British Politician Speaks Up Against UK Syrian Policy.
by Tony Cartalucci
September 5, 2012 - Foreign Secretary William Hague to the British House of Commons (at around 28:00) stated that more "death and suffering" would be required to convince Russia and other nations to change their positions on Syria.
This might answer the question as to why the United States, UK, France, NATO members including Turkey, and the despotic Gulf State autocracies have made such vigorous efforts to fund, arm, and support foreign terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda, flowing over Syria's borders throughout the duration of the conflict.
Image: Foreign Secretary William Hague (left) is questioned by Labour's Peter Hain who suggests the West's obsession with regime change in Syria amounts to a catastrophic and monumental policy failure - canceling out efforts to end the bloodshed. Not brought up in the House of Commons, is the fact that the opposition Hague and others seek to support, arm, and have prevail in Syria, are led by militant groups listed by the UK Home Office itself as proscribed terrorist organizations.
It is their hope to create such staggering amounts of Western-subsidized "death and suffering" that the world begs for Western military intervention and regime change.
Hague however, faced criticism from the Labour Party's Peter Hain who accused Hague of an "obsession with regime" that amounted to a "catastrophic and monumental failure of Western policy."
Hague responded by citing the August 3, 2012 UN resolution passed by the General Assembly, claiming that 133 supported the West's stance, "with only 12 votes against."
Hauge fails to acknowledge, however, that in addition to the 12 nations that voted firmly against the resolution, 31 nations abstained, a muted protest to the resolution. Nations either firmly opposed to the resolution or refusing to vote on it included China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa, India, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, representing nearly half the world's population.
The overwhelming support Hague tries to portray is in reality simply a flagrant abuse of statistics, a tired but common ploy used by frauds of all varieties the world over. And regardless of whether Hague has the support of the world or not, he never adequately addressed the accusation that the policy he was promoting is a "catastrophic and monumental failure."
The premise Hague and his counterparts in the US, across the EU, NATO, and the despotic regimes of the Gulf have upheld is that Western support for terrorists operating in Syria is based on humanitarian concerns. If arming these terrorists for protracted violence - as is the stated goal of Western policy papers - is the actual cause of the humanitarian catastrophe, then the West's intervention to "save civilian lives" is indeed a monumental failure at the very least.
At most, and much closer to reality, however, Western intervention is instead, naked military aggression seeking to violently carve out a client-regime in Syria for the purpose of doing likewise vis-a-vis Iran, simply couched within an increasingly tenuous "humanitarian mission."
by Tony Cartalucci
September 5, 2012 - Foreign Secretary William Hague to the British House of Commons (at around 28:00) stated that more "death and suffering" would be required to convince Russia and other nations to change their positions on Syria.
This might answer the question as to why the United States, UK, France, NATO members including Turkey, and the despotic Gulf State autocracies have made such vigorous efforts to fund, arm, and support foreign terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda, flowing over Syria's borders throughout the duration of the conflict.
Image: Foreign Secretary William Hague (left) is questioned by Labour's Peter Hain who suggests the West's obsession with regime change in Syria amounts to a catastrophic and monumental policy failure - canceling out efforts to end the bloodshed. Not brought up in the House of Commons, is the fact that the opposition Hague and others seek to support, arm, and have prevail in Syria, are led by militant groups listed by the UK Home Office itself as proscribed terrorist organizations.
....
It is their hope to create such staggering amounts of Western-subsidized "death and suffering" that the world begs for Western military intervention and regime change.
Hague however, faced criticism from the Labour Party's Peter Hain who accused Hague of an "obsession with regime" that amounted to a "catastrophic and monumental failure of Western policy."
Hague responded by citing the August 3, 2012 UN resolution passed by the General Assembly, claiming that 133 supported the West's stance, "with only 12 votes against."
Hauge fails to acknowledge, however, that in addition to the 12 nations that voted firmly against the resolution, 31 nations abstained, a muted protest to the resolution. Nations either firmly opposed to the resolution or refusing to vote on it included China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, South Africa, India, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Iraq, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, representing nearly half the world's population.
The overwhelming support Hague tries to portray is in reality simply a flagrant abuse of statistics, a tired but common ploy used by frauds of all varieties the world over. And regardless of whether Hague has the support of the world or not, he never adequately addressed the accusation that the policy he was promoting is a "catastrophic and monumental failure."
The premise Hague and his counterparts in the US, across the EU, NATO, and the despotic regimes of the Gulf have upheld is that Western support for terrorists operating in Syria is based on humanitarian concerns. If arming these terrorists for protracted violence - as is the stated goal of Western policy papers - is the actual cause of the humanitarian catastrophe, then the West's intervention to "save civilian lives" is indeed a monumental failure at the very least.
At most, and much closer to reality, however, Western intervention is instead, naked military aggression seeking to violently carve out a client-regime in Syria for the purpose of doing likewise vis-a-vis Iran, simply couched within an increasingly tenuous "humanitarian mission."
