Nothing Has Changed






  This is what Kissinger said about Syria in June of 2013:

ďFor the current Assad who is there, one can have this degree of sympathy. He started out in life as an opthamologist. The height of his ambition was to practice opthamology. He didn't want to govern in Syria. He was in London for 4 years with his wife practicing his profession. When his brother, who was supposed to succeed the father was killed in an automobile accident and he was brought back to Syria. So, he's described in our media as a bad guy and that's largely true, but he's also incompetent and unsuited for that office on those grounds because you have to assume if you make optomology your profession, you are not driven by a huge hunger for power. So then the revolution breaks out. And in the American press itís described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and weíve got to punish him. But thatís not whatís going on. It may have been started by a few democrats. But on the whole itís an ethnic and sectarian conflict. It is now a civil war between sectarian groups... So however it started and whatever happened in the first three weeks, it's now a civil war between sectarian groups. And I have to say we have misunderstood it from the beginning. If you read our media they say we've got to get rid of Assad and if they get rid of Assad then we form a coalition government. Inconceivable. I mean I'm all in favor of getting rid of Assad but the dispute between us and the Russians on that issue was, the Russians say: you start with getting rid of not just Assad, thatís not the issue, but you break up the state administration and youíll wind up like in Iraq- that there is nothing to hold it together. And then youíll have an even worse civil war. This is how that mess has taken the present form. There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they canít oppress each other. Thatís the outcome I would prefer to see. But thatís not the popular view. I don't see it. If you put either of these sectarian groups in charge there will be a bloodbath. And so, if one wants a humane outcome, I also think Assad ought to go but I don't think it's the key. The key is, it's like europe after the 30 years war when the various christian groups had been killing each other until they finally decided that they'd live together but in seperate units. So that is the fundamental issue and we are beginning to move towards that. But it's going to be very tough, on top of it, it's the fact that the Iranian problem, the Iranians have a quasi-terrorist, I would say terrorist force in Lebanon which is shiite. They have now intervened...and then you have a kurdish unit in the north that wants to break off. It's really a tough issue and I think we're now's almost inconceivable to me to form a national coalition government where they govern together, what will probably happen is that the country will lose its unitary character... Ē -so there you have it, Kissinger's solution is to get rid of Assad so that Syria is balkanized, and that is what the handful of "democrats" that he is probably responsible for organizing in the first place were all about. In Kissinger's own words, "we have to define the outcome" and he made his position crystal clear to the point where he planned to "line up some countries to achieve that end", and in the meantime, who is responsible for all the bloodshed?

Kissinger knows that a country that is divided into a multiplicity of ethnic groups is difficult if not impossible to rule without Assad, and the handful of "democrats" that are responsible for trying to balkanize the country are essentially deploying HIS agenda. In the words of Kissinger, if Syria was a democracy, "every ethnic group would vote for its own people so you'd be right back where it started. You don't get a natural consensus because these ethnic groups are very antagonistic to each other." How can you possibly get American-style democracy in Syria when Kissinger advocates balkanization?

Final Analysis: Kissinger is totally senile and insane, Assad, who has no ambition for power, maintained the peace, and the planned lunacy that is currently unfolding is scripted chaos.

The historical reality is that the US is not interfering in a civil war to prevent a massacre. The US is destabilizing Syria to make a massacre inevitable, and that makes this conflict unprecedented.


Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox.

Message Board -Click Here !

Follow matwilson6 on Twitter