war lies from the Ministry of Truth?

[David Morris]

Obligation to perceived morality.  Red line in the sand crossing
consequences.

I predict the response will be symbolic, perfunctory.  Reluctant, thus
measured.

David Morris

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, wrote:

> Who or what is obliging the President of the US to act against the
> interests of his country, David?
>
> LK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Morris **
> Sent: Aug 27, 2013 7:03 PM
> To: "kelber at mindspring.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'kelber at mindspring.com');>" **
> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>" **
> Subject: Re: war lies from the Ministry of Truth?
>
> His intentions might not be willing.  They might be obligatory.
>
> There is no gain for the US in this war.  That's why Obama has been so
> reluctant to arm the rebels or to act in any other military way.  This is
> obvious.
>
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, wrote:
>
>>
>> There's nothing secret about Obama's intention to get the US involved in
>> Syria - it's a matter of open discussion, with the situation escalating by
>> the hour. As the Washington Post put it yesterday:
>>
>> "President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would
>> be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for
>> Syria's use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the
>> United States out of deeper involvement in that country's civil war,
>> according to senior administration officials."
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
>>
>> What a curious explanation for bombarding a country -- one wracked by
>> civil war, its citizens oppressed, murdered, and in flight -- with
>> long-range missiles: "punishment." Not: "it will save lives," or "it will
>> pave the way to negotiations (not that I personally think missiles can ever
>> do that, but still ...)" The goal is "punishment." I agree absolutely with
>> Joseph that Obama and Co.'s motivations have little to do with the
>> interests of the Syrian people (who will apparently be unscathed by the
>> "limited" rain of bombs upon their country, or if scathed, will presumably
>> prefer being maimed and killed by US bombs over their own government's
>> purported chemicals), and are of no use to the American populace as well.
>> And it's become abundantly clear that the rebel forces are not, as a whole,
>> pillars of democracy. So why send in the cruise missiles? It's great for
>> military contractors, that's for sure. Or an extremely expensive (in terms
>> of lives, money and political instability) to "send a message" to Iran.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> If you think Obama secretly wants to get the US involved in Syria, then I
>> suggest your logic is akin to the Egyptians who think we are secretly
>> allied with the Muslim Brotherhod.  No matter what the US does in Syria,
>> its interests would be better served by NOT doing.  Most everybody can see
>> that reality, but some would like to ignore it.
>>
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, Joseph Tracy  wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else wondering about the convenient setting up and crossing of the
>> chemical weapons red line in Syria. Those photos of children who look like
>> they are holding their eyes closed make anyone else a bit nervous? Anyone
>> else smell a little yellow cake, some WMD, Gulf of Tonkin? Why should we
>> trust the people who start these wars, and then go to extreme lengths to
>> prevent the truth of what they do from being known? Haven't they lied every
>>  time?
>>
>>
>>
>> What makes it ok to kill children in a drone strike, or to endorse
>> Saddam's use of nerve gas against Iran but wrong for the Syrian government
>> to " defend itself" .  We sell every weapon known to man except nuclear, ok
>> Israel's use of white phosphorus,  use cluster bombs, depleted uranium.
>> Isn't Killing civilians just wrong? Shouldn't we start by cleaning our own
>> house?  Is the US government the one in a position to scold and set things
>> right after the debacle in Iraq?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it that we are only deeply concerned about the human rights of a
>> people when we want to go to war with them or starve them?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there really some massive groundswell of US citizens desperate to
>> intervene in a civil war in Syria?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is Obama really  the superman of truth, justice and the American way
>> whose only problem is the nefarious use of kryptonite by evil republicans?
>>  Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of American militarism on the go!
>> We spy on you because we love you. It's for your own good.
>>
> ******
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130827/b6aaae66/attachment.html>