No more foreign policy on the cheap

  • Article by: Andrew Borene
  • Updated: September 6, 2013 - 8:23 PM

A ‘yes’ vote on Syria also demands resources for the follow-through.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
tmauelSep. 6, 1311:21 PM

Andrew Borene like Barak Obama refuses to acknowledge the evidence from the UN special investigator Carla del Ponti, Mint Free Press of Minnesota, and yesterday Egyptian intelligence that the rebels have been caught using chemical weapons in several obvious false flag operations designed to trigger a US bombing campaign. Only a complacent corporate media keeps the lies of Syrian rebel chemical use from being exposed. In contrast all the claims of Obama concerning sarin or other chemical use by Assad forces are easily refuted on close examination. When holes in the Obama case are pointed out by congressmen Obama claims the information is classified. When the UN attempts to investigate Obama makes false claims that it is "too late" to collect chemical evidence. And when UN chemical weapons experts first attempted to collect samples and interview witnesses from the August 21 attack they were fired on from rebel controlled areas. CBS and the New York Times have begun to question some of the rationale as to why the U.S. should support these murderous al-Qaeda rebels. CBS led their Thursday night news with a horrific seen of Syrian rebels executing several captured Assad soldiers in violation of the Geneva convention.

12
2
tmauelSep. 6, 1311:34 PM

I challenge professor Borene to present one shred of evidence of chemical use by Assad forces. Like Obama he has none. However being a professor he could easily attempt to find out the truth. Maybe in doing so he would discover what the majority of Americans already suspect. This is another attempt to push phony intelligence in order to escalate and entangle the U.S. in another major war of choice by the executive branch.

12
2
scottkySep. 6, 1311:41 PM

OK, in short on the editorial: We should attack Syria because of the chemical weapons used, and we should revoke the sequester. What's missing is any analysis of whether attacking Syria helps or hurts the USA's national security - many of the Syrian opposition groups dislike the USA more than the current regime. Attacking Syria also appears to go against one of the Truman National Security Project's principles: Strong alliances protect American national security. There is less international support for attacking Syria than there was for when we attacked Iraq, and while the author criticized the lack of intelligence analysis for the attack on Iraq. there also appears to be a similar lack of analysis about the impacts of an attack on Syria.

12
2
tmauelSep. 7, 1312:35 AM

Interesting in his pitch for war professor Borene mentions WMD. There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Saddam destroyed all his chemical weapons following the first Gulf War and the CIA was fully aware that Saddam had done so. When the first protests of the looming second Iraq war began shortly after 9-11-2001 several fellow activists gathered in Loring Park to protest the looming threat of war on Iraq from the Washington elite. Among that small initial group it was explained that Sadam had destroyed his chemical weapons and the CIA new it. Following this early protest their began months of forgeries and fabrications by the CIA, the State Department, the President and a near hysteric drum beat for war by corporate media which never questioned one aspect of the phony evidence of WMD.

4
3
luzhishenSep. 7, 1312:53 AM

What follow-through...? The Senate resolution authorizes trainers, advisers, etc., etc. and says we are to "degrade" Syria's army. In other words, another open-ended Mid-East war.

12
0
comment229Sep. 7, 13 5:06 AM

When either side in this conflict, kills one American citizen, they we should "think about it." After watching the executions on the rebel side, there is no doubt that we have no business at all intervening. Both sides are the worst; stay out!

10
0
monkeyplanetSep. 7, 13 8:08 AM

Perhaps if we're so concerned about chemical weapons, we should stop producing them in the United States. After all, we were perfectly complicit in Saddam Hussein's gassing of his own people in 1988. And where do you think he got the chemical weapons he used on Iran? The hypocrisy of American politicians (and, apparently, academics) on this issue positively reeks.

9
1
albundy74Sep. 7, 13 8:50 AM

After Syria where are we off to police next? How about we pay off the Iraq and Afghanistan wars first, then circle back and talk about a Syrian occupation for 10 years and how that benefits the U.S.

6
0
jd55604Sep. 7, 1310:18 AM

"Congress should also decide to eliminate the sequester, and to make a commitment to funding U.S.-led diplomatic, development and intelligence operations around the world"..........As if a $700 billion/yr defense budget isn't enough. Give me a break professor. We need to go back to promoting national security not international security.

6
0
vlombardySep. 7, 1310:35 AM

The US uses UN Resolution 1540 (banning the use or proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons) as the basis for attacking Syria. Where is our outrage over Israel's violation of UN Resolution 446 since 1979?

3
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT