American business interests are under strain from predatory European economic expansion into the mideast and the economically weakened US can only resist this by military force . At present Syria is working on a trade deal with the EU that will allow EU business interests access to its protective domestic market nationalized since the 1950’s . With Russia Syria in the past year has signed major arms weapons procurement packages with Russia and Russia has forgiven $7 billion in Syrian debt . This assassination of Hariri came suspiciously on the tail of an American warning last month to Syria not interfere in the upcoming Lebanese elections in May . Hariri was anti Syrian and favoured by America and President Emil Lahoud is Pro-Syrian and because of Lahoud remarks that America was interfering leading the US to recall its ambassador . I say what has happened here is America has employed rogue Lebanese elements to assassinate Hariri so as to have the finger of suspicion fall on Syria thereby giving America the justification to use military strikes to intimidate the Syrian leadership into compliance .
America is bankrupt there is no way America could start a WWIII what we are seeing is the final fall of Americas economic supremacy . This is evidenced by this last resort of gunboat diplomacy it is a telling sign of the last deathhroes of all empires before they implode . We are witnessing Americas economic funeral .
Brian, I usually agree with the things you say so let me ask you this......How do you think that Iran sideing with Syria will make this whole thing play out? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4270859.stm
Reading your article at work today I saw another dimension to theory I put forward on Syria . The assassination takes place , the evidence of guilt falls onto the Syrians and today we have Iran threatening America it will not sit idly by whilst America attacks Syria . Lets face it America wants too attack Iran and as yet has not found any legal ground that will give international legitimacy to any attack . America, thanks to the Iraqi WMD debacle has led a not so convincing campaign on Irans supposed Nuclear weapon programme so America must find an excuse . What I see here from the events played out is America manufacturing an event in Lebanon , that implicates Syria which in turn will lead to some US attack on Syria and this event will engineer a desired Iranian response into which America will capitalize on and give the US a mandate to attack Iran . Iran has always been the centre of US strategic attention, if you look at Americas strategic moves since 9/11 you will see a pattern of encirclement of Iran . Firstly to the East of Iran in Pakistan the US has established 2 large airbases . Secondly with the occupation of Afghanistan another large airforce base and military bases directly North of Iran . Thirdly in Dubai the US has constructed a massive Airforce base there moving all airpower from Saudi Arabia to Dubai and accompanying Aircraft Carrier force directly South of Iran . Fourthly with the occupation of Iraq America has the assembly point and jump off base of a land invasion directly West of Iran . Watch these events as they unfold over the next weeks with a discerning eye , much of what happens will ultimately show the real object of this war on terror . The key to this is control of Iran thereby staving off Americas principal economic rival The EU from Iran .
America's internal market floats on some $10 trillion consumer debt all it will take is an economic nosedive that will send unemployment spiralling and this debt wont be paid back . In other words a dominoe efect that will drastically contract the internal market . In fact unemployment is growing in the US and spending on the war is putting pressure on the economy by the fact that the US slashed welfare to fund it . That dire prediction I gave can happen anytime soon .
America wont reach a total economic collapse, as much as i want it to. Anyway back to syria... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am surprised it took this long for Syria and Iran to reach some sort of alliance. It is obvious, the US intends to inflict as much harm as possible against both governments without restraint. If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, Bush would find someway to invade both. The hopes of Bush is take out each individually. However an alliance between the two complicates things immensely. Although the idea of being in a guerilla war in Iraq, Syria and Iran simultaneously wouldn't bother Bush as he follows God's will. A Syrian and Iranian alliance is very logical. Wildcards include China, Russia and the EU which do not want the US with military control over the world's oil supplies. Russia has already agreed to sell weapons to Syria. EU has decided to sell weapons to China. All over US objections. Bush likes to play with fire. Hopefully he won't burn the world any further than he already has. But I am not counting on it considering Bush's past history. He is a walking talking disaster with everything he touches.
jagger the eu is not seeling china weapons.. they have plenty of their own.. eu is giving them financing and trade.
Just look at them all, the usual [brain dead] suspects, salivating at the prayed for prospect of American collapse. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What odd paradoxes are shaped by ideological hatred and blindness? Their hatred for BushHitler and the US has them denying the democratic progress being made in Iraq as they root for two of the worlds more repressive regimes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It sickens me to see the kind of careless [brainless] moral equivalence which finds it OK that Iran have nuclear weapons because, after all, the US and Israel have them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Contrary to your hopes and dreams, America is FAR from a spent force. So here is the news, punk-asses - WE OWN YOU BIATCHES!!!! - better get used to it. Barkhorn.
It doesn't matter WHAT one does, whether good or bad, right or wrong, it's all in how one DOES it. So we brought so-called "liberty" to Iraq. Big whoop. That doesn't make up for how we did it. We caused more harm than good. - N
Neildo: The harm was a one time deal. The good may very well self propagate in iraq for the next thousand years.
You think Iraq was a one time deal (actually two times if you count ’91)? What about the oncoming war with Iran and Syria which Iraq will surely be involved with too? Just because "Iraq" may no longer be mentioned, it doesn't mean stuff we continue to do, or will do, won't affect them in a harmful way. Everything we're doing in the ME right now is going to continue to affect Iraq. People shouldn't be upset about the "Iraq War", they should be upset about the "Middle East War". The Iraq War was more of a battle, the first step, but not "the" war. - N
The harm was a one time deal. Really? Says who? I can name several countries of the world that are still suffering the consequences of "one-time deals" inflicted on them by other countries 50 or 100 years ago. The good may very well self propagate in iraq for the next thousand years. "May very well"? Based upon what - wishful thinking? The British were in Iraq for 38 years, and when they left there still was no democracy, and no market-based economy. And the British had far more experience (and success) in dealing with these things that the USA has. So if the British couldn't pull the democracy rabbit out of the hat, what in the world makes you think that this mismanaged US administration can do any better? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not so sure. I was thinking about this on the drive home last night, while listening to NPR. They brought up the point that Syria hasn't engaged in this kind of overt assassination attack for years, and that it would be surpassingly stupid of them to do it now - so close to the election, when the natural suspicion would fall on Damascus. One of the things to consider when evaluating this kind of attack is the old maxim of cui bono? - who would benefit? Given that, it seems more likely that this was an AlQaeda attack. Up until now, Syria and Iran have been sympathetic to each other, but not really working closely together. Syria's been adjusting to life under the younger Assad, whose governance isn't as sure-footed as his father's was. Plus, Syria was under scrutiny for allegedly allowing foreign fighters into Iraq (a problem Bush created, but conveniently blames Syria for). But now with the death of just one person, AlQaeda has been able to create a wedding between Syria and Iran. AlQaeda has put two natural allies together, to create a new alliance in the region designed to frustrate the Bush administration. And, at very little financial or human cost to AlQaeda. If the alliance works, then the Bush administration is foiled. If the alliance fails, then it will be most likely be Syria that falls, and not Iran - which gives AlQaeda the chance to possibly replace a secular Syrian govt with a religious one. Either way, AlQaeda has everything to gain, and nothing to lose - so AlQaeda rolls the dice, and kills the guy. My bet's on AlQaeda. And if I'm right, it just goes to show how these guys are head and shoulders more advanced at tactics than ordinary terrorists.
Certainly not Syria ! Why would they assasinate this man knowing full well it would bring America down on its head ? And al Qaeda ! Thats a propaganda booga booga invention of the US media .
