Kerrriiist! Framing a Bloody Dictator?

[caroljane]

lol a breakthrough! Also, Johnny Cash was a oountry god.

[william.scherk]

All you read in the media is that Assad gassed his own people. That's stated as fact over and over and over. Everybody's an expert. Yet when you look for evidence that Assad is the one who did it, you get hiccups and changing the subject and pictures of dead children.

Human Rights Watch released its report on the alleged chemical attacks yesterday. It has pictures of dead children on the cover, but also includes the results of its investigation.

Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

This report details two alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria on the opposition-controlled Damascus suburbs of Eastern and Western Ghouta, located 16 kilometers apart, on the morning of August 21, 2013. The attacks killed hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children. Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims of the attack as documented by medical staff.

Our investigation finds that the August 21 attacks were likely chemical weapons attacks using a surface-to-surface rocket system of approximately 330mm in diameter—likely Syrian-produced—and a Soviet-era 140mm surface-to-surface rocket system to deliver a nerve agent. Evidence suggests the agent was most likely Sarin or a similar weapons-grade nerve agent. Three local doctors told Human Rights Watch that victims of the attacks showed symptoms which are consistent with exposure to nerve gas, including suffocation; constricted, irregular, and infrequent breathing; involuntary muscle spasms; nausea; frothing at the mouth; fluid coming out of noses and eyes; convulsing; dizziness; blurred vision; and red and irritated eyes, and pin-point pupils.

The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces. Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weaponry in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack, or their associated launchers.

The Syrian government has denied its responsibility for the attack, and has blamed opposition groups, but has presented no evidence to back up its claims

I follow the Brown Moses blog, which has been examining and cataloging arms use in Syria for some time. He has amassed the best collection of images of arms, and in this instance, his last five posts have delved deeply into the details of the particular rocket and launcher of which remnants were found in at least six of the alleged attack sites.

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

By Yossef Bodansky

Global Research

September 01, 2013

From the article:

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

Who is Yossef Bondanksy? He's not a right-wing conspiracy theorist, that's for sure. He's a top political scientist advising the world's elites in military affairs. See Wikipedia here: Yossef Bodansky.

I am impressed by his production over the years, but not with his article at the Global Research site. Here's a bit more on Bodansky, from Foreign Policy:

Bodansky is an ally of Bashar's uncle, Rifaat al-Assad -- he pushed him as a potential leader of Syria in 2005. Rifaat is the black sheep of the Assad family: He spearheaded the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but then was forced into exile after he tried to seize power from his brother, President Hafez al-Assad, in 1983. Despite his ouster, however, Rifaat is just as hostile to a Sunni Islamist takeover as other members of the Assad family -- a position Bodansky appears to share. Ending Alawite rule in Syria, Bodansky wrote on another pro-Assad website, "will cause cataclysmic upheaval throughout the greater Middle East."

Pro-Assad voices have also helped shape the debate in Europe. The British organization Stop the War, which was instrumental in convincing Parliament to reject a strike on Syria, is not just made up of opponents of intervention - it includes staunch supporters of the Syrian regime. The organization's vice president is a Stalinist who praised Assad for "a long history of resisting imperialism," and warned that his defeat "will pave the way for a pro-Western and pro-U.S. regime." Other top officials in the organization have also spoken publicly about the benefits of keeping Assad in power.

Just a sample of the Global Research article illustrates my issues. Bodansky writes:

"The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks."

-- there is a hint of a truth in this sentence. The Syrian media did run with one report, with pictures of gas-masks, jugs of whatever, and claimed a rather incoherent line. No followup. No story of further tests performed by the Syrians -- and the Syrian reports merely implied these jugs were of interest; it did not claim specific precursors. It claimed no delivery system. It provided no map, no video, no testimonies. I note especially that Bodansky claims "laboratory equipment" was found. He made that bit up.

Another sample from Bodansky, his introduction:

"There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition."

This is without warrant, the hinge of untruth being that 'Syrian opposition' provided a volume of evidence. It did no such thing. If it had, Bodansky could cite it.

That’s what Bodansky is doing, asking questions and providing evidence. Well, that and implicating the Obama administration itself in orchestrating the attack.

I’m not going there.

The entire point of his article was to provide cover for the Syrian regime. I am not surprised that Rush took the bait. Domestic politics rule here ...

I would like to see more facts and less gross pictures and pointing the finger of shame coming from them.

[ . . . ]

Is it really rocket science to present a bloody dictator as a monster based on what he has actually done? I mean, it's not as if there is lack of material to work from. Can't Obama's spin-meisters make good stories from that for their story wars?

That's the question, isn't it? Did the monstrous regime make a grave error and unleash chemical terror?

From my perspective, fixated on Syria news for a while, I review a large amount of information. I urge those who are undecided on the issue of culpability to spend some time consulting information sites that have done the meticulous checking that results in reasonable conclusions. A resource that lays out the claims and warrants is the Wikipedia article, Attacks on Ghouta. It is a lengthy read, but it details what is known and what is likely, covering the timeline and covering almost every question.

If anyone swallows whole the Bodansky confection on Rush's recommendation, I am sad. It is just not good enough, and is tied to a partisan, pro-Assad agenda. It is classic disinformation, confidently asserted but without supporting documentation. Multiple lines of independent, converging evidence disproves its contentions.

The dictator and his cronies will say anything, do anything, to win. Theirs is a war of annihilation. The very threats given to America by Assad on Charlie Rose are the same kinds of threats he has carried out within Syria, against civilian populations. He has escalated the arms used in the conflict on a long steady trajectory, from snipers to machine guns to tanks to artillery to rockets, to fuel-air bombs, to cluster bombs, to Scuds. The 'sparing' use of chemical weapons by his forces have been documented since April of this year. I don't know what arm or fist of the Syrian forces took the bad decision to go beyond limited tactical chemical strikes. If there are ever war crimes trials in Syria, the details may come out in our lifetimes.

I am glad that the Iranian/Russian/Syrian axis floated a plan to move toward containment of the chemical weapons stores. I don't support an American war on Syria, but I am also glad Obama has used the threat of destruction against Syria. That is the only language the Syrian leadership understand. The threat of force still hangs over Syria, despite the hogwallow in Washington and the frenzy of instant experts across the board.

That threat of US force is what will help contain Assad.

One last thing to mention: the Syrians are experienced time wasters. The foreign minister of Syria 'welcomed' the Russian/Iranian proposal to contain. This does not mean agreement or acceptance. It likely means a lengthy diplomatic dance of negotiations, during which Assad can continue to pursue his military programme. At least one third of the Syrian population has been driven from its homes -- internally displaced or outside the country in refugee camps. It is a daily horror.

But now that the Syrian crisis has ramped up to the top of the news again, I would say we need calm logic and sharp knives of reason to understand events. I hope no one at OL underestimates the duplicity and connivance of the Syrian dictatorship and its stooges, and so takes a critical stance in examining any 'facts' adduced to further its aims.

Edited September 10, 2013 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Thank you Bill, for being critical and coherent about what I have been reading and trying not to read. I keep seeing those bright eager Syrian School kids, the chess whiz, the girl poet, the mischievous budding innovative architect, all tortured, murdered, dead.

[Brant Gaede]

lol a breakthrough! Also, Johnny Cash was a oountry god.

I recently discovered his video of Hurt.

--Brant

but I never suspected you wanted Canada to bomb Syria; I still don't, of course

[Brant Gaede]

I only skimmed Bill's long post in case there was something in it centered on other than the use of chemical weapons in Syria. That's because, whoever used them, there is still no justification for the United States whacking anyone or anything in Syria. It serves no strategic interest of the United States, real or contrived. If it ever did it's much too late. The good guys have been forced out of the loop of what is going on there too boot.

--Brant

I can't even see a strategic reason for Israel to do anything much, not to say there isn't one; I don't follow these things that closely

[Selene]

Brant:

The utter absurdity of getting involved in the Magreb in our present economic position in the world is, basically, insane.

Secondarily, this petulant child watching his "...transfomation of this..." country [?-no time to look up this advance notice of his marxist intent quote] begin to tank and collapse.

Remember the "psyche" of a Dr. Robert Standler. His finger just a few infinitismal slices of electrons...BOOM!

This clown does not get the electrons and science. However, he knows where the BOOM button is.

A,,,

[caroljane]

lol a breakthrough! Also, Johnny Cash was a oountry god.

I recently discovered his video of Hurt.

--Brant

but I never suspected you wanted Canada to bomb Syria; I still don't, of course

Just watched Hurt. "This was a man."

I want somebody to bomb Assad. Or to scare him out of Syria. If Canada can do it we should. First time I have agreed with Harper, except about hockey and cats.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone swallows whole the Bodansky confection on Rush's recommendation, I am sad.

William,

I have wonderful news for you. You don't have to be sad.

Seriously, you don't have to be.

Cheer up about the "anyone" out there who (you fear) risks being sadly misguided from following Rush's recommendation.

Rush did not endorse the Bodansky article. He said so quite clearly. Just listen to the broadcast and you will hear it for yourself. I don't remember his exact words, but I think they were something like, "... so I can't endorse this."

I can check if you want 100% accuracy.

See? there is no misguidance to be worried about. None at all.

Whew! That was a close one!

But isn't not needing to worry grand?

Rush's point in discussing the article was to show that the opposite case is not as much of a slam-dunk as the mainstream media was reporting.

I agree with him. The mainstream press constantly lies and tells the truth. In this case, we can add all the major players, political or otherwise, who have a public voice. They all lie aleatorically. There are no solid standards. So when you have a bunch of liars all talking, who is anyone to say when this liar or that liar is telling the truth? Oops... there's "anyone" again.

And to add grist to that mill, here's another article to add to the growing discussion:

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press

Simon Tisdall and Josie Le Blond

The Guardian

8 September 2013

From the article:

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

Assad sought to exonerate himself from the August attack in which hundreds died. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," he said in an interview with CBS.

But the intercepts tended to add weight to the claims of the Obama administration and Britain and France that elements of the Assad regime, and not renegade rebel groups, were responsible for the attack in the suburb of Ghouta, Bild said.

Frankly, I don't put any more stock in this than I do the other reports. It's just one more thing to look at.

Is it plausible? Yup.

Do I believe it? Not sure.

Just like with everything else reported about this issue up to now.

Michael

[Selene]

I want somebody to bomb Assad. Or to scare him out of Syria. If Canada can do it we should. First time I have agreed with Harper, except about hockey and cats.

Really?

You know, both your Western Canadian brothers and sisters, and Sarah Palin, can feel the Bear's breath. Russia still seeks a warm water port. Russia still needs genetic breeding stock.

Here is a British Quisling's remarks:

The Russian Quest for Warm Water Ports

For nearly two hundred years the policy of obtaining, maintaining, and increasing a seaboard has been consistently followed. If that policy was inaugurated by Peter the Great, it was nevertheless absolutely due to the operation of irresistible natural forces. A great nation must seek a seaboard corresponding in extent to its needs, and Russia could no more be restrained in her seaward expansion than could the United States in overflowing the Rocky Mountains in their march to the Pacific. The policy thus forced upon Russia by the conditions of her being has involved many wars and great sacrifices. The methods adopted have been various, and, in common with those which have commended themselves to all nations, have not been wholly blameless; but only the curious inability of the British people to realise the necessities of others can blind us to the fact that Russian expansion was as inevitable as our own. To the fifty millions of Great and Greater Britain free access to the sea is the breath of national life; by the eighty millions of Russia the same vital need is instinctively felt.

Their "improving" replacement rate is

Russia’s Demography Continues To Improve Rapidly In First 3 Months Of 2012 | Da Russophile

The latest figures continue to beat all expectations (even my relatively optimistic ones) in the first three months of this year. The crude birth rate has risen by 6.5% over the same period last year, implying a c.8% rise in the total fertility rate (slightly higher since the ratio of women of childbearing age is now falling). Projecting it for the rest of the year – a risky assumption, granted, but this is back of the envelope stuff anyway – would give a TFR of about 1.73 for 2012 (from c.1.60 in 2011). This would make it broadly comparable to the Netherlands (1.79), Iran (1.70), Canada (1.67), and Estonia (1.62); below the US, France, the UK, and Scandinavia (1.8-2.0); and above Germany, the Med, Japan, South Korea, Poland, China, and the Christian ex-USSR (1.2-1.5). It is time to stop thinking of Russia as a low-fertility country; it is firmly in the middle of the pack among industrialized countries. It is particularly noteworthy that whereas Russia is frequently described as the sick man of the BRIC’s (in demographic terms), it is now probably closer to Brazil (1.86) than it is to China (c.1.4-1.5).

Also this week the Russian Government is implementing its new demographic program which favors regions with birthrates below the Russian national average (Areas with a white majority), if you have a 3rd child.

I have been following this trend in the Soviet Union/Russia since the late 1950's/early 1960's

[caroljane]

As you indicate, this is old news. It is currently the Arctic we are fighting with Russia about.

However if the worst happened and Putin stormed the prime target, BC, somehow I know that with much groaning and eye-rolling our wss would march lithely off to the barricades, however soon to come down.

[caroljane]

My own Moment of Truth will come when they priviatize the public libraries. "Shoot if you must this old grey head but spare our grandkids' books she said! "

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My own Moment of Truth will come when they priviatize the public libraries. "Shoot if you must this old grey head but spare our grandkids' books she said! "

Carol,

One of the main thrusts in establishing libraries all over America came from Andrew Canegie, the so-called robber baron, not from the government. At the end of his life, he gave America a gift of a crap-load of libraries.

In other words, they came into being privatized (in a manner of speaking).

Michael

[caroljane]

I know that; so did most libraries here. I certainly acknowledge the historical debt to Carnegie and the many others who opened the world to millions through their generosity.

[Selene]

I know that; so did most libraries here. I certainly acknowledge the historical debt to Carnegie and the many others who opened the world to millions through their generosity.

BUT, I want to chain them to the rock of the centralized state, like a good little progressive, chain that spark!

[caroljane]

Cool it Prometheus, there are still plenty of private information sources out there waiting unfettered for subscribers.

[Selene]

Cool it Prometheus, there are still plenty of private information sources out there waiting unfettered for subscribers.

Sorry, the oral records of our section of the human tribe decided that we will not:

1) be quiet;

2) speed it up;

3) work with "private information sources;" and

4) miscillaneous octopi of your Northern State, and, shamefully elements of our tribe.

A...

[caroljane]

Glad to see from #4 that you are gearing up for hockey season; always better to buy fresh!

[Selene]

Glad to see from #4 that you are gearing up for hockey season; always better to buy fresh!

Absolutely.

Thinking of opening a hydroponic catfish vertical "farm."

Good opportunity for you.

All you have to do is keep the government off our backs, get out of the way and watch the gauges. Just do not fuck up because...well...we really do not carry insurance.

So, do not fuck up.

______________________________________________

Bruno Luigi Santangelo Cioti

Bean Counter, Internal Security and *67!5*2%9$2@83

A...

[caroljane]

Sounds good. Maybe we could diversify -- persuade the paisans in Miami to replace those rubber rats with real ones - I think I'm in!

[Selene]

Sounds good. Maybe we could diversify -- persuade the paisans in Miami to replace those rubber rats with real ones - I think I'm in!

Nah...we've been "relocating" assets from the Miami subdivision. Working with Diversity Partnerships, one of our tripplie tax frees.

[william.scherk]

Michael, I know you are trying to lighten up grimness. I remain sad, but it doesn't have much to do with whether you in particular have come to firm conclusions about what happened in Ghouta on August 21. I was trying to be persuasive, not argumentative.

As for Rush, from his transcripted remarks on Bodansky:

What if Bashar is being framed?

What if Bashar didn't do it?

Sit tight, 'cause I've got a story by a man whose credibility is intact and beyond repute. His name is Yossef Bodansky.

[ . . . ]

This is the first scholarly piece on it that I've seen.

'Beyond repute? This is promotion, an appeal to authority, followed by a misnomer: "Scholarly" is patently false for anyone who has read Bodansky's report at the Global Research site.

That Rush thinks the piece was scholarship is cringe-worthy in itself, but in so saying he also indicates that he hasn't read reports like HRW and the work of Brown Moses and others, work that gives sources and operates in the reasonable zone.

In my opinion, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the Ghouta attacks came from the regime. I have yet to see a coherent and credible story that not only assigns guilt to 'rebels' (or Al Qaeda or 'terrorists') but that accounts for all the evidence -- and nowhere is the actual counter-evidence (to Syria-was-framed stories) rebutted.


So, that's what I believe, and where I stand. I hope I presented a worthy case, gave pertinent reasons why we can consider Bodansky's tale as disinformation. I am interested to seeing how debate develops on the "what if Syria was framed' stuff.

We all probably feel variations on the same sense of horror and anger and impotence. A most brutal war, not between two states, but within. Outrageous death tolls and no end in sight.

Rush indeed just put the Bodansky stuff out there, the 'Was Assad Framed' confection. He comes closer to my "beware" above with his closing remarks, but I must mention his intro again. How is an article 'scholarly' that gives no references, no hyperlinks, nada, squat?

Now, one quick thing: Bodansky does not identify his sources in this story, and I want to be very clear about this. He does not identify them. There are numerous sources, but he doesn't ID 'em, and so we gotta be careful here. It could be that his sources are Israeli intelligence, in which case he wouldn't ID them, but he doesn't ID the sources.

So keep that in mind.

Edited September 10, 2013 by william.scherk

[Darrell Hougen]

All,

Thanks, William, for that careful analysis of the facts. Sorry, Michael, I'm going to have to go with William on this one. But, in reality, I think the debate about who may or may not have used chemical weapons is almost irrelevant except as a pretext to get involved. The real question that we should be asking --- that the Obama Administration (and I use the term loosely) should be asking --- is what does the U.S. have to gain or lose if it does or doesn't get involved? Some people have said it doesn't concern us, but I think it does.

What is likely to happen if the U.S. doesn't get involved? In my opinion, Assad, with the help of Russia and Iran, is likely to win an outright victory, eventually routing the opposition forces except for, perhaps, a small terrorist remnant. The result would be to firmly entrench Bashar Assad and the Assad family for at least another generation. It would also strengthen the hands of Russia and Iran in the region. Since the Assad family, Putin, and the Iranian mullahs have never been particularly friendly to the U.S. or Israel, I don't think such an outcome would be good for the U.S. In fact, I think it could put additional strains on our naval and air forces in the Mediterranean, threaten the free flow of oil, and undermine the positions of countries friendly to the U.S. for the next quarter century.

In the past, I would have called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, now that the country is crawling with jihadists, I am a little less sanguine about recommending the outright removal of Assad. Perhaps, the best result would be a negotiated settlement that would bring the Suni majority and Christian minority into the government. Some sort of power sharing arrangement. Something like that would weaken the Assad family and thereby weaken the positions of Russia and Iran while strengthening the positions of friendly countries such as Israel (and, perhaps, Egypt).

The question is, is such an outcome possible? I think it is. What is required is to deny Assad outright victory --- to show him and his allies that the civil war is unwinnable. The U.S. should start by cratering Assad's runways in order to ground his air force and at least reduce the civilian carnage. In addition, the U.S. should degrade his anti-aircraft defenses and destroy as much Russian military hardware as possible, demonstrating the futility of Russian support. After that, the specific actions don't really matter at this stage. The idea would be to weaken the Assad regime enough to deny it outright victory without degrading it so much that the rebels could easily win. McCain has claimed that the Free Syrian Army is composed of good guys that we should be supporting and perhaps we should hope for their victory, but the best approach might be a negotiated settlement in which various legitimate groups would share power and jihadist groups from other countries would be excluded. We should demand such a result in order to end our involvement.

We now have a rare opportunity to strengthen U.S. interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East. If we don't take it, we are likely to see our position undermined for a generation or more.

Darrell

EDIT: And, I forgot to mention, we should demand that all chemical weapons be turned over to the U.N. or some other organization for destruction. That seems likely to happen, anyway.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Darrell Hougen

[Brant Gaede]

Ask me! I only tell the truth to your power!

--Brant

or send out the signal and I'll kick ass!

Cap't America--that's me!

[Brant Gaede]

All,

Thanks, William, for that careful analysis of the facts. Sorry, Michael, I'm going to have to go with William on this one. But, in reality, I think the debate about who may or may not have used chemical weapons is almost irrelevant except as a pretext to get involved. The real question that we should be asking --- that the Obama Administration (and I use the term loosely) should be asking --- is what does the U.S. have to gain or lose if it does or doesn't get involved? Some people have said it doesn't concern us, but I think it does.

What is likely to happen if the U.S. doesn't get involved? In my opinion, Assad, with the help of Russia and Iran, is likely to win an outright victory, eventually routing the opposition forces except for, perhaps, a small terrorist remnant. The result would be to firmly entrench Bashar Assad and the Assad family for at least another generation. It would also strengthen the hands of Russia and Iran in the region. Since the Assad family, Putin, and the Iranian mullahs have never been particularly friendly to the U.S. or Israel, I don't think such an outcome would be good for the U.S. In fact, I think it could put additional strains on our naval and air forces in the Mediterranean, threaten the free flow of oil, and undermine the positions of countries friendly to the U.S. for the next quarter century.

In the past, I would have called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, now that the country is crawling with jihadists, I am a little less sanguine about recommending the outright removal of Assad. Perhaps, the best result would be a negotiated settlement that would bring the Suni majority and Christian minority into the government. Some sort of power sharing arrangement. Something like that would weaken the Assad family and thereby weaken the positions of Russia and Iran while strengthening the positions of friendly countries such as Israel (and, perhaps, Egypt).

The question is, is such an outcome possible? I think it is. What is required is to deny Assad outright victory --- to show him and his allies that the civil war is unwinnable. The U.S. should start by cratering Assad's runways in order to ground his air force and at least reduce the civilian carnage. In addition, the U.S. should degrade his anti-aircraft defenses and destroy as much Russian military hardware as possible, demonstrating the futility of Russian support. After that, the specific actions don't really matter at this stage. The idea would be to weaken the Assad regime enough to deny it outright victory without degrading it so much that the rebels could easily win. McCain has claimed that the Free Syrian Army is composed of good guys that we should be supporting and perhaps we should hope for their victory, but the best approach might be a negotiated settlement in which various legitimate groups would share power and jihadist groups from other countries would be excluded. We should demand such a result in order to end our involvement.

We now have a rare opportunity to strengthen U.S. interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East. If we don't take it, we are likely to see our position undermined for a generation or more.

Darrell

EDIT: And, I forgot to mention, we should demand that all chemical weapons be turned over to the U.N. or some other organization for destruction. That seems likely to happen, anyway.

How do you match this neo-con stuff up with Objectivism?

--Brant

Edited September 11, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Darrell Hougen]

How do you match this neo-con stuff up with Objectivism?

First, please don't call me a neo-con.

There are two ways to justify it.

(1). U.S. Interests. I'm assuming that what is good for U.S. interests is good for the citizens of the U.S. and that is true so long as the U.S. remains a relatively free country. BTW, it is my opinion that promoting pro-freedom policies throughout the world is generally good for U.S. interests.

(2). What is good for freedom around the world is good for the residents of the U.S. If the U.S. were to become significantly more repressive, the people in this country would need a place to go. Although the crisis in Syria is unlikely to result in any sort of Shangri La in the near future, generally pursuing pro-freedom policies throughout the world will tend the make the world a more hospitable place over time.

Darrell