NATO looking for another bloodbath.......
Libya redux. The phrase sums up the shifting political sentiments — and rhetoric — toward Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime as Western leaders edge closer to military intervention.At a meeting of the 14-member Friends of Syria group in Paris on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised the possibility of NATO involvement in Syria
In Paris, Clinton said Turkey may invoke the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s charter provision triggering consultations if a member’s security is threatened. Turkey, she said, has already discussed with NATO “the burden of Syrian refugees on Turkey, the outrageous shelling across the border from Syria into Turkey a week ago, and that Turkey is considering formally invoking Article 4” of the NATO charter.
Article 4, if invoked, would oblige Turkey’s NATO partners to consider action to stop the Syrian Army from shelling rebel positions along the border areas. Last week, after Syrian troops fired shells into Turkey, the Turkish government threatened to invoke Article 5, which refers to an attack on one NATO member as an attack on all.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, who was in Paris for the meeting, said Canada will “push aggressively” to ensure Syria complies with the peace plan.
Perhaps so, but French President Nicolas Sarkozy compared the situation in Syria to that in Libya before the NATO campaign that resulted in the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. “Bashar al-Assad is lying. He wants to wipe (the town of) Homs off the map just like Gadhafi wanted to destroy Benghazi.”
Last year, as they sought to justify the Libyan campaign, Sarkozy and other Western leaders regularly deployed rhetoric about humanitarian intervention, “the responsibility to protect” and the need to prevent more civilian deaths.
The calls for a Libya-like intervention in Syria are increasing, and, it seems, being given serious consideration. On Thursday, Syria’s rebel Free Syrian Army, sounding much like the rebels who challenged Gadhafi’s regime, said it was time for outside military intervention.
“The department of defence is reviewing and continuing to review plans for a variety of possible scenarios should the president determine that further steps are necessary,” Panetta said, noting that NATO’s operation in Libya last year would serve as a template. “We have looked at a variety of options, including the possibility of developing humanitarian corridors.”
Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also raised the spectre of another threat beyond the current violence — the security of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons. “Spillover into neighbouring countries is an increasing concern,” he said, citing the flow of refugees and the chance terrorists may try to capitalize on the chaos. The U.S. must be “especially alert to the fate of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons.”
“I think we’re in for 10 or 15 years of instability in a region that has already been characterized by instability,” the general said.
Actually Syria was stable. As had been Libya. As is Iran. As was Iraq.
Only western meddling has caused instability...as intended.
That certainly has held true for Libya since Gadhafi’s removal. Libya’s new leaders are having a difficult time gaining control of the country and asserting their authority against various still-fighting factions. As well, the terrorist threat is well established, with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb apparently gaining access to missiles and arms from abandoned Libyan Army stockpiles. Some observers predict a regional war across much of North Africa as the unintended consequence of the Libyan campaign.
Unintended? Bullshit! Completely intended.
UPDATE!I borrowed this from NYSC aka Ali. Thanks kindly Ali !
Why am I adding this?
I have maintained all along, from the moment the western media spun the lie of peaceful protests in Syria, the earliest protests were armed insurrections. I had covered the confiscation of weapons.
The main stream media stuck to it's lies