[Marxism] Why the USA attacked Syria? To get Iran? Really?

Lüko Willms willms at luekowillms.de
Fri Nov 20 14:27:17 MST 2015


on Freitag, 20. November 2015 at 19:23, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:

> On 11/20/15 1:16 PM, Lüko Willms wrote:

>> * Just to say anything venting your anger, even completely unrelated?

> As a fellow member of the Baathist amen corner with Charles Glass, 

  a corner? Are we suddenly talking football (I mean the real thing, 
not the US version of Rugby)? Does Charles Glas play football? 
I don't, and I am not much interested in football, but I find the corners quite interesting. 

> you probably didn't understand my point. 

  That's why I asked, since your words didn't have anything to do with what you quoted

> Let me repeat it slowly and clearly so that it might sink in.

> CHARLES GLASS SAID THAT THE USA IS AIMING AT REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA 
> BECAUSE IT IS ALLIED WITH IRAN.

  Is that what your conception of this Ch. Glass tells you that he had said? 

  I read something different, and I agree completely: 

>>> Nearly all Arab governments are repressive dictatorships, 
>>> but only Syria was not a U.S. satellite. 

  That is true, even if Syria served as a turture-on-demand service for CIA prisoners which had been "renditioned" to Syria for "treatment". While the USA had in the years after the previous world war engineered several putsches in Damaskus (as in Iran, just to mention the coup against Mossadeq) as part of taking over the Arab East from British domination, after the Baath takeover, the Damaskus governmetn was no longer directed by the US embassy in Damaskus. 

  The defense of Iran against the US proxy war operated thru the Saddam regime was a very good asnd honorable undertaking, and it earned Syria the role of an outcast of the US-dominated medieavel oil dictorships on the Arab peninsula. No wonder that Washington only waited for an occasion to take back the rule in Damaskus. 

  Not joining the "Koalition der Billigen"[*] against their fellow Arabs and against Iran made Syria to an "enemy". 

> I TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS A CROCK OF SHIT BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH 
> IMPLEMENTED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ TO BRING PRO-IRANIAN SHI'ITES TO POWER.

  The Bushes and other POTUSes would rather liked to avoid that. Bush sr. called off the invation into Iraq in the first war in 1991, just because Pentagon and Whiter House shyed away from the task to repress the Shia revolt which was triggered by the US colonial war against Iraq. 

  But you should not yet have forgotten the truism that by starting a war, one sets social forces in motion which then can't be controlled. 

> GET IT?

  Well, I get that you are victim of Corporate News networks and other peddler of Faux News. In earlier years you could still easily recognize reality. 

  Fact is, that the US "war on terror" is a complete failure, that instead of eradicating the opposition, they multiplied the number and centers of terrorist methods. And now small France thinks that they can avoid a Dien Bien Phu this time... 


 
Cheers, 
Lüko Willms
Frankfurt/Main, Germany
http://www.mlwerke.de                        


[*] nice German play of words with "Koalition der Willigen" or "Coalition of the willing". "Billig" means "cheap" in English. 
    


More information about the Marxism mailing list