Washington Still Wants “Coalition of Willing” for War on Syria

Docked Submarine
Docked Submarine

Syria: Although Britain is not really willing, Washington still wants war.

The United States and some of the usual proxies and allies, including the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv and the partly Zionist administration of France, are still interested to form a “coalition of willing” for the war against Syria, although the British Parliament has voted against a military response by the UK against the Arab nation and even Germany stated that it will not take part in military actions against Syria.

Advertisment

However, although the United States seem to have lost the usual slaves of Britain for their war intentions, they still maintain their high level of the rhetoric of war against Damascus and feign that such a military strike against Damascus would be underlined by their (imaginary?) evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict against Syrian civilians and the foreign-backed terrorists.

However, if there is convincing evidence for the situation that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has used chemical weapons against civilians, Washington, London and Paris should publish such alleged evidence.

But after the recent days and all the empty accusations against the Syrian government in Damascus, the alleged evidence of Washington in terms of the claims that the Syrian government / Syrian army has used chemical weapons smell like the evidence for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 10 years ago. These WMDs are still somewhere but not in Iraq. Maybe in the living room of Tony Blair, who knows?

But in terms of the aims by Washington, the Israel Lobby and several other backers of the terrorism and violence in Syria, including the potential war profiteers as well as the totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, these sides want to implement their agenda in the Middle East, come what may – and even the vote against a military action by the British Parliament seems to not change the war intentions of the U.S. administration in Washington and the government in Paris, France.

For example, the French President Hollande has already confirmed in a new interview that the British rejection for a military strike against Damascus will have no influence on the stance of the administration in France in terms of a military response on Damascus. French President Hollande also said that the UK vote against a war on Syria will even not change the stances of other governments, beside the administration in France.

And indeed, Washington, Tel Aviv and Paris are still threatening with a military strike against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and all over the false claims about the role of Damascus in the recent deadly chemical attack near Damascus – again, there is no convincing evidence so far and even Russia has repeatedly explained that there is no evidence for the accusations of the United States that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in attacks against Syrian civilians.

Further, in case the Syrian government (i.e. the Syrian Army) would have used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, the support for Syria’s President and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the Arab nation would certainly be less than it currently still is. If there would not be such a support for the Syrian governance and national army in the country, the situation would already be very different to what it actually is.

However, although the British Parliament has voted against the participation of Britain in a military strike against Syria, it was somehow clear that Washington will still try to maintain its rhetoric of war and to succeed in the formation of the “coalition of willing” for this war against Damascus.

The U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, although the term “Defence” seems a bit questionable in these regards, said today, that the United States will continue the efforts to form “an international coalition against Damascus.”

Thus, the Defence Secretary of Washington confirmed the further intentions of the United States to wage war against another country in the Middle East – if there is real evidence or not. At least, they still say they have evidence for their accusations against the Syrian government. However, this kind of evidence seems not to be very convincing for many MPs in Britain, Italy, and Germany.

Docked Submarine
Docked Submarine

The US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel also said on Thursday that Washington is still in talks with Britain in terms of a potential military response against Damascus in order to “protect the civilians” in the Arab nation. In addition, Chuck Hagel confirmed that another briefing of the U.S. Congress will soon happen and one knows that they have to conduct a new briefing of the US Congress because even many of the Congress in the United States are not convinced by the alleged evidence of the Obama administration for their claims against the Syrian government in Damascus.

It still remains to be seen what will happen. Although the British Parliament has voted against military actions on Syria and although Germany has turned down any (official) role in a military response against Damascus, there are still Washington, Paris, Tel Aviv and some other Western and regional powers in the Middle East that want to launch the war on Syria – with or without evidence and with or without support of the majority of the general public.

Advertisment

7 Comments

  1. “Coalition of willing” ? Who are they now ? US, France, Turkey, KSA and Israel ? 5 countries that represent the entire planet ? Who else would like to “willing” to lose its country’s credibility ?
    I wish I could see the Turkish people raising their voice against Erdogan’s desire to military intervene in Syria, this would break this coalition and leave the US alone with its “National Security” speech and “protect the President’s image” objective. On the other side this would be a perfect time for the Republicans to offer a way out to Obama witha clear ooportunity for impeachment since this Administration is violating UNSC, no Congress approcal for war and against its own people desire.

    • good question.. probably the countries you mentioned already and indeed.. its sure neither the “entire Western community of values” nor the “international community”.. it sounds more like a group of the usual war mongers and supporters of terrorism. Indeed.. I just hope this time, this “coalition of willing” for war against Syria will not be successfull as they were with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan? and yeah.. other places, too..

      • Hey, MK. If you objectively look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, they have all been dismal, and very expensive, failures. The strategic objective for Afghanistan was the huge lithium deposits and the very nice selection of rare earths, plus a pipeline route from the Central Asian Republics’ oil fields. The Chinese have bought up the minerals and mining concessions, the Central Asian Republics had kicked us out, so there’s nothing for the US except the poppies. Iraq was about Iraq’s oil, initially, and the Iraqi dumping of the dollar in favor of the euro, plus Monsanto’s wish to poison the country with its toxic crops. In order to ensure Monsanto’s success and profits, the Israelis were talked into bombing the regional seed bank, in Syria, claiming that it was some sort of nuclear facility. Well, We’re not getting any Iraqi oil, and Monsanto is slowly getting pushed out, too. The true objective for Libya was the prevention of the introduction of the Libyan Gold Dinar, plus the anticipated acquisition of Libyan oil, and Monsanto’s take over of Libyan agriculture. Well, the Gold Dinar is no more, of course, but we didn’t get any Libyan oil concessions, and Monsanto is having to actually purchase any land where it wishes to plant their poisoned grains. Another no win, except for the banksters, but for how long? Iran has, reportedly, as scheme for introduction of their own gold currency. A whole lot of murdered Arabs, all for nothing. Not a successful operation in any of the adventures, so far as I can tell.

        • call me crazy , its as if there is a script somewhere that these countries have to follow to reach to there goal and i.e. WW3 PERIOD and everyone is an actor doing there role!

          • Hi, Nini, welcome to the forum. Sounds as if you’ve got it pretty well figured out, but BO isn’t coming up with even a coalition of the strong armed. Not a bad thing.

    • In my opinion, KSA’s only real value in all of this is as a staging area for US forces. France hasn’t had a military success in Napoleon, so maybe they thing that the Law of Averages in going to come ’round for them, at least vicariously. Who knows about the French? Israel, I think, would be a serious player but Turkey? Hm. I think they view this whole farce as a good excuse to move on the Kurds before Erdogan leaves office, but that’s just what I suspect. I don’t think that Israel has enough butt any more to back up its mouth, but that opinion is based upon Israeli failures over the past several years. They’re pretty good at hit and run, but a straight up slugging match? I don’t think they have it any more. The US doesn’t have the ground forces it would have to have in order to subjugate Syria, and it that did happen, then what? The Syrians are quite used to fighting enemies in country, so it would hardly be a walk over. That’s my opinion, anyway.

Comments are closed.