Veteran’s Powerful Syria Truth.

Posted September 8, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

Ron Senchak, a veteran and President of the Greater Manchester Stop the War Coalition, delivers a powerful speech in Britain recently, which drives home the reality of Syria and the Middle East region.


Related articles


Syria Debate Now Worldwide.

90th United States Congress
90th United States Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted September 8, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

Millions, perhaps billions of people in every country on Earth have focused on the United States Congress, watching, reading and listening to every word, emotion and nuance.

The same numbers of men, women and children are active and involved in different ways, from expressing their thoughts on the internet, to emailing and phoning lawmakers, to attending demonstrations against U.S. military action-war against the country of Syria.

Those with technical skills are producing films of varying lengths to spread their messages with others. The following are two of those films, showing clips from various producers.

The first is an interview today of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough by CNN’s Candy Crowley. He asserts that the administration has evidence which passes the “common sense test” and that this is not a “court of law… this is not how intelligence works”. One would think that the most important unsolved crime on Earth now, the chemical attacks in Syria on August 21, would be best solved in a court of law. We must ask why both Vladimir Putin and Bassar Al’Assad have asked for evidence and proof. A person accused of a single murder has his day in court. I am not for or against anyone here; I am simply saying that there are many with much greater experience and knowledge on these issues who are calling for exactly the same thing-present the evidence to the UN and prove the case.

The second video is a variety of clips starting with Wesley Clark’s description of the Pentagon’s plan to invade and control “seven countries in five years”. To be balanced, evidently Mr. Clark is for strikes on Syria. There is a clip of a man who seems like a veteran confronting John McCain at a town-hall meeting.

Please push on as hard as possible in your efforts for peace in the Middle East and the country of Syria.

Thank you.

(September 9, 2013: The YouTube videos originally a part of this post are no longer available because the account(s) of the person(s) who produced them were terminated))

Overselling War, Underselling Peace.

Le président Barack Obama préside un conseil d...
Le président Barack Obama préside un conseil de sécurité des Nations unies au siège des Nations unies, 24 sept. 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted September 8, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

Violence begets violence. Take a few moments and think seriously about the statement, and correlate the meaning of the statement to current events on this Earth, namely the ongoing debate on military actions in Syria.

The first important point I would like to touch on is that the Obama administration is “selling” their proposed “limited action”, which they tell the world is not war, to members of Congress and the Senate. Does anyone else feel it is very strange, for a national governmental entity like the Executive Branch-the Obama administration, that military action, which meets the definition for war, has to be “sold”?

Does anyone else feel that the energy which the administration is expending to gain support and votes is an energy similar to salesmen? There is a palpable sense that they want to “close the deal”. One senses an over-ambitious effort to persuade members of Congress, the American people, and the world community that the military actions, let us be honest-war, has to be undertaken.

Most everyone is familiar with an over-ambitious clerk who is rapid-talking, pointing out all the benefits you will derive from buying his company’s products. If we can imagine zero point on a numerical graph and lines extending left and right of zero, the left line numbered -1 through -10, the right line numbered +1 through +10.

The simple graph here will help you visualize the point I am trying to make. The Obama administration is expending almost every ounce of energy, through their appearances on today’s Sunday talk/news programs, travels around the world for support from leaders and organizations, the president’s address to the nation the day before the anniversary of 9/11, selling war.

John Kerry initially admitted that he did not want to close any possibility of “boots on the ground”, in the event that terrorists gained control of chemical stockpiles after “the limited strikes”, and “take off the table our ability to protect our country”. He later had to pull back on that position but, as we all know, once we speak the words we cannot reel them back as if we never said them. He said what was on his mind, we must believe that he was conveying the thinking of the administration.

The instances where, in the words coming from the administration, there have been mentions of possible alternatives to military action-war-are non-existent. A sharp clerk does not ever mention the negative aspects of the product or products he or she is trying to get you to buy. The product that the administration is trying to sell to Congress and the American people is war. Since peace is seen as a negative to the administration, an idea which lowers the chances that the “customer”, Congress and the American people will “buy” war, an objection to purchasing, there has been no mention of any non-violent options.

How can we view John Boehner‘s shutting down the Russian offer to come to Washington for dialogue, with the hopes of a negotiation over the Syrian crisis? Could it be because this would interfere with the “sale” of war. A simple analogy is your neighbor offering to talk over an issue which has hurt your friendship, and you tell him to go to hell. Any suggestion to go to the United Nations Security Council with evidence of Assad’s guilt, and dialogue between nations, is met with dismissal of the United Nations as not an option, because Russia will only block any and all efforts.

There is a lack of energy in the administration’s words directed to the suffering of the Syrian people and surrounding countries. It seems that the message’s energy would be more directed to concern for people on the ground in that region of the world. The reason for this lack could be that any energy in the message which concentrates on the people of Syria would raise objections to the “sale”, because of the violent aspects of cruise missiles.

John Kerry has exhibited too much enthusiasm when speaking to the press about the growing support for the administration’s plan for war. It is an image which reminds one too much of a sales rep, where he tells the prospective buyer, “see all the benefits of buying this?!” In a matter so grave, so serious as war and peace, it seems there is no need for selling of any kind. This is what worries me greatly.

I believe that my simple analysis, showing that the Obama administration is actually “selling” their wish to take military action against Syria, to undertake a warring action, points out the true deep deficiency of the administration’s argument(s). In this debate of war and peace on this Earth all people should look at how the words are spoken, what kind of emotions are expressed,, and search for the true meaning behind those words.

I repeat here my request for the administration to take their evidence to the United Nations Security Council, and prove to the world that Syria was responsible for the chemical attacks of August 21, on which your case for military action-war, rests.

The following question is for President Barack Obama and the Congressmen and Senators of the United States.

“Is the reason for your not taking evidence to the United Nations Security Council, and proving to the world that the Syrian regime is responsible, that it would be a repeat of the Colin Powell-United Nations incident before the Iraq War?”

And that the world would respond to your war salesmanship with “We don’t need one.”


Related articles