75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons in Syria; US Congressional Research Center
Putin accuses John Kerry of Lying
Some hare-brained Schemes before 2003 Illegal Invasion
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results," Albert Einstein.
There is little doubt that US, British and even the current French leaders lie shamelessly , all of them , Clinton, George Bush, Dick Cheney ,Condi Rice , Colin Powel et al and the born liar as admitted even by his school teacher the champion liar ,Tony Blair and now David Cameron .
So what is new in John Kerry telling lies about the Syrian opposition in the senate Committee hearing. Is it clear for what action Obama wants permission for!
Western media is mostly spins, concocted lies and plain lies.
Some hare brained schemes and comments before the 2003 March Shock and Awe display
Some extracts from my first article in August 2002 , out of many scores on the US led illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 when US led warmongers were showing off their military hardware .US alone spent nearly $500 billion on defense to $5 to10 billion by Iraq . Such bravery by the West!
Pandora's Box
"It is difficult to know what to believe of the leaks regarding the US's current options to oust Saddam, ranging from assassination, fomenting a coup or internal rebellion, air strikes against Baghdad and other Iraqi command centers, to a vast amphibious invasion with massive air support, involving up to 250,000 soldiers. The latest plan, involving around 60,000 troops backed by heavy air power, will begin with a swift attack on Saddam's elite Republican Guards around Baghdad, in the hope that the regular Iraqi army would then abandon Saddam. Such balderdash. The result of any such actions could be as catastrophic as Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. However, there is room for hope that worse may not come to worst: a saving grace of the US constitutional system of checks and balances is that Bush may be the most powerful man in the world, but he can't ignore Congress. And, however much George Bush Sr might hate Saddam; he would not want his son's presidency to end in disgrace.
"Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of a few sane voices in the administration, remains opposed to a military strike just as he was in 1991, as it has no clear strategic objectives. Recent media leaks from the Pentagon and the State Department suggested that "many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq". Soon another leak countered that some in the Establishment favored an "inside-out" plan to "take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government". Such a plan was once dismissed by General Anthony Zinni, the US Middle East envoy, as a recipe for a "Bay of Goats" disaster, like the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. (Remember too the mess of Jimmy Carter's 1979 attempt to rescue US hostages in Iran.)
As Powell knows, there are no clearly defined strategic objectives for an attack on Iraq. Instead, Bush has his hands on a Pandora's Box that would release incalculable forces and consequences if he were to open it.
As Powell knows, there are no clearly defined strategic objectives for an attack on Iraq. Instead, Bush has his hands on a Pandora's Box that would release incalculable forces and consequences if he were to open it.
"There is no persuasive evidence that Iraq has rebuilt weapons facilities dismantled after the 1991 war. Even if Iraq has small stockpiles of lethal chemical and biological weapons and some Scud missiles, Saddam will use them only if attacked. Even obedient weapons inspector Richard Butler told the US Senate that there was no evidence that Iraq had passed weapons technology to non-Iraqi terrorist groups. Scott Ritter, another former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has said that the US has not produced enough hard evidence to justify an attack. Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish arms inspector from 1991 to 1997, accused the US last month of manipulating the UN mission for its own ends. The US was more keen on tracking Saddam's whereabouts, which "could be of interest if one were to target him personally".
"Former British chief of staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, warned in a letter to the Times that an invasion would pour "petrol rather than water" on the flames and provide al-Qaeda with more recruits. He quoted a predecessor who during the 1956 Suez crisis said: "Of course we can get to Cairo, but what I want to know is what the bloody hell we do when we get there?"
The whole thing is only accentuating the image of the "Ugly American". A respected non-partisan US think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent report to the White House, "Around the world, from western Europe to the Far East, many see the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and contemptuous of others."
The whole thing is only accentuating the image of the "Ugly American". A respected non-partisan US think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent report to the White House, "Around the world, from western Europe to the Far East, many see the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and contemptuous of others."
Full article
Selected 50 articles from August 2003 to 2012
Below a news item from Russian TV RT
K Gajendra Singh 5 September, 2013
75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls
5 September, 2013
The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus' chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches.
The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was compiled with the aim of "responding to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons."
It states that Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have been secured by Syrian Special Forces.
"Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Assad regime's loss of control," the document reads
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of Assad would present a scenario "100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya."
In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research facilities, "The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons," the document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report.
Meanwhile, a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, although section 3 of the draft ostensibly ruled out US combat operations on the ground.
The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria."
The Obama administration's vacillations on Syria were perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry suggested it would be preferable to give the White House the power to send in ground forces in the event that Syria "imploded" or if chemical weapons were at risk of being obtained by extremists.
"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he told the committee in the run up to the vote.
After being told by Senator Bob Corker – the top Republican on the committee – his sentiments regarding boots on the ground were not "a very appropriate response," Kerry quickly backtracked.
"Let's shut the door now," Kerry said. "The answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war."
Having cleared committee, the measure authorizing force in Syria is expected to reach the Senate floor next week. Senator Rand Paul, a republican with strong ties to the Tea Party movement, has threatened a filibuster.
