Cosy dining with President Assad

To the frustration of the war mongers public consciousness is waking up and saying no to war in the Middle East.  While the propaganda machine goes into overdrive desperately trying to justify intervening in Syria by telling us how disgustingly evil and nasty the Syrian 'regime' is, take a look at this photo taken in 2009 of current US secretary of state John Kerry dining with Bashar al-Assad and his wife. Nice and cosy!

 

In 2009, less than 2 years before Washington’s covert proxy coalition began its destabilisation campaign against Syria, John Kerry believed that “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region”. “President Barack Obama’s administration considers Syria a key player in Washington’s efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process". Kerry met with Assad on several occasions in an attempt to woo him away from alignment with Iran, it didn't work did it Mr Kerry? Bet you're mad about that! 

 More cocktails anyone?

War on Syria then on to Iran

The Syrian government are being framed by the US and NATO with the chemical weapons story to give an excuse for war.  There is no definitive evidence to suggest that Assad's Syrian army have used chemical weapons but even so the news channels loop John Kerry spouting his mouth off about the "moral obscenity" of the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.   There is going to be a war, the UN inspectors are conducting a meaningless investigation because it doesn't matter what they conclude, the war will escalate anyway and the US and UK are going in, it's already been decided.  Sound familiar? Iraq? Libya?  
Iran and Syria have a mutual defence agreement which is exactly why the whole Syria situation is happening, it's to draw Iran into a war.  Petrodollar warfare is what it's all about.  In September 2000 Saddam Hussein announced a switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency, the Iraq war began March 2003; Baghdad fell in April; by June Iraq was now selling oil in dollars again.  
New York's NYMEX and London's IPE oil exchanges dominate international trade in oil and primarily exchange in dollars.  The Iranian Oil Borse (IOB) officially opened as an oil commodity exchange in Feb 2008.  During 2007 Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies.  Iran is the third largest oil producer in the world so this is a big deal and a big threat to US financial interests due to reduced demand for the dollar.  Previous attempts to get at Iran haven't gained enough momentum such as the claims they are harbouring nuclear weapons and the insanely heavy trade sanctions which they partly avoid by using alternative trade agreements with certain countries.  So plan B is to start war next door to Iran and drag them in.
The UN investigators have found that the Syrian rebels are more likely to have used sarin nerve gas, the same rebels that are backed, funded and armed by the US.  The news channels however will report how our politicians are squarely blaming chemical weapon attacks on Assad's Syrian army.  Tony Blair the middle east peace envoy is now calling for military strikes against Syria, yes that's right I said 'peace' envoy, the same guy who helped bring 'peace' to Iraq when he was PM.  This crossing a red line that we keep hearing about from Obama doesn't really matter, it's just a marker to refer back to when larger scale intervention is being justified.  William Hague has said military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is possible without the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council.  Meanwhile Russia warns of catastrophic consequences of military intervention in Syria.
This war was planned some time ago and all roads lead to Tehran..... remember though Russia and China are watching.......

And finally, maybe we should also listen to president Assad's side of the story ,that's only fair, right?

Crossing your own red line is absolutely fine

So here we go..... we know what's coming because we've seen it all before.  Last time it was Bush and Blair and this time it's Obama and Cameron, different leaders, same regime, same intentions.
Remember the pretext for the Iraq war? Weapons of mass destruction, regime attacking their own people, the axis of evil, human rights atrocities, war crimes.  Of course you remember and that's why the talk we're hearing regarding Syria over the last few days sounds so familiar.

“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations”

No of course you can't condone that Mr Obama!  You must also have been outraged when the US military used devastating chemical weapons during its barbaric siege of Fallujah in Iraq!  The line was crossed when they used white phosphorus shells and an advanced form of napalm because they are both banned by international conventions and THAT was a war crime yes? men, women and children burnt alive.

The ongoing legacy of these weapons plagues the Iraqi people with huge increases in child leukemia and cancer, and an epidemic of nightmarish birth defects in Fallujah, Basra and the other cities subjected to a US military siege

“It’s limited evidence, but there’s growing evidence that we have seen too of the use of chemical weapons, probably by the regime.”

Aah now David Cameron is chipping in is he? "limited evidence", "probably by the regime", not really convincing me there Dave, sorry mate but no I won't be happy if you spend my taxes on intervening in Syria because there seems to be no evidence whatsoever.

note that Assad does have big support from the Syrian people
 just like Gaddafi did in Libya

Obama has repeatedly stated Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and could move the US closer to military intervention in the Syrian civil war.  Now we're told chemical weapons have probably been used and await the next development..... we know it's all bullshit of course and don't forget that the rebels fighting against the Bashar al-Assad 'regime' are actually supported and encouraged by the US with a blatant intention to destabilise the region.
But why is there an interest in Syria? They're not a major producer of oil or gas, they're not a politically verbal or economic threat in the same way as Gaddafi and Libya, so whats going on?  Well look at it like this- Syria might not be a major power in the Middle East, but a Syrian uprising may determine the shape of the future regional 'energy map'.  The biggest losers in a successful war for regime change would be Iran, who recently signed a major pipeline deal with Syria and Iraq that is ultimately aimed at bringing Iranian gas to the Mediterranean Sea, and Russia, which has sought to expand its own influence in energy development in the region. Washington bitterly opposed this pipeline deal.

The obvious winners of regime change would be the US and its allies, together with the major Western based energy conglomerates.

Syria's geographic location offers Mediterranean access to landlocked entities in search of markets for their hydrocarbons and to countries seeking access to Europe without having to go through Turkey.  Opportunities in the region would be lost with a crushed Syria but more importantly new opportunities will emerge under a new Syrian regime.  The end goal of US imperialism and its NATO allies in Syria is to isolate and prepare for a far larger war against Iran, with the aim of imposing neocolonial control over the whole vast energy-producing region.

Keep watching and see where this red line is drawn, then watch a bit longer and see the very people who drew the line walk straight across it.  It's going to happen and you know it is.  When the war starts many thousands of people will die. Did someone say war crimes?