Here's good news on Syria

[Montecresto]

I agree that it is good news it seems very bipartisan that we should keep as much out of it as we can, and since none of it effects us much that means keeping out of it. The problem is the signs are pointing to a not caring attitude towards the people. The talking heads on both sides are already ramping up the propaganda and rhetoric. It seems as the american people are uniting against it the american government and it's tools are getting amped up for it. I just cannot figure out why this has so much purchased support. Who's bottom line will increase that much with this conflict? Big oil shouldn't be pushing this, and it is nothing new for the military industrial complex to be going after a war. I know they do not give a damn about the human rights violations at all. The best we get is a country like libya which we help but they do not give us much in return. It just all seems very strange without some huge dollar signs attached to it.

There's always something in it for the MIC anytime we go to war. The defence contractors have powerful lobbies with deep pockets for congress. But just because Syria isn't a gas and oil producer doesn't mean it's not related either. Qatar is interested in a gas pipeline to Europe through turkey and Syria stands in the way. Iran is also interested in a pipeline to Europe and Iran, Syria and Russia are all ally's.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Oh well yes of course I agree with that completely, but the way you phrased your question, there was only two choices, al Qaida linked insurgents or Assad, in which case Assad IS the no brainer.

Oh, ya... I guess I did. I don't particularly like Assad, or any of the other dictators in the region. However these have been mostly dictators that were either our puppets not doing a good job, or dictators trying to build a vibrant society.

Dictators that can balance the fear / love, gain respect and usually wind up long-lived.

 

[Montecresto]

Oh, ya... I guess I did. I don't particularly like Assad, or any of the other dictators in the region. However these have been mostly dictators that were either our puppets not doing a good job, or dictators trying to build a vibrant society.

Dictators that can balance the fear / love, gain respect and usually wind up long-lived.

I agree again.

 

[tererun]

There's always something in it for the MIC anytime we go to war. The defence contractors have powerful lobbies with deep pockets for congress. But just because Syria isn't a gas and oil producer doesn't mean it's not related either. Qatar is interested in a gas pipeline to Europe through turkey and Syria stands in the way. Iran is also interested in a pipeline to Europe and Iran, Syria and Russia are all ally's.

That is an interesting idea, but what is syria going to be like after? US and european intervention is going to spike anger just because we are there, and then we also know we are not very careful with our hits so we do a fair share of pissing off the natives. Unless we go full on invasion and secure the country which could end up being a new afganistan, we will pretty much create another libya where we cannot secure a pipeline. As soon as any anti europe or anti-US people hear about that pipeline it becomes a target. Is there even a possibility of protecting such a thing with Russia playing games with the opposition?

I got iraq. Free up the oil that6 was prevented under saddam due to embargos. Give it to the corporate tools, and we set up a puppet government to help secure all of that. Afganistan seems more strategically located to hit iran and pakistan. It is a pretty decent position to put some forces and bases into if you can hold it. You surrounded Iran, threatened pakistan, and even put some troops right outside of china just for the cherry on top of that cake. It made sense. Iraq is now falling apart without US full occupation, and can we really put syria under control? It seems like it would have been much more effective to wait to see who wins and buy them out. That is even if we happen to backdoor their opposition with the CIA, but even that is unreliable given our confirmation of what we always expected with Iraq turning on us after we helped Saddam out. Plus europe is trying damned hard to go green. Cheapo oil might help there, but it seems to be more of a cultural thing rather than an economic thing for them.

I know there is something back there, and maybe you are right. I just expect to see something bigger and more obvious. Especially considering we are really putting ourselves at odds with russia and potentially sparking a war with both syria and Iran where they will both be backed by russia and probably china. This is not even a quagmire, it is a screwed up gamble that should have a mountain of gold on the other side and I just do not see the return on all of this. There is only one thought I have and that is just paranoia that they are setting up for WW3.

 

[MMC]

The answer is obvious, Obama will have a trusted spokesperson (or maybe just use a security leak) announcing that the chemical weapons in Syria were found to have really been used by Iranian secret agents to try to trick the U.S. into a war. An investigation will commence, to get to the bottom of this international scandal, and Obama will promise to bring those responsible to justice. That way Obama can be said to have truely intended to uphold the "red line" and to have averted a war in Syria!

Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Indeed and Kerry already alluded to such yesterday.

Western leaders mull military response in Syria

Western leaders are discussing whether to stage a military response to last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. France and Germany, which refused to support the 2003 Iraq invasion, suggested Monday they may take part. Russia said any such intervention would violate international law.

UNITED STATES
Secretary of State John Kerry says chemical weapons were used in Syria, accuses President Bashar Assad of destroying evidence, and says the U.S. has additional information about the attack and will soon make it public. Kerry calls the attack a "moral obscenity" that should shock the conscience of the world.

FRANCE
Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.

RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western nations calling for military action against Syria have no proof the regime is behind the alleged attack.
They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the 'red line' has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer," he said at a Moscow news conference.
Lavrov likened the situation in Syria to the run-up before the 2003 Iraq invasion. He warned against military intervention in Syria, saying "the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council is a crude violation of international law."

TURKEY
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says his country would take part in an international coalition against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime if the U.N. failed to come up with sanctions to punish Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons.

EUROPEAN UNION
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says a decision about military intervention in Syria hasn't been made yet and the support of the U.N. Security Council for any such action remains "extremely important."

ISRAEL
President Shimon Peres calls on the U.N. to appoint the Arab League to set up a temporary government in Syria to stop the bloodshed......snip~

Western leaders mull military response in Syria

Also Kerry is releasing statement today at 2pm EST.

 

[Montecresto]

That is an interesting idea, but what is syria going to be like after? US and european intervention is going to spike anger just because we are there, and then we also know we are not very careful with our hits so we do a fair share of pissing off the natives. Unless we go full on invasion and secure the country which could end up being a new afganistan, we will pretty much create another libya where we cannot secure a pipeline. As soon as any anti europe or anti-US people hear about that pipeline it becomes a target. Is there even a possibility of protecting such a thing with Russia playing games with the opposition?

I got iraq. Free up the oil that6 was prevented under saddam due to embargos. Give it to the corporate tools, and we set up a puppet government to help secure all of that. Afganistan seems more strategically located to hit iran and pakistan. It is a pretty decent position to put some forces and bases into if you can hold it. You surrounded Iran, threatened pakistan, and even put some troops right outside of china just for the cherry on top of that cake. It made sense. Iraq is now falling apart without US full occupation, and can we really put syria under control? It seems like it would have been much more effective to wait to see who wins and buy them out. That is even if we happen to backdoor their opposition with the CIA, but even that is unreliable given our confirmation of what we always expected with Iraq turning on us after we helped Saddam out. Plus europe is trying damned hard to go green. Cheapo oil might help there, but it seems to be more of a cultural thing rather than an economic thing for them.

I know there is something back there, and maybe you are right. I just expect to see something bigger and more obvious. Especially considering we are really putting ourselves at odds with russia and potentially sparking a war with both syria and Iran where they will both be backed by russia and probably china. This is not even a quagmire, it is a screwed up gamble that should have a mountain of gold on the other side and I just do not see the return on all of this. There is only one thought I have and that is just paranoia that they are setting up for WW3.

I don't believe Russia is playing games with the opposition, whatever that really means. Russia is legitimate on this one and the US is the one screwing up.

 

[Montecresto]

Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Indeed and Kerry already alluded to such yesterday.

Western leaders mull military response in Syria

Western leaders are discussing whether to stage a military response to last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. France and Germany, which refused to support the 2003 Iraq invasion, suggested Monday they may take part. Russia said any such intervention would violate international law.

UNITED STATES
Secretary of State John Kerry says chemical weapons were used in Syria, accuses President Bashar Assad of destroying evidence, and says the U.S. has additional information about the attack and will soon make it public. Kerry calls the attack a "moral obscenity" that should shock the conscience of the world.

FRANCE
Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.

RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western nations calling for military action against Syria have no proof the regime is behind the alleged attack.
They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the 'red line' has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer," he said at a Moscow news conference.
Lavrov likened the situation in Syria to the run-up before the 2003 Iraq invasion. He warned against military intervention in Syria, saying "the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council is a crude violation of international law."

TURKEY
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says his country would take part in an international coalition against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime if the U.N. failed to come up with sanctions to punish Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons.

EUROPEAN UNION
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says a decision about military intervention in Syria hasn't been made yet and the support of the U.N. Security Council for any such action remains "extremely important."

ISRAEL
President Shimon Peres calls on the U.N. to appoint the Arab League to set up a temporary government in Syria to stop the bloodshed......snip~

Western leaders mull military response in Syria

Also Kerry is releasing statement today at 2pm EST.

Only the quote from Russia makes any sense.

 

[tererun]

I don't believe Russia is playing games with the opposition, whatever that really means. Russia is legitimate on this one and the US is the one screwing up.

I think russia is serious and should be considered a threat. I meant to imply they would be involved in the mix.

 

[Montecresto]

I think russia is serious and should be considered a threat. I meant to imply they would be involved in the mix.

Yes I see. That's for certain. They have already been very involved for the entire 2-1/2 years of this insurgency. It's always possible that there's a bluff in there, but Russia has stood steadfast and very vocal, and they have consistently blocked all US efforts at the UN! So, we'll see.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes I see. That's for certain. They have already been very involved for the entire 2-1/2 years of this insurgency. It's always possible that there's a bluff in there, but Russia has stood steadfast and very vocal, and they have consistently blocked all US efforts at the UN! So, we'll see.

The Russians may be alot of things, but they are not the types to make idle threats...

 

[Montecresto]

The Russians may be alot of things, but they are not the types to make idle threats...

Well I mean, and I agree with that. It is my hope that its not a bluff, but if its not I hope our government makes the right choice. I realise that it's waaaaay too soon to say this and presently there's no sign that we could end up in a conflict with Russia, China and Iran over Syria. But I can't imagine that there's anybody that wouldn't see that as a VERY HEAVY LIFT. Possibly an impossible win.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Unless you think the government is belligerent enough to buck this kind of resistance.



A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.


New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

The US is war weary.
We are tired of fighting wars with no end and not real results.
We as a nation are tired of hearing how broke we are yet we seem to always have another billion to bust out for more warfare.
Time to take care of home.

 

[CRUE CAB]

The Russians may be alot of things, but they are not the types to make idle threats...

Cuban Missle Crisis ring a bell? "We will bury you", followed by alot of back tracking.

 

[Perotista]

Cuban Missle Crisis ring a bell? "We will bury you", followed by alot of back tracking.

Khrushchev thought he could get away with it. The U.S. just moved missiles into Turkey, right next door to the USSR then and this gambit was sort of a payback. Luckily both Khrushchev and JFK had heads on their shoulders or WWIII would have begun. What we didn’t know was the tact nukes they had in Cuba. Both sides walked back, publicly at the time it looked like Khrushchev backed down. But he did get what he wanted, the removal of the missiles from Turkey and a mild guarantee that the U.S. would never invade Cuba. It was quite a time, I was in high school them and remember it well.

 

[MMC]

The Russians may be alot of things, but they are not the types to make idle threats...

Heya BM.....that's the thing. Plus those thinking that Russia is a paper tiger. Need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Cuban Missle Crisis ring a bell? "We will bury you", followed by alot of back tracking.

It probably was a real threat at the time, but MAD is a pretty good deterrent.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Barack "Neocon"Obama.