This article was written by Susanne Posel and originally published at Occupy Corporatism
President Obama gave his address on Syria to explain to the American public why he is planning on bombing a Middle Eastern nation – and not because of a regime change .
Obama opened his dissertation by recalling the “peaceful protests” in Syria “against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad turned into a brutal civil war.”
Inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Syrians took to the streets to protest Assad which resulted in a widespread military crackdown.
The Arab Spring uprisings, or manufactured revolutions, were based on rhetoric written by Gene Sharp who wrote “From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation”, in 1973, based on his thesis paper.
The International Republican Institute (IRI), working with Sharpe, developed the recipe for non-violent resistance and civil disobedience to be perpetrated by an enraged citizenry with the leaders of Otpor! .
As Obama points out, they first tried to take down Assad with the use of a manipulated public. As this technique worked so well in other parts of the Middle East, the IRI had no reason to believe it would not be successful in Syria.
However, this was not the case, and the US and UK governments began funding a band of Salafi Jihadists from Saudi Arabia and Jordan who became known as the Free Syrian Army.
In fact, it was reported in May of this year that the Obama administration sent covert agents to deliver weapons purchased “from the stockpiles of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi” to the Salafi extremists known as the FSA.
In Obama’s address he claims that the US government has helped “the moderate opposition” (a.k.a. the FSA) with plans to “shape a political settlement”.
This “political settlement” Obama lightly mentions is truly a direct causation to the purpose of destroying the sovereign government in Syria.
In 2011, governments of Iraq, Iran and Syria signed a $10 billion accord to build a natural gas pipeline that would fuel income to the Middle Eastern nations.
Syria is expected to purchase “20 million to 25 million cubic meters a day of Iranian gas” daily.
The pipeline “length is more than 1,500 kilometers and will run from Assalouyeh to Damascus while passing through Iraq”, then Tehran, Lebanon and out to the Mediterranean Sea; eventually becoming a servicer to Europe, Southeast Asia and other nations.
Because the Israeli government has discovered Leviathan Field, this may prove to be a “game changer” which would propel Israel to become the 3rd largest provider of natural gas in the Middle East.
Before the creation of the Iraq, Iranian and Syrian pipeline, “Qatar proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).”
Part of the scheme, according to Turkey, is to strategically move the Nabucco pipeline project to “transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia.”
In this way, Qatar and Turkey would join efforts and share in the spoils.
Europe would rely on Qatar for natural gas instead of Russia.
However, Assad rejected the pipeline prosed by Qatar in favor for the deal with Iraq and Iran.
And so came the “peaceful protests” and the uprising of the “moderate opposition”.
When these two covert means of regime change did not prove successful, the stakes had to be upped.
Hence Obama addressing the American public as if they are oblivious to factual events of the recent past that lead us to the precipice of war. And if they believe the official story, they probably are.
As the president points out: “The situation profoundly changed though on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people.”
As a side note, Obama first claimed 1,400 people died at Aleppo – the attack he referenced in his speech.
However, the British Joint Intelligence Organization (BJIO) asserted that there were only 355 people who died at Aleppo.
From 2004 – 2010, British-based corporations claim they sold chemicals necessary for creating sarin gas to the Syrian government.
The Saudi Arabian government conveniently provided sarin gas to the FSA to be used in the attacks on the Syrian government.
In fact, the Saudi Arabian government has spent $3 billion to back the FSA with weapons and finances necessary to carry out their task – fighting the proxy war dressed up as a civil war.
On speaking about the egregious acts at Aleppo, Obama said: “Moreover we know that the Assad regime was responsible.”
According to “Obama’s top aide the administration lacks ‘irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence’ that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.”
Obama said that the “atrocity” at Aleppo was a “danger to our security”. A concern of the president was the threat chemical weapons pose on “alies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel”.
It is interesting to note that those three Middle Eastern countries are tied together in a natural gas pipeline endeavor that is in direct competition with the pipeline agreement with Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Since the US and Israel have agreements regarding natural gas, it is in the best interest of the Obama administration to comply with the plan to attack Syria.
After all the propaganda, and with his usual circumvention of Congress, Obama has “determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.”
In order to do this, Obama must meet domestic legal standard set forth by the statutory requirements in the War Powers Act of 1973 .
As a Senator, Obama understood the executive branch’s limitations. He said: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”
Obama takes a turn in his address as he speaks from one hand as the “commander-in-chief”; however he reminds himself that he is “the president of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy”.
And “although [he] possess the authority to order military strikes” he “felt it was right” to “take this debate to Congress.”
To educate the public, Obama offered to “answer some of the questions” from Congress and from letter written to him that he attributes to members of the American people.
Obama said that he “will not put boots on the ground in Syria.”
However, it seems that US Naval forces have been deployed to Syria . Although these soldiers are not “on the ground”, they certainly are at the ready to be used should Obama’s attack necessitate more interaction.
In contradiction, later in the address Obama affirms that he has “ordered the military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.”
Next, Obama alluded to the fact that a limited strike would be an option that could encourage a regime change.
The president said: “I don’t think we should remove another dictator by force . . . but a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice about using chemical weapons.”
As a poke to Assad, Obama said that not the Syrian president, nor his allies, has the “ability to seriously threaten our military.”
Based on the offer from the Russian Federation to strike a deal with Assad to “give up his chemical weapons”, Obama said he “asked Congress to post-pone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.”
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!