Saudis Supplied Chemical Weapons?
I'm skeptical of this story.
I've never heard of the Mint Press, although I may have heard the lead author's name before. The story is that some Saudi intelligence chief supplied the chemical weapons to rebels that were then inadvertently discharged in Syria. Something along that line, anyway.
There's just something in the way the story reads and is written that doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it's one of those propaganda sites? And where do you come up with a name like "Mint Press"? Sounds like something a non- english speaker might come up with for a web site meant for english speakers.
Still, I think such a scenario is more likely along the lines of what's been happening with chemical weapons in Syria, rather than the Assad regime using them.
That link took me a while to get to this morning. Either someone's trying to shut it down or it's getting a lot of traffic so be patient.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:59 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
A healthy bit of skepticism is warranted--however this is real reporter for the AP --and writes for Salon and this Mint Press as well. It makes some factual type assertions by some identifiable people, something which is totally lacking in the "intelligence report" released today by the U.S. government.
Fred, I'm glad you are paying attention to Syria. I tend to find myself agreeing with McCain, and the Tories in the UK on this one - not my party. I think we should be using force. I also think it should first be approved by Congress per the Constitution. I also think the force should be air only and limited. I also think we should carefully pay attention to and encourage the democratic process after regime change if/when it happens. But it should happen, and not just because of the chemicals. Because 90K are dead and untold millions are now refugess. Assad is a monster. Period. He has to go. Let's get the evidence, get Congress and the UN behind us and bomb the **** out of that place. Bias note. My father comes from Turkey which is a Sunni Muslim country. Assad is a Alawhite which is aligned with the Shiites. Which is why he gets support from Hezbollah and Iran. Having told you my bias, I really don't think that informs my opinion other than to be very concerned about the people as people. Not pawns, not statistics. Thanks again for bringing this issue to the Northcoast blogosphere.
Another thing Fred, I just was checking out the MIM column again and found that Libertarian post you challenged me with too. Here is a quote. Here’s what he found. During the 1880s, when real GDP rose 24 percent, output in the industries alleged to have been monopolized for which data were available rose 175 percent in real terms. Prices in those industries, meanwhile, were generally falling, and much faster than the 7 percent decline for the economy as a whole. Steel rails fell from $68 to $32 per ton during the 1880s; we might also note the price of zinc, which fell from $5.51 to $4.40 per pound (a 20 percent decline) and refined sugar, which fell from 9¢ to 7¢ per pound (22 percent). In fact, this pattern held true for all 17 supposedly monopolized industries, with the trivial exceptions of castor oil and matches."
This all sounds great, and I'm sure it's true, what about the years afterward. In a capitalist society there is always going to be a boom and bust. I can just imagine you are saying something like gold standard, blah blah blah. I'm not an economist and nor are you. Also, we are most assuredly NOT going back to the gold standard until there is a economic catastrophy worse than the Great Depression. And thanks in large part to Democratic safety nets, that ain't gonna happen. So, after reading the post, I noticed he didn't answer the question the MIM commenter and I asked. What is a current example of a working libertarian system? How are you going to convince all these people you are right? I'll tell you one thing, that article isn't going to help persuading people.
Cheers to the discussion. I'll shut up now.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Stay the Frack out of the Middle East, stay home and repair our house, not that of some distant resident across vast seas.
Besides, world de-population is needed....let the religious freaks kill themselves, its their bloody disputes.
Ah, but the American consumer sure likes oil..............politicians like oil.........stock market likes oil.........religion versus oil.....OIL WINS
HOJ
Wow... I don't know what to say to that. Baaa baa obaaaama ooobaaamaa no wander this country is so fucked up
Assad is a monster. Period. He has to go.
As are the same people you want to replace him with.
you would think if our government was going to use a proxy force to set up another government for an invasion you would tell that proxy force not to be stupid enough to make youtube videos of them launching mortars filled with nerve gas at innocent civilians and bragging about it you can find these videos on YouTube by typing in Syrian rebels lunch Chemical mortars but unless you speak Arabic you're not going to be able to tell that they are praising Obama and bragging about what they're doing
THC
Fred, you've censored two of my posts now. Why?
Ok, not your fault, sorry. Google account sign in problem..
Fred - Not all of them. I share your concern about the rebels now because in war might makes right. However, there is a secular movement in the Middle East. Turkey has been secular since Ataturk, it is only now becoming more Islamist thanks in part to GWB's escapades. Tunisia is making strides, but is having problems with assassinations, etc. So you are right, polarization is a problem. I haven't heard the entire speech from O today, but the BBC extracted some choice quotes that I thought were fair and thoughtful on this.
Also, I hope we can agree that given the Constitution we should be backing the President's dependence on getting Congressional approval. Let's stop this horrendous tendency that we've had since what just after WWII? where the president uses the military for interventions without Congressional approval.
When has the president not gotten presidential approval for military intervention? Sure, sometimes the president acts without congressional approval, but they don't make any effort to stop him.
Congress always supports military intervention either by formal approval or by standing aside. I'd suggest congressional approval, or not, makes no difference as the end result will be the same.
Perhaps the only difference is congressional approval, in some sick way, will make you and some other Americans feel good about our attack on Syria.
No, don't start putting feelings in my emotions. There is nothing good about committing our armed services to battle other than minimizing harm done - in this case by a tin-pot dictator buttressed by another corrupt (allegedly) murderous regime. (ie Russia)
I thought we might agree on this (ie Congressional approval). The one thing I do like about Ron Paul is his skeptical use of our military. In this case (Syria) of course I disagree with him. But I am ready to follow whatever the Congress decides. If they don't want to give authorization, then I'm good with it and I don't think the Commander in Chief should use our forces at all.
Ideally I'd like to cut our defense budget to a third of where it is. If I knew we would, I would say forget this military adventure into Syria. But since we do have the most powerful military, I think it is in our interest, perhaps not directly, but to be against the brutal all powerful dictators such as Assad. Don't forget he is also backed by other powerful forces that are destabilizing the Middle East - the authoritarian government of Iran and Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
Look, I am nervous about my stance here and I am definitely OK with doing nothing at all, but if we do this right, openly, transparently and with clear and limited guidelines set by Congress I'm for it. The approval isn't to help me feel good, it is because each Congressman will be acting as my their constituent's representative and should have access to all the information that we don't necessarily have. The approval is also important because it should rightfully restrict the executive branch from misusing our military a la Iraq. That extended authorization that apparently allowed for us to occupy the nation for untold years was BS - and yes I know Democrats were in line on that one. A huge mistake and even at that time I was with Illinois Senator Barack Obama though I didn't know him then.
Here is article one section 8. "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
I think this power should be given back to Congress, even for the smallest of military excursions (ie Benghazi) We can set up emergency contacts or authorizations for time-critical situations like a nuclear response or a situation like Benghazi, but these should be extremely time limited until Congress can meet to discuss each excursion and vote yay or nay for continued war.
Use of military = war IMHO. And Congressional approval will limit it. In this case I am tentative for military intervention, but like I said if I could horse-trade this intervention for a cut in overall defense spending, I'd be for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home