Skip to comments.Is US strike on Syria step two of the neoconservative master plan?
Posted on 09/10/2013 7:35:18 PM PDT by bryan999
There is great division of opinion regarding potential US military action in Syria. However, one group is ecstatic over President Obamas endorsement of a military attack on Damascus. These are the Neoconservatives who dominated the George W. Bush administration, and who still hold tremendous influence in Washington. An attack on Syria would be one step in fulfilling stage two of a longstanding neoconservative plan to bring about regime change throughout the Middle East in three stages: Iraq, Syria and finally Iran.
The pattern for this plan has been to wait for an event that can be sold to the world public as justification for military attack, and then to push forward, pressuring the military and government officials to move forward with the next stage of regime change.
President Obama is, perhaps unwittingly, fulfilling this plan, conceived in 1996 by an informal organization, the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, headed by Richard Pearle and including well-known neo-conservatives, Douglas Feith, Meyrav Wurmser, David Wurmser, Robert Loewenberg, Charles Fairbanks, Jr. and James Colbert. All are connected with organizations favoring right-wing extremist Israeli policies toward Palestinians and other Middle East nations. The Study Group plan, titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was prepared for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The clean break refers to their advice that Israel break from the 1993 Oslo peace accords.
The 1996 plan explicitly calls for attacks on Iraq, Syria and eventually Iran. It states: Israel can shape its strategic environment . . . by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbeeman.blogspot.com ...
Oops, missed the link somehow :
Stop with the neo-con crappola.
Bush also, was for exporting US jobs.
We need American jobs. More American jobs.
Hire Americans, and import far, far less.
Build up American manufacturing. Now.
Syria looks like it was number six on the list.
General Wesley Clark US Planned Invasion of Seven Countries Back In 2001
Lebanon Check (see assassination of Rafic Hariri and the Cedar Revolution)
Sudan Check (Southern Sudan became a sovereign State on 9 July 2011)
Syria Currently in progress
Iran The saber rattling and war propaganda has reached a fever pitch.
The idea for changing these countries goes back to 1991.
Hmmmm, the eve of the one year anniversary of the massive Obama screw up that allowed a US ambassador to be raped and murdered, but all we talk about is Syria.
The plan is proceeding masterfully. Much better than that phony video story.
Thanks for that post.
Sure getting tired of these “neocon” speculations. The reason he replaced the Egyptian and Libyan govts was to bring about the results we all can see there. Rabid antiAmetican terrorist islamicists This is the same reason he protects those in charge of Iran. He has zero plans to overthrow Teheran. Just the opposite. As is obvious to the entire world after five years of consistent conduct.
Anyone who uses the term neocon is an absolute moron, 99.9% of which don’t even know what it means or what it refers to.
I have one word of advice to people who love the term: kill yourself.
The Bush family is all for Hillary being president, too.
In the case of Zer0 and his minions, stupidity is not a good way to accomplish foreign policy. Barry, JFK, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power are far above their competencies in “real world” foreign policy and politics.
Note to Barry Soetoro, JFK, et al: voting “present” doesn't cut it here.
“Anyone who uses the term neocon is an absolute moron,”
Does that apply to Irving Kristol who popularized the term?
And who applied it to the very movement that he helped create?