War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[Vox]

That is only the political sales job. The goal is to weaken Iran & Russia's grip on the Mideast oil.

Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Russia is a massive oil exporter.

Oil reserves in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might want to rethink your conspiracy theory.

The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.

If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.

 

[paulitician]

Yes I just watched the President's "press conference" at the G20 summit. I put "press conference" in quotes because he started out with a campaign speech of glowing assessment of how wonderful it is in America today because of him--the deficit is coming down at record speed, the manufacturing base is flourishing, jobs are being created by the millions, our economy is just swell. Okay. . ..really?

And then I think he took maybe three questions on Syria? Possibly four but I remember three, each followed by long winded obfusication that provided no sound bites for the media as to his intentions. It is the same old dodge and weave tactic he has used from Day 1 so he won't have to take personal responsibility for anything negative while he takes total responsibility for anything that turns out okay.

Meanwile in the news this morning from various sources:

Reports that the target list in Syria has now been changed 50 times and is nowhere a done deal. . . .

The Pentagon wants no part of this?

Russia is moving warships into the Med with Putin firm that he will continue to support the Assad regime. So what will it mean to Russia if we continue to militarily support the rebels?

Fox News had a lengthy on screen interview with one of the Syrian rebel generals this morning--you couldn't understand most of the heavy accent but he was trying to make the case for why the U.S. could strike, but could not be pinned down on whether one quick retalitory strike would help.

Suggestions now that Obama is actively trying to goad the Republicans into a no vote. The strategy: that will get him off the hook and allow him to blame them.

Apparently Assad is now accused of using Sarin gas twice. The first time only killed a few folks. This last time was more horrendous. We didn't do anything the first time. If we hit him with a punative strike this time, then what happens if he does it again?

False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.

And that is my worst fear. Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used. So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit. What will we have accomplished?

This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.

 

[Uncensored2008]

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Redfish again

 

[Uncensored2008]

The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.

If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.

Assad is and has been a Soviet puppet, this much is true. But the Russians can strike a deal with Al Qaeda once they control Syria (with Obama's help.) So I'm not sure it poses an economic threat to them.

 

[Spoonman]

This war will be a lot bigger then just displacing assad. it won't be an in and out. we are looking at time, money and lives. and for what? what is the objective? to soley remove someone we claim used gas? by removing him, how do we make the lives of the people in syria better? we won't. not unless we get involved in another situation like iraq. we've already left egyt a mess, libya too. now syria? sometihn is very wrong here and each one of these situations is going to haunt us down the road. we haven't even considered the secondary effects yet

 

[Vox]

The amount of own does not change the desire to be a monoPoly in it's production.
Russia's interest here is exactly the desire to remain a monopoly - not in oil but in natural gas for Europe. If Assad fells it will be the very end of that monopoly.

If Europe wants to diversify their gas market - THEY should fight Assad for it and not US.

Assad is and has been a Soviet puppet, this much is true. But the Russians can strike a deal with Al Qaeda once they control Syria (with Obama's help.) So I'm not sure it poses an economic threat to them.

He has been soviet puppet and remained a Russian one for the very same reasons . Don't be fooled into the thinking that Russia is anything else than USSR in it's geopolitical aspiration. "gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"

And yes, Russians do not have a visible perspective of striking the deal with Al Quaeda because of Afganistan and Chechnya.

 

[R.C. Christian]

War? Hell no. Punitive attack yes. I'd say with cruise missiles. Maybe give Assad half an hour to get out of his palaces lol, and some military infrastructure to- then arm OUR rebels.. Can't let this chemical attack go...With some help from France and UK, and go ahead from the Arab League. Some patience.

You're a terrorist supporting traitor, and from the looks of it, that filthy pile of purple shit you call New York is full of garbage just like you. You should put yourself on the curb and see if the waste company picks you up. Why do you want to die so badly? Why are so loyal to Barry that you can't take an honest look at the world around you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

He has been soviet puppet and remained a Russian one for the very same reasons . Don't be fooled into the thinking that Russia is anything else than USSR in it's geopolitical aspiration.

Oh, I'm not. I refer to Putin as a Stalinist - and it isn't hyperbole.

"gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"

The Russians have never had the culture of Rome.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reagan actually wrote about his deep regret in getting us involved over there. He carried that regret to his grave. We should take note of that. Lets dramatically scale back our presence over there. Look, we want the oil. We all understand that. So lets just get the oil without all the interfering in their internal affairs. The time has come to scale back.

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.

At least Reagan took responsibility. In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised? Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.

 

[Redfish]

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.

At least Reagan took responsibility. In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised? Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.

you just don't get it. As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.

We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.

 

[Camp]

The war is almost over, or at least put on delay. Everyone is a looser, but being given the chance to declare victory. Everyone accept those on the Syrian battlefield. No victory for them.

 

[Redfish]

The war is almost over, or at least put on delay. Everyone is a looser, but being given the chance to declare victory. Everyone accept those on the Syrian battlefield. No victory for them.

I want some of what you are drinking

 

[Vox]

"gathering the land" for empire has been the main motto for them during the last 600+years no matter what name was the country called - Moscovia, Russian empire or Soviet Union. The essence never changed - "moscow is the third rome and the fourth will not exist"

The Russians have never had the culture of Rome.

That is not what I meant and not what is behind the phrase of the XV century monk

It's a concept for the drive to be a superpower:
http://www.ksk.edu.ee/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/KVUOA_Toimetised_12-Laats.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.

At least Reagan took responsibility. In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised? Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.

you just don't get it. As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.

We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.

As far back as the 2008 campaign, that was my fear. I wanted the first minority group President to be a conservative because then we would have a President who happened to be black or Hispanic or of Asian descent or whatever. Nobody would have deferred to him because of race. Look how the left treats ALL conservative black people now.

But a liberal black President? Now we have a BLACK President and that means he is untouchable, uncriticizable, and must be adulated at all times.

I didn't want a BLACK President we would have to defer to because he was black. I didn't have any problem with having a PRESIDENT who happened to have black skin.

But mostly I want a President with the character to own his words, his convictions, his ideals, his principles and who accepts the responsiblity of the position as it was constitutionally intended. I want a President who I can trust to say what he means and mean what he says whether or not I agree with his point of view.

We don't have that. And that's what scares the bejeebers out of me over this Syria thing.

 

[Redfish]

At least Reagan took responsibility. In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised? Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.

you just don't get it. As the first black president obama cannot be held responsible for anything------to do so would be racist.

We must all declare our love and devotion to chairman maobama or suffer the consequences.

As far back as the 2008 campaign, that was my fear. I wanted the first minority group President to be a conservative because then we would have a President who happened to be black or Hispanic or of Asian descent or whatever. Nobody would have deferred to him because of race. Look how the left treats ALL conservative black people now.

But a liberal black President? Now we have a BLACK President and that means he is untouchable, uncriticizable, and must be adulated at all times.

I didn't want a BLACK President we would have to defer to because he was black. I didn't have any problem with having a PRESIDENT who happened to have black skin.

But mostly I want a President with the character to own his words, his convictions, his ideals, his principles and who accepts the responsiblity of the position as it was constitutionally intended. I want a President who I can trust to say what he means and mean what he says whether or not I agree with his point of view.

We don't have that. And that's what scares the bejeebers out of me over this Syria thing.

great post, that says it all.

 

[Foxfyre]

False Flag. They've been pushing for this War for a long time. No logical strategic reason for Assad to use Chemical Weapons. It very likely didn't happen.

And that is my worst fear. Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used. So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit. What will we have accomplished?

This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.

And here we add another item to the list of possible conspiracies.

What if. . . .

What if. . . .Obama, or those who control him, see the handwriting on the wall? If the economy continues to falter, they may lose their base and therefore their power. So what is one way to generate economic activity? Go to war that will require revving up the war machne. All they need to justify it is to generate just a little bit of world opinion on their side. . . .

Far fetched? Perhaps. But it makes as much sense as a lot of other stuff that has been added to this witch's brew. . .

 

[Claudette]

very true, and we could solve our oil problem if we allowed the oil companies to recover the billions of barrels of oil in US territory.

Reagan had to take that deep regret to his grave. All those kids brutally slaughtered for nothing. Must have taken a big toll on his conscience. It really is time to dramatically scale back our presence in the ME.

At least Reagan took responsibility. In all the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, in the U.S. Senate, or as President, can anybody name one thing he has ever taken responsibility for when it turned out badly or did not deliver as advertised? Or anything he didn't take credit for when it turned out well?

Those of us with any intellectual honesty can recall a LOT of times that he has said he didn't know anything about that. . .until. . . .or he wasn't in that loop yadda yadda and/or the times he has backtracked and denied that he said something like the now infamous red line.

He's a putz.

Putz works but I prefer Jackass.

 

[paulitician]

And that is my worst fear. Nobody yet has convinced me that we know for sure who used the Sarin gas if it was in fact used. So we go in a blow up a few things and kill a few people because we won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons and we target the wrong culprit. What will we have accomplished?

This War's gonna happen. The Powers-That-Be have already decided on it. Now it's just a matter of concocting a plausible story-line justification. Looks like a 'Chemical Attack' accusation will do the trick.

And here we add another item to the list of possible conspiracies.

What if. . . .

What if. . . .Obama, or those who control him, see the handwriting on the wall? If the economy continues to falter, they may lose their base and therefore their power. So what is one way to generate economic activity? Go to war that will require revving up the war machne. All they need to justify it is to generate just a little bit of world opinion on their side. . . .

Far fetched? Perhaps. But it makes as much sense as a lot of other stuff that has been added to this witch's brew. . .

This War has been in the works for awhile. Their 'Chemical Weapons' meme is just way too convenient. Personally, i'm not buying it. And i don't think most Americans are either.

 

[Contumacious]

This War has been in the works for awhile.

Come on man, Limited airstrikes with no ground troops are not acts of war. I mean, look at Pearl Harbor.

.

 

[U2Edge]

I cannot support the killing of even one Syrian civilian in my name. It's not our War.

It is when they put US National Security at risk by using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Where's your PROOF "they" have used WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Everywhere! This train left the station a long time ago!