Trending Topics

Donald Rumsfeld: Obama Hasn’t Justified Attacking Syria

In an interview with Fox Business Network host Neil Cavuto, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued against military intervention in Syria. “There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld told Cavuto.

Anyone with a good memory and a healthy sense of irony will remember that as secretary of defense in 2003, Rumsfeld helped lead the country into the Iraq War with what many would view as insufficient “national interest” for the United States, reports Mediate.

Strike against Syria stalled by British political debate

According to the Guardian, allied air strikes against the Syrian government over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed until next week in the face of strong opposition in the U.K. Parliament to British involvement in immediate military action.

Prime Minister David Cameron conceded that MPs would be given a second vote to approve military action to defuse a parliamentary revolt, ahead of a House of Commons debate on Syria on Thursday. Whitehall sources indicated that the U.S., which had planned to launch the strikes by the weekend, is prepared to revive a back-up plan to delay the strikes until Tuesday when Barack Obama sets out for the G20 summit in Russia, the Guardian reports.

Such a move by the Obama administration would effectively hand Cameron a political lifeline after the opposition Labor party threatened to inflict a defeat on the Conservative-led coalition in parliament, the report states.

Obama, referring to the chemical attacks during a PBS television interview on Wednesday, said: “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out.”

What people are saying

2 thoughts on “Donald Rumsfeld: Obama Hasn’t Justified Attacking Syria

  1. It is true that Obama hasn't justified Syria attack. Many people think that intercepted phone calls indicate Syrian government did not order attack. A possible military action – it will be very bad example for Russia. What it will bring in future? An ancient vision says: "And [the king of the north] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945. This detail indicated that Hitler will attack also the Soviet Union and will fight to the bitter end. In the beginning there were no signs of such the ending of this war]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [hostility towards Christians]; and will act [it means activity in the international arena]; and turned back to his own land [1991-1993. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Russian troops returned to their country]. At the appointed time [he] will return back." (Daniel 11:28, 29a, literal translation) The return of Russia in this context means crisis, which will eclipse the Great Depression. Not only the eurozone will break up, but also the European Union and NATO. Then many countries of the former Eastern block will return to Russia's zone of influence. Russian troops will be stationed here again.

    Russia, however, will not return everywhere. "And [the king of the north] will enter into the south [Georgia], but it will not be as the former [1921] or as the latter [2008], for the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the West] will come against him, and he will be dejected, and will go back." (Daniel 11:29b, 30a, literal translation).

    What will induce the "king of the north" to enter into the south? Jesus said: "For nation will rise against nation", as in 2008, and then…

    Moses writes: "But ships from the direction of Kittim [from the West], and troubling Asshur [Russia] and troubling Eber [remaining enemies, including Iran and China]." (Numbers 24:24a, literal translation).

    This will be a nuclear war. (Revelation 6:4) "A great sword" in this context means a nuclear sword. As Jesus foretold, it will be "the beginning of birth pains". (Mathew 24:7, 8).

    All the details of this vision are being fulfilled from the time of ancient Persia, in chronological order. It is true that this vision is variously interpreted. As one can see, it has a lot of details. Therefore the insightful person is able to detect any error or sophistry. (Daniel 12:10)

    In 1882 British troops occupied Egypt. Great Britain then took the role of "the king of the south". Around the same time, Russia expanded its influence in the region, which previously belonged to Seleucus I Nicator, and took the role of "the king of the north". (Daniel 11:27)

  2. This headline in one of Canada's largest right-wing newspapers says it all:
    "British vote on Syria demonstrates deep western weariness with Middle East".
    National Post – – British 'no' vote on Syria ratchets up pressure on Obama. The United States found itself with only one major partner – France – in its plans to strike Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons, after its staunchest ally Britain had to beg off following a…
    We are weary. Only Jews and Palestinians and Arabs really care anymore. After seven decades, the rest of us are sick of it/sic/sick/sick. Either make peace among yourselves or commit mass suicide, but leave the rest of us alone.
    And blow up Jerusalem, and Mecca, while you're at it in order to get rid of those Jewish, Muslim and Christian symbols that have caused so much death, destruction and war throughout history and into today.

Leave a Reply

Back to top