Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 3 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Washington's Imperial Brinksmanship

By       Message Stephen Lendman     Permalink
      (Page 2 of 9 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 2   Valuable 2   Must Read 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 6/17/12

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
- Advertisement -

"There is no reason why the Arab League, or NATO, or a leading coalition within the Friends of Syria contact group, or all of them speaking in unison, could not provide a similar international mandate for military measures to save Syria today."

NATO's Yugoslavia, Afghan, Iraq and Libya wars violated international and constitutional law. War crime charges are called for. 

Military intervention requires Security Council authorization. 

US wars need congressional approval. Extrajudicial attacks are lawless.

International law prohibits intervening in the internal affairs of other nations, except in self-defense. Attacking nonbelligerent states is absolutely forbidden. 

Syria threatens no one. Saying so is spurious misinformation. 

Advocating lawless intervention crosses the line. So do media and other propaganda reports promoting it. More on that below.

- Advertisement -

On June 15, DEBKAfile headlined "Big powers move in on Syria: Russian troops for Tartus. US forces ready to go," saying:

According to Pentagon officials, "Russian special forces" are heading for Tartus. They're "coming by ship." They include "naval marines." Their arrival is imminent.

Defense Department sources said America's military "completed its own planning for a variety of US operations against Syria...." 

Other regional countries are involved. They include "Turkey, Jordan and Israel." So are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states.

Syria's conflict "is moving into a new phase...." It includes "major power military intervention."

- Advertisement -

Sending Russian troops "without UN Security Council approval," sets a precedent for US intervention.

Russia denies sending any troops or warships. More below.

Either way, no precedent whatever is set. Russia has a strategically important Tartus base. It'll do what it takes to defend it. It's Moscow's only Mediterranean one. Positioning forces on its own facility falls far short of intervention.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9


Supported 2   Valuable 2   Must Read 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert