Edit - With regard to your editted question "I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?": yes. First: the

Edit - With regard to your editted question "I don't understand what you are saying - is there anything new or controversial to report here?": yes. First: the material that the NYT specifically edited to display wasn't new information. To the contrary, the information edited out would be new information to a lot of people (including yourself if you look at your own comment wrt 'that's not true' and 'most of this is disputable'). Second: the point of the comment, even if you choose to ignore/disbelieve things you do not want to believe wrt Syria, is that the NYT is very selective about what they choose to publish. Indeed, take a look again at what parts the NYT chose to include and what parts got small versus big font, and how context was edited out of the snippets. > They include Kerry espousing the principles of Democracy, but not the fact that he was trying to convince the opposition (which does not want an election, including one overseen by the US) that they might want to have an election. I'm speaking here about both the 'majority consensus' of the opposition, and what is spoken by the leadership of the opposition in the leaked audio. In any case it's an important omission by the New York Times, which is the point of the comment. > That simply isn't true. > The second map ... It definitely is true. I doubt how closely you've followed the Syrian Proxy War. But the point (again) here is that John Kerry said it, and said it to opposition leaders behind closed doors, and it was edited out. > I haven't listened to the whole tape yet Keep listening. > I haven't heard this yet, but it sounds correct to me? I don't think anyone in the US is advocating for an invasion are they? There have been many attempts to find a political basis for US coalition invasion of Syria. However at this point the better of those options have run out. The remaining options are: A. Provoke or simulate Syrian government attacks on US forces (think Tonkin) at which point it is legal based on self-defense. B. Get invited in by the Syrian government (not likely to happen). C. Get the UN Security Council to justify it. Unlikely as Russia or China is likely to veto it. D. Establish a legal argument that the US is justified going in because of atrocity. Right now this would be an uphill legal battle as it is not the consensus that this can justify an invasion. Other options (besides the diplomatic track) for the US geopolitical objective of regime change include some covert, illegal options such as assassination of key Syrian government officials, more proxy support including of al Sham (al Nusra's new branding), and leverage on Russia/Syria in other contexts (sanctions/economic warfare, more propaganda/information war, etc). There's current emphasis on the possibility of building support, under the authorities current present, to establish no-fly zones to give Syrian terror/opposition/rebel groups cover for ground offensives and to let off government and Russian strikes.