This Is About Destroying Sovereignty’: Beck Examines Potential Syria Strike Through the Eyes of a ‘Radical Leftist’
Many have been alarmed by the rapid escalation in Syria this week after years of horrific violence. With the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, U.S. officials say America could begin missile strikes within the week.
But why now? What exactly do we hope to achieve?
(Photo: TheBlaze TV)
Glenn Beck tackled the issue on his television program Wednesday evening, arguing that the focus of the administration may not be on the war itself — but on the subsequent layout of the world.
“This administration knows that we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile, global stability is weak, the west is on the edge, it’s only a matter of time before it crumbles,” he said. “Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel, Syria starts spilling across the border… When it all falls apart and the west is so weakened, who puts it all back together again?”
“War is — after a long period of just running things into the ground — war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war,” Beck continued. “Beyond that, history shows us that war also changes all the players. It changes borders, it changes everything…”
He speculated that after a period of violence, we will “gather at the U.N. because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out, ‘stop the madness!’ And so we do, the international way.”
If we’re not listening to China now, Beck said he guarantees we’ll listen to them at the bargaining table, and we’ll concede. If they say, for instance, we’ll forgive your debts if you just sign the U.N. Arms Treaty, we will.
“This is about destroying sovereignty,” Beck asserted. “The United Nations will, in the end, broker the deal, making them the new superpower and making us just one of the guys. That’s what everybody wants, for the United States just to be average, just like everybody else…”
Considering alternate explanations, Beck said he can think of “a million reasons” why we shouldn’t intervene, “and not one why we should.”
Intervention, he said, will further destabilize Syria, further destabilize the region, and will likely impact our gas prices and the stock market.
If we are intervening purely for humanitarian purposes, why didn’t we intervene sooner? Why don’t we intervene in other cases of mass slaughter? And if the tipping point is truly chemical weapons, Beck asked if you trust the intelligence community more or less than the last time they claimed there were weapons of mass destruction?
Remember the guy who cut his enemy’s heart out and ate it, Beck added? “We’re on his side now.”
The list goes on, Beck said, including the financial cost of the endeavor and the possibility of dragging us into another war we don’t have the energy or resources for.
“Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today, unfortunately,” he concluded. “Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder — hundreds of thousands have died… Syria is this — it is a sick opportunity for the globalist progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.”
8/28/13 - Glenn Beck says the threat of military action against Syria is part of a plot by global progressives to allow the UN to establish peace and avert WWIII and create a One World Government.
Video: George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria
August 29, 2013 - George Galloway Explosive Speech British Parliament Debate On Military Action Against Syria
'Me And My Big Mouth' - UK's Cameron Backs Off From Syria Attack
The French Bow Out Of Syria Strike
And Russia Calls For Urgent UN Security Council Meeting
Some more from BBG:
- RUSSIA CALLED FOR THE SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING, DIPLOMAT
- 5 PERMANENT COUNCIL MEMBERS U.K., U.S., FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA
- FIVE PERM. SEC. COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MEET AT 2:30P
Hopefully Putin doesn't whip out incontrovertible proof the chemical gas attack was linked to Al Qaeda, Qatar... and the US of course.
Two Minds on Syria
The New Yorker: So it looks like we’re going to bomb Assad.
Good.
Really? Why good?
Did you see the videos of those kids? I heard that ten thousand people were gassed. Hundreds of them died. This time, we have to do something.
Yes, I saw the videos.
And you don’t want to pound the shit out of him?
I want to pound the shit out of him.
But you think we shouldn’t do anything.
I didn’t say that. But I want you to explain what we’re going to achieve by bombing.
We’re going to let Assad know that chemical weapons are over the line. There’s a reason they’ve been illegal since Verdun or whenever.
Except when Saddam used them against the Kurds—we knew, and we didn’t say a word.
Is that a reason to let Assad use them against his people?
At this point, I don’t think Assad is too worried about the Geneva Conventions.
He should have to think hard before using them again.
He’s a bloody dictator fighting for survival. He’s going to do whatever he has to do.
Not if we really hurt him. Not if we pound his communications centers, his air-force bases, key government installations. He’ll be more likely to survive if he doesn’t use chemical weapons.
Killing civilians while we’re at it.
These would be very specific targets.
The wrong people always get killed.
Maybe. Probably. But if you were a Syrian being bombed by Assad every day, trying to keep your head down and your family alive, wouldn’t you want the world to respond, even if a few more people die? I think so.
Easy for you to say.
Hey, can we not personalize this?
Weren’t you just saying that I don’t care about dying children? (Pause.) So you want us to get involved in their civil war.
I’m not saying that.
But that’s what we’ll be doing. Intervening on the rebel side, tipping the balance in their favor.
Not necessarily. We’ll be drawing a line that says dictators don’t get to use W.M.D.s without consequences.
You can’t bomb targets on one side of a civil war without helping the other side.
It would be very temporary. We’d send Assad a clear message, and then we’d step back and let them go on fighting. We’re not getting involved any deeper than that, because I know what you’re going to say—
The rebels are a bunch of infighting, disorganized, jihadist thugs, and we can’t trust any of them.
I’m not saying we should.
And what do we do if Assad retaliates against Israel or Turkey? Or if he uses nerve gas somewhere else?
We hit him again.
And it escalates.
Not if we restrict it to cruise missiles and air strikes.
Now you’re scaring me. Have you forgotten Iraq?
Not for a single minute.
My point is that you can’t restrict it. You can’t use force for limited goals. You need to know what you’ll do after his next move, and the move after that.
It only escalates if we allow ourselves to get dragged in deeper. Kosovo didn’t escalate.
This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.
You think Putin is going to risk a military confrontation with the U.S. and Europe?
I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914.
That was a hundred years ago. Stop with the historical analogies.
You’re the one who brought up Verdun. And Kosovo.
I brought up Kosovo because you brought up Iraq. That’s the problem with these arguments. Iraq! Vietnam! Valley Forge! Agincourt! People resort to analogies so they don’t have to think about the matter at hand.
And because they don’t know anything about the matter at hand.
I know what I saw in those videos.
Thank God Obama doesn’t make foreign policy that way. He knows what he doesn’t know about Syria. He’s always thinking a few steps ahead. He’s not going to get steamrolled by John McCain and Anderson Cooper.
At a certain point, caution is another word for indecisiveness. Obama looks weak! Or worse—indifferent. Anyway, he should have thought ahead when he called chemical weapons a “red line.” He set that trap a year ago, and now we’re in it.
Why does it have to be a trap?
Because our credibility is on the line.
Thank you, Dr. Kissinger.
See, that’s another thing people do in these arguments.
What?
“You sound like so-and-so.” It shouldn’t matter who else is on your side. I mean, you’re in bed with Rand Paul. Anyway, credibility matters even if Kissinger said so. You have to do what you say you’re going to do, especially with bullies.
I don’t think Obama committed himself to any one course of action. But if he does bomb them, we’re involved in that war, and I sure hope his advisers have thought through all the potential consequences better than you have.
Inaction has consequences, too. Assad gases more people, the death toll hits two hundred thousand, the weapons get into Hezbollah’s hands, Iran moves ahead with its nuclear program, the Syrian rebels disintegrate and turn to international terrorism, the whole region goes up in sectarian flames.
And how does firing cruise missiles at Damascus prevent any of this?
It doesn’t. But, look, all of this is already happening with us sitting it out. If we put a gun to Assad’s head, we might be able to have more influence over the outcome. At least we can prevent him from winning.
A violent stalemate. How wonderful for the Syrians. Some people think that’s the best solution for us.
I’m not saying that.
What are you saying?
I don’t know. I had it worked out in my head until we started talking. (Pause.) But we need to do something this time.
Not just to do something.
All right. Not just to do something. But could you do me a favor?
What’s that?
While you’re doing nothing, could you please be unhappy about it?
I am.
___
Above: photo authenticated based on its contents and other A.P. reporting, Syrians inspect buildings damaged by heavy shelling from Syrian government forces in Aleppo, on Monday, August 26th. Aleppo Media Center AMC/AP
Video: Daily State Department Press Briefing FULL. 8/28/2013
Video: "IT'S NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!" Pentagon Sounding Kinda Defensive About Their Syria Intel
And after all of this… Obama Threatens To Go It Alone On Syria
Ah, yes...President Obama is steaming mad since the Brits and French backed out of his little Syrian adventure, and he saying he's fully prepared to go it alone.
He even sent another American ship towards Syria, a destroyer escort.The Russians already have a fleet of warships headed that way.
Remember what our Dear Leader and his minions said in 2007 and 2008 about 'Cowboy' Bush? Remember the horse manure about "meeting the global Test" and the Magic Wisdom of the International Community?
Video: Here is Senator Joe Biden: Iran & Impeachment – Biden Saying If “W” Didn’t Get Congressional Approval Before Going to War He’d Seek Impeachment… and Senator Obama Agreed
So what happened? There is very little support by Americans to enter the Syrian Civil War… In a new HuffPo poll, conducted after U.S. officials claimed Syria's government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed. Another 34 percent said that they're not sure. Germany I also a thumbs down along with Britain and France.
The only logical conclusion is that the truth about the scandals Obama is attempting to divert attention from, by getting involved in Syria, are probably a lot worse than any of us thought. Time for more investigation!!
You be the judge… By Marion Algier – AskMarion~
l Kinnock, and therefore not Joe Biden. It was not a British politician. It was not an American politician. It was no one in the media, at least in the Western media. It was the Soviet news agency Tass that called her, that dubbed Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady, and the West's Drive-By Media gleefully picked up on that.
Thatcher was born on October 13, 1925, in Grantham, England, Margaret Thatcher became Britain's Conservative Party leader and in 1979 was elected prime minister, the first woman to hold the position. During her three terms, she cut social welfare programs, reduced trade union power and privatized certain industries. Thatcher resigned in 1991 due to unpopular policy and power struggles in her party. She died on April 8, 2013, at age 87.
Opposition to the treaty and defense of the Second Amendment “are not only inflammatory, they are completely unfounded,” the premier globalist organization asserts. 
