Friday, 13 April 2018

Hyperbole or Reality?

"Ten Days Before The End Of The World"!

Image result for paul craig roberts images
by Paul Craig Roberts
The criminally insane governments of the US, UK, and France are sending a flotilla of missile ships, submarines, and an aircraft carrier to attack Syria in the face of Russian warnings. What is the likely outcome of this outrageous act of aggression based entirely on an orchestrated and transparent lie, an act of reckless aggression that is more irresponsible and more dangerous than anything done by the demonised Nazi regime in Germany?
There are no protests from European governments. There are no protesters in the streets of European and US cities. Congress has not reminded Trump that he has been given no authority by Congress to launch a military attack on a sovereign country that is likely to ignite a war, possibly World War 3. Everyone seems content with the prospect of the end of the world. The moronic American 'presstitutes' are egging it on.
Here are possible outcomes:
(1) The Russians, trapped in the deluded belief that facts and evidence matter to the West and that common sense will prevail, accept the attacks. This outcome is the most dangerous of all, because this outcome will encourage more attacks until Russia is backed into a corner and has no alternative to a direct nuclear attack on the US.
(2) Russia takes the initiative in the brewing conflict and escorts the US missile ship, USS Donald Cook, out of attack range of Syria before the attack flotilla arrives and declares a perimeter line beyond which the Western flotilla becomes target for attack. This should force a showdown between Trump’s warmonger government and the US Congress that would challenge Trump’s ability to unilaterally commit the US to war.
(3) Russia escorts the Donald Cook away from the scene and simultaneously wipes out the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia and Israel, removing Washington’s ground-based allies in its attack on Syria, thus loading the odds in Russia’s favour, and making it clear that Russia is going to pre-empt attack, not respond to one.
(4) Russia, in the deluded belief that it must prove itself in the right, accepts the attack and its unpredictable damage before responding. This outcome is almost as bad as the first, as this lets the war start in contrast to options (2) and (3) which have some possibility of preventing a US/Russian confrontation by forcing common sense on the Americans.
(5) Senior German politicians inform Merkel that Britain and France’s support of the US strike on Syria could commit NATO to a war with Russia. Germany has had one devastating experience with the Russian military and does not need another. They could pressure Merkel to withdraw Germany from NATO. The resulting consternation/confusion would likely halt the US attack on Syria/Russia.
(6) The US Joint Chiefs of Staff could easily and honestly conclude that in the event of a Russian response to an attack on Syria, the entire flotilla could be lost, carrier included, inflicting a humiliating defeat on US arms, and that in view of this possibility, the Joint Chiefs recommend against the announced attack. Possibly this has occurred and explains Trump’s latest tweets, which suggest that doubts might have entered Trump’s mind.
Even if a hopeful outcome such as (5) and (6) occurs, we are left with the dangerous situation that some elements in the US and UK governments were able to orchestrate two events—the alleged Skripal poisoning and the alleged Assad chemical attack—and use the events to leverage unsupported accusations against Russia and Syria as justifications for an illegal military attack on a sovereign country. That such an outrageous orchestration is possible proves that there is no democracy or constraint on government in the US and UK.


  1. Liz Douglas shared a link to the group: Jeremy Corbyn Leads Us to VICTORY.
    1 hr ·
    Can any rational person possibly not be convinced of the opinion put forward by the Ex Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to the BBC and other media outlets? Let us hope that the majority of the British Cabinet are similarly sensible. I doubt whether any single one of them has more direct knowledge of Syria than Mr Ford.

    After all, we have just been exposed to government hysteria relating to the so-called nerve agent attack in Salisbury, blaming Russia without a scrap of overwhelming proof. If Russia is found to be guilty of this latter attack without reasonable doubt, then appropriate action may be contemplated.but surely not before.

    Thus, if the Assad regime is found to be responsible, again beyond reasonable doubt, of the so-called chemical attack at Douma, that will be the time to consider possible tough action.

    What Peter Ford has said is that we are absolutely not at that point yet. Given that the only source of these allegations is known to be utterly unreliable and has its own agenda, it would surely be ludicrous beyond words for the Western allies to risk plunging the world into the most horrific and destructive conflict in history.

    What possible reason could there be for taking such draconian action before a thorough, impartial and independent assessment has been undertaken to establish the true facts?
    Mad men and women of war are leading humanity to extinction by rushing to bomb Syria.


    Yes Prime Minister S01E01 - Grand Design

  3. Re. Rees-Mogg speech: Impressive summation of the constitutional position regarding a standing armed force and its control. However everything of importance turns on whether Parliament adequately fulfils its role to hold the Executive decisions to account and to represent the prevailing public opinion. In both the case of the illegal bombing of Syria and the diplomatic response to the Skripal poisoning, it seems to me to have spectacularly failed. Despite over 600 MP's, barely a voice of dissent or critical analysis was raised against the action of the Prime Minister and her cabinet despite in neither case either the circumstances of the case are properly known, let alone guilt being reliably apportioned. In both cases as time passes, the allegations, rather than being strengthened, are undermined. Nor do the reasons for, or description of, the bombing attacks on Syrian targets stand up to examination. First to bomb alleged chemical weapons producing facility would not only defeat the object but replicate the very thing being complained of, i.e. the dissemination of poisons and their dastardly consequences. However given the obvious absence of these consequences, must mean that the sites were not what they were claimed to be. Yet another Iraqi moment perhaps? Neither as to the alleged Gouta incident, nor the reason for choosing the target sites, does the evidence stack up, leaving aside that under no stretch of the imagination did a 'casus belli' or legal legitimacy exist. The claim that this was an "humanitarian gesture" and a warning for the future, is shown to be fatuous by the absence of any similar action against Burma, Saudi Arabia or Israel, where equally horrendous barbaric acts have been carried out against civilians. Yet despite all this, the House was almost unanimous in its approval of the policy. That I fear proves either that Members despite all their brains, lack even the objectivity of just one individual on the Clapham Omnibus. The whole country can see the Novichok and Syrian affairs are a deceptive 'house of cards'. It is only the politicians in Westminster who can't apparently.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.