sheikdoms, favourably disposed to US and allied interests that keep them propped up in power? The US has muscled in on Britain's Middle Eastern turf post-WWII, and Britain plays second banana to the US in the region, while the US is BFF with Saudi Arabia, until the oil runs out. The key regional Western-propped dictator (Western-puppet ... or is that partner?) regimes, sponsoring terrorism and sectarian kill-fests (to maintain their self-serving and exploitative power grip on the region), are: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Surprised that Pakistan is there, although I know Pakistan's terrorist central.  Why?  Pakistan seems like odd man out. The Brits made a deal that should be void:  ie protecting the puppet monarchs from *internal* challenges ... which effectively means taking part in enslaving these populations under the control of these Western propped monarchies or other dictatorships, because it precludes the rise of anything remotely close to 'proper democracy' (if that's actually possible ... anywhere), I would think. British pledges to protect don't mean much, unless there's something in it for the British (I think it was Persia that they slimed out of protecting some time around the turn of last century or perhaps just before that): "... when Britain failed to defend Persia in the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28-a course of inaction which Britain was fully justified in taking because Persia had started the war and the 1814 mutual defense agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia only against aggression-the Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally, and in effect he went over to the Russian side." [here] Wow, that was way earlier than I thought.  It was the early 1800s.  The Shah concluded correctly, in my opinion. lol  Stick with the Russians, Persia. Bin Laden wasn't happy about the Western support for repressive regimes in the region; but it also sounds like there's maybe a religious and cultural element to OBL's objection, judging by the terminology used:  'Crusader-Jewish'?  Or maybe I'm reading too much into that? Looks like OBL had forgotten that Islam itself was spread in the region through conquest of people and territories.  Not that the West is planning on spreading any ideology ... it's only profits for the wealthy that matter. Asian Development Bank, Japan and USA have a stake in a pipeline project that is intended to run through Taliban controlled territory and this is where NATO concentrated its aggression.  So, wherever NATO is, profit is?  With Obama's blessing, Robert Gates was the mastermind of a policy backing Sunni extremist vs the Shia side in the region (against Iran's interests),  while US GOVERNMENT, US INTELLIGENCE, the PENTAGON and CIA funnelled dollars for this project, via Saudi Arabia, who, in turn, flicked the dollars to al-Qaeda.  It's thanks to Gates' policy that there's a spread of sectarian violence in the Middle East, including Iraq and Lebanon.  The funnelling of money that reached al-Qaeda is confirmed (presidential finding, 2008).  So this isn't speculation. So, I take it there's no organised Islamic 'war on terror' 'death cult' about to attack anyone in here in the West, and there's only the random crazy head-chopping incident associated with the consequences of mass displacement and mass immigration, to sidestep when out and about, say, doing a spot of furniture shopping? That Robert Gates struck me as shifty and creepy looking when I saw him in this video, filmed on the day of Julian Assange's arrest in Britain, almost 5 years ago: ROBERT GATES US Defence Secretary in Afghanistan 7 Dec 2010 Associated Press https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9g9F6_TC4 If I hadn't got interested in Ukraine and then curious about Assange and WikiLeaks, I'd probably never have paid this creepy old man any attention.  And look what fun I'd have missed out on.  lol Imagine this guy knows where all the bodies are buried. So, Gates, the architect of Hell (ie the policy of funnelling American money to Sunni al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists, in the Middle East) has been free the last 5 years, while Australian journalist, Julian Assange, has been a political prisoner in Britain (Britain, which is America's Middle Eastern second banana partner in oil and crime) -- held without charge, for exposing US and allied war crimes, those same 5 years that Architect of Hell, Robert Gates, has been free. Ehem.  Western values?  Where's those Western values plate-face, Dave Cameron's been preaching, then?  Eh? How can this be permitted to happen in democracies, among free men? Can somebody please help Assange: Julian Assange Australian Journalist FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ----------- PS I'm hoping I'll remember some of this.  Terrible recall of facts.  lol But I've discovered that information has a mysterious way of seeping in without being aware that it has.  A couple of times I've written things I thought were original ideas ... until I remembered where I'd read whatever it was that I'd laboured over ... for ages. It was rather upsetting to find out I'm not at all an original thinker.  lol ꕤ

Brief - West, Middle East, Eastern Europe

BRIEF - MISC The West #Latvia - after Sweden pimps out the princess, Vatican pimps out the Pope: "Pope Francis meets with President of Latvia" - radiovaticana.va Christine Chilver ('Fifi') WWII British-Latvian seductress - SEO spy - http://goo.gl/ojGcrd  - said 2 bedded trainees / sleep talking #EU open borders joy >> 30-40 Latvian former prisoners now living in #UK (only obliged 2email probation officers) - http://goo.gl/2MZc1s  > EU law does allows requests 4 criminal history - if essential - but by law such enquires NOT allowed as ROUTINE !!! - #EU FRANCE France’s Sarkozy announces political comeback http://dlvr.it/6z2zLX NZ New Zealand Jewish PM wins third term http://toi.sr/1tLpnoH  via @timesofisrael >> #NZpol “Key’s victory comes just weeks after Israel rejected Wellington’s proposed non-resident envoy to Israel, Jonathan Curr”  [TimesofIsrael] Look-up:  rejected b/c also envoy to Palestine Authority. [abcnews/net/au] Middle East YEMEN BREAKING NEWS: #Yemen Shiite rebels seize government HQ: AFP via @jerryliet #cdnpoli #BREAKING: #Yemeni prime minister submits resignation http://ara.tv/m3a6v Yemen PM [Prime Minster Mohammad Basindawa] quits as violence rages in capital #Yemen - Houthis = Zaidi branch of Shia Islam aka Fivers - sect almost excl/ present in Yemen - similar 2 Sunni - Believe prophet / Imam ? - Iraq, Lebanon & Iran = Twelvers Shia - which different.  Houthis in Yemen described as 'powerful clan'. Alleged Iran backed. - Yemeni govt backing allegedly al-Qaeda + Saudi Arabia. Looks like Houthis have taken control of Yemen - PM resigned. #NATO’s "Terror Hordes in Iraq a Pretext for #Syria Invasion" >> http://goo.gl/jcx9ua  >> bit involved 4 me but good info on Middle East #Iran Facebook, Twitter & YouTube inaccessible w/out illegal software. Viber, Tango and WhatsApp 2 be banned - http://goo.gl/8nxcII -----------------------------------------  Eastern Europe #Novorossiya >> What's with the disarm deal? Sounds like a double-cross trap being set up by Ukr. & friends. #Russia - anti-war protests - Igor Irtenyev Russian poet agitates >> "In 2011, he emigrated to Israel in opposition to Vladimir Putin" PEN Intl - w/wide assoc. of writers, formed London, comm. 1920s to promote 'friendship' etc - One of 1st NGOs / intl HR advoc/ AFP "#Russian national TV has portrayed Kiev authorities as a "fascist junta" bent on persecuting Russian-speakers during the conflict." >> But fail to clarify that this is EXACTLY what the Ukies are! What a joke! >> "I believe that the war has been provoked by Putin" .. Is there an Obama blackout over there? Dude can't see what US did. -------------------------------------- COMMENT Just random bits of information and comments. Really don't think it's a good idea to disarm for anyone fighting over independence and territory. Yemen seems to be where all the action was.  At first I thought that the Houthis have taken over.  But maybe I'm wrong and they just wanted a change of government.    Discovered that it's easier to remember information about countries if you see some photos associated with the country. In my mind's eye I can see downtown Sana'a, so it helps remember the news (I think). Hmmm ... just had a look at Google images and, boy, was I wrong imagining Sana'a as a modern city.  Guess you've got to look at more than one photo.  LOL.   The city isn't familiar, like I imagined. It's very old and 'alien' looking (from my western urban perceptive).  I'm taking a guess that large parts of the city and, maybe the customs, are unchanged from biblical times.  What else? Surprised Russia isn't clamping down on foreign agitator NGOs in their midst. I've not read the Sarkozy come-back article yet.    Bling Bling should get elected no problems in France, as they've got a history of political figures associated with corruption allegations who remained in power. The Israelis are funny.  Surprised to see the word 'c*cksucker' in Times of Israel.  The impression I get of them is that they're people who kind of let it all hang out -- and from snippets I've encountered here and there, I also get the impression they've got a sense of humour.   Surprised anyone (non-western) allows PEN International to operate within their borders.   When I see NGO, all I can think is:  stirring up trouble by stealth.  NZ’s Jonathan Curr’s now ambassador in Turkey.  Turkey’s nice and slack.  No danger of kidnap.   Don’t know who wound up with the Middle East appointment.  Too lazy too check.  Expect it will pop up some time during online travels.

LEBANON, SYRIA - MILITANTS IN ARSAL, LEBANON

Militants set Lebanese policemen free to solicit cease-fire talks  August 05, 2014, Tuesday/ 14:54:20/ AP / REUTERS / / BEIRUT  Hard-line militants, who seized the Lebanese town of Arsal at the weekend, released three policemen on Tuesday as a “goodwill gesture” to allow Sunni Muslim clerics to broker a deal to end four days of fighting near the Syrian border.  At least 16 Lebanese soldiers and dozens of civilians and militants have been killed in the fighting in Arsal in the most serious spillover yet in three years of civil war in Syria.  The militants are still believed to be holding about 40 members of the security forces - both soldiers and policemen.   ...  Lebanese security officials say the fighters include members of al-Qaeda's Syria branch, the Nusra Front, and an al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State, which has seized swathes of land in Syria and Iraq.  Although Lebanon - a country of about 4 million, bordering Israel - has avoided the full-scale war afflicting Syria and Iraq, regional conflicts have rekindled decades-old tensions. Tripoli [Libya] has seen frequent clashes between local Sunni Muslims and members of the Shiite-derived Alawite minority, and on Monday night fighting broke out after news that several Sunni clerics had been wounded as they entered Arsal to try to broker a ceasefire between the army and the militants.  Men blocked several Tripoli roads on Tuesday, and most shops were closed and streets empty after militants opened fire on a bus carrying soldiers, wounding at least six. ...  While Lebanon has officially tried to distance itself from Syria's conflict, its powerful Shiite movement Hezbollah has sent fighters to aid President Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite. Assad, like Hezbollah, is backed by Shiite power Iran.  The rebels fighting to overthrow Assad are overwhelmingly Sunni and have received support from regional Sunni powers including Saudi Arabia. Rocket fire, suicide attacks and gun battles connected to Syria's war have plagued Lebanon and the conflict has worsened Lebanon's perennial political deadlock between officials divided largely along sectarian lines.  More than 170,000 people have been killed in Syria's war, which started in 2011 as a peaceful protest movement, then degenerated into civil war after a government crackdown.  Violence went on unabated in Syria, where air strikes at the weekend in Damascus killed at least 64 people, a monitoring group said. Fighting regularly claims more than 150 lives a day.  EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ TODAY'S ZAMAN  - HERE

* Fighters challenging the Lebanese security forces include:

1. al-Qaeda (Syria branch)
2. al-Nusra Front (aka al-Jabhat an Nusra); and
3. Islamic State (al-Qaeda splinter group)

which have been seizing territory in both Syria and Iraq.

[ Tripoli, Libya - Sunni vs Shiite-derived  (Alawite) minority ]

Arsal, Lebanon (border town):


* Militants holding 40 - soldiers and police.
* 16 Lebanese soldiers killed
* Dozens civilians and militants killed

* Militants release x3 policemen (Sunni clerics to mediate between parties)



Lebanon -  powerful Shiite movement (Hezbollah)

President Assad (Syria) is also Shiite (Alawite)

Rebels in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad are mainly Sunni
(and rebels are backed by other countries, including Saudi Arabia).

Hezbollah have sent fighters to help Assad in Syria

Hezbollah and Assad (both Shiite) are helped by IRAN.

Iran official religion is:  Shia Islam.

170,000 killed in Syria since 2011

US - Syria - Caution from Russia

A Plea for Caution From Russia What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN Published: September 11, 2013 MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all. From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement. A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues. My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0 Discovered an old NYT article via twitter. I'm not up-to-date. Just started watching this stuff, so it's some good info for me. Not big on the religious references. I see the UN as just another way for the US to exert influence and dominate, because their various defence and trade allies will always vote with the US. US has always interfered with internal conflicts in other countries, so it should hardly be a surprise if they want to interfere in Syria. So Syria fighting is about multiple extremist religious factions having a go at the government in a quest for religious (?) supremacy and, pretty much, that's all it is? US has designated al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda 'terrorist'. These religious groups (along with Arab mercenaries), aim to spread conflict to other regions, currently battle it out in Syria. Yet opposition groups in Syria have been supplied with foreign weapons. Who by?  I think the US were wanting to arm the opposition, but I'd need to look that up. Looks like these religious fighters also have an eye on Israel. So basically, if the US is going to make an 'exception' of itself and if the UN veto counts for nothing, the UN may meet the same fate as the League of Nations. Meanwhile, where there is a lack of confidence in the UN, arms proliferation takes place. So it looks like the US were planning on attacking Syria? Funny how they're now planning on attacking Russia.  .......................................................................... Well, there's already a precedent for ignoring the UN and for being the 'exception', so they may as well disband the UN because the UN is a farce. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the ... Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The operation was not authorised by the United Nations and was the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.   The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil, while in Yugoslavia the operation was named "Merciful Angel"... [wikipedia] Dig those code names. Not only did Clinton and NATO disregard the UN, Clinton disregarded the US congress as well: Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense.  In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction. [here] The precedent is set: International law, NATO, the UN, the UN Charter and the US Congress are meaningless shams.