Donate to my Legal Action vs Oliver Kamm

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

It's not peace but regime change, that the US is after in Syria

Above you can see an RT interview with me on the US's true aim in Syria- and why bringing international war criminals like George W. Bush, Tony  Blair and Bill Clinton to justice is a much more urgent priority than having President Assad indicted.

More on the western hypocrisy towards Syria here.


Douglas said...

Ah, so you're a broadcaster now! Have you ever done any podcasts? I've done a few, which the Internet Archive hosts in exchange for their being licensed under Creative Commons:

I saw that bit on RT where the gentleman from A.N.S.W.E.R. talked about how Syria, then Venezuela, then Cuba, then Cheltenham, were next on the US regime change menu after Libya. Ok, ok, not Cheltenham.

I don't really know what the anti-war movement is like in the UK, but I'm here to tell you the anti-war movement in the US is a crowd of fakes, phonies, poseurs and pretenders who were only anti-Republican-war, not anti-Democrat-war.

So the gentleman from A.N.S.W.E.R. has no credibility whatsoever with me.

Secretary Clinton was mocked to scorn here in America when she called Bashar Assad a "reformer" in March of this year. So whatever the real policy is, the stated policy has been all over the map.

It should also be noted that the US has not passed an act regarding Syria similar to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton, stating that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States.

Who knows, maybe you're right that the US is after regime change in Syria. But I don't know how you know this. Do you know something no one else knows?

Neil Clark said...

Hi Douglas,
thanks as ever for your comments.
Take a look at Daniel McAdam's comment underneath my earlier Syria post of 15th August. Iran is the 'main prize' , but toppling Iran's strongest regional ally has to be done before that.
Syria is not an extremist Islamic state, its run by a secular regime and is a place where Christians are protected. But neocons hate the Baathist regime, not because of its human rights record, but becuase of its friendly links with Iran and Russia. Did you read my 'American Conservative' essay on Syria?
I think you're being a bit harsh on the US anti-war movement. Do you know the website 'Anti-War.Com'- link on the blogroll on the right, and also Doug Fuda's Anti-War League (also link on blogroll)?
best wishes

jack said...


Anti-war movement in the US lol! that’s a joke they are as worthless and ineffective as the anti-war protests here in the UK who with Libya hardly even tried.

The only way an effective anti-war movement would be effective is if some intelligence asset business man or foundation financed an anti-war movement when the government feels it’s objectives like re-establishing the Opium and terrorist networks in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 to destabilise Eurasia are meet and there is no need for a continual US/NATO presence in the region.

Anyway there is really zero difference between the parties here in the UK, US or in Europe although in Europe they do have smaller fringe parties represented in parliament.

Two branches of the same rotten tree.

@Neil Clark

It also continues the rise of the fascist pan-Turkish Empire that is emerging in the Mid East, and stretching from the Balkans to Xinjing with armed and well trained terrorist gangs supported by the regimes in Turkey, Israel, Britain and the US entering Syria causing havoc.

Nobody is point out the hypocrisy that Turkey and Iran are blitzing Northern Iraq with US blessing to root out PKK rebels.