Two faced?

The Us has long thought to be the instigators of ‘regime change’ or maybe leaders sympathetic to the US view of the world.

Regime Change: ‘Seven Countries in Five Years’

In this book by Wesley Clark

While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing passage in Wesley Clark’s new memoir suggests that another war is part of a long-planned Department of Defense strategy that anticipated “regime change” by force in no fewer than seven Mideast states.

“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

While Clark doesn’t name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. . . .

See full article here

The problem of course is that if you are going to have predisposed ideas of regime change your arguments for action against them, may not be entirely honorable…..Today as Obama is in Russia at the G20 summit meeting, Kerry is hitting it as hard as possible with getting the vote to attack Syria on Wednesday 11th September after the Presidents address to the nation on the 10th sept. The blistering of the US goes on. Kerry says if congress votes against a limited attack on Syria, the President can go it alone. Yep… you heard right……predictably in reply many say that if that were the case the President should be impeached.Of course its unlikely Obama will go against the will of the people, no matter what Kerry says, but should we not be looking a little deeper to our involvement with this type of weapon?

Just what involvement have we had?

The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war against Iran throughout the 1980s, even as they knew Saddam was deploying chemical weapons on a scale far more devastating than anything seen in Syria to date. Indeed, it isn’t enough to say that we supported Hussein while he was deploying chemical weapons; we supplied him with intelligence about what Iranian targets to hit with the expectation that he would attack with chemical weapons. We then proceeded to block Iranian attempts to bring a case against Iraq to the United Nations.

See full article here

Yet the president even though he must know of these events, still clings to making bold statements to that could be advantageous if your losing!

You actually help the rebels by telling them what they need to do to get the involvement of the USA. After all if your losing it may be an acceptable trade off to get Assad removed.

The US is no stranger to accepting the using of chemical weapons, as they actually supported the use by Saddam Hussein, and then proceeded to protect him.

Declassified CIA Documents Reveal US Helped Saddam Hussein Knowing He Would Use Chemical Weapons

See full article here

US Protected Iraq at UN from Iranian Charges of Chemical Weapons Use

The new American alliance might have been a public relations debacle if Iran succeeded in its 1984 attempt to have Iraq directly condemned at the United Nations for use of chemical weapons. As far as possible, Shultz wanted to weasel out of joining such a U.N. condemnation of Iraq. He wrote in a cable that the U.S. delegation to the U.N. “should work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take ‘no decision’ on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq. If such a motion gets reasonable and broad support and sponsorship, USDEL should vote in favor. Failing Western support for ‘no decision,’ USDEL should abstain.” Shultz in the first instance wanted to protect Hussein from condemnation by a motion of “no decision,” and hoped to get U.S. allies aboard. If that ploy failed and Iraq were to be castigated, he ordered that the U.S. just abstain from the vote. Despite its treaty obligations in this regard, the U.S. was not even to so much as vote for a U.N. resolution on the subject!

See full article here

There are of course many instances of involvement of regime change, and manipulating the information to the generl public in order to achieve there aims, but as the decision on Syria looms forward, isnt it time to tell these warmongers to STOP?