The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

[petros]

Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

I think BO is more pissed off that Russia has a new ally in the ME that is also our ally. Israel.

 

[Omicron]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Under the US constitution Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

congress has the power to declare war. The President may order action to protect American interests.

That's right.

In this case the US has no interests to protect. Syria is a Russian satelite... therefore it *has* to be Congress.

What a smirky way to have another cold war with Russia. You wouldn't belive how many people do not know about the four-generation Assad-dynasty Russian-alliance there is with Syria.

Listen carefully... Russia took it over after the collapse of the USSR, all legal. They forgave three-quarters of Syria's debt to the USSR with promises that Syria let itself be the point of presence in the Mediteranian, and that it let itself open up to the Russian style of business so long supressed by the Soviets!

When Obama says, "No boots on the ground", he's not kidding.

Therefore, and... I meant to post this to Sal, but when she said she feels so confused about this situation, I...
... I ...
I felt for the love of her humanity and I fell in love so don't worry babe... maintain, and though shalt be saved, although I wonder if once one gets there to discover the Holy Ghost to be a female that there might be some mother-in-law issues... I don't know... I'm just a guy...

Anyway... darn... normally I can call upon my Muse and it tells me a song to play, but not this time, so it's serious. I hate serious. I makes me want to wipe out all 3% evil and spread the rest each according to their type all accross every planet with a climate according to their nature.

Grr... okay... I did that thing Harpo might think he's doing when he goes to church... unless he goes to church just to relieve pain.

It's a wickedly complicated situation, and I think the rest of the Arab world is waiting to see how the Assads are going to get away with it. They've all been smacked. The only ones to get out of it was the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, both of whom made the deal of... "We will sell it all".

In this case it's simple. Russia, as former director of a Soviet system, already knows about doing arms-length combat... have you ever met f*ck*ng Russians? Seriously dudes, you have no idea how much. I know they're not evil. My analysis is ... ever been to China? I want to tell those old farts being Senators representing the war industries of their states to stick their heads in a form of forward-thinking spiritual orange-juice mixed with vodka and here's where it's going to have to be...

America says all attacks will be directed by satelite, such that if tactical operations are required, then those will be done by drones, whereupon it is in the interest of Russian buisiness to deliver the targets, for toxic gas is not allowed.

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

That's right.

Syria is a Russian satellite....

Speaking of Russia and satellites.

As of 1 hour ago...

Russian Launcher Inserts Israel’s Amos-4 Com. Satellite into Orbit

 

[hunboldt]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Speaking of Russia and satellites.

As of 1 hour ago...

Russian Launcher Inserts Israel’s Amos-4 Com. Satellite into Orbit

Israel's common interest is in having a weak Assad regime, as the Golan is their 'water security area'. Israel can desalinate seawater, but it is expensive.
Israel's Water Basics (Yedidya Atlas) November, 1999.
The offshore gas fields change the 'Israel equation', as they are soon not dependant on world energy markets - but deepwater gas platforms need a strong navy to protect them. Russian / Israeli naval accords are a natural match.

Sorry , America. - but its now kibbutznik realpolitik".

 

[Omicron]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Okay, the point is... maybe secretly, but the US gets to test it's latest and greatest cruise-missile technology combined with drones, such that no boots hit the ground, while Russia does what?

I can already hear the Russians saying, "If your satelite technology is so good, can you tell where the targets have been moved?"

 

[Spade]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

It is serious.i

 

[Locutus]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin obliterates Obama on Syria: “President Obama’s advertised war plan isn’t about protecting civilians” » The Right Scoop -

 

[Locutus]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'

The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre' - Telegraph

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Israel's common interest is in having a weak Assad regime, as the Golan is their 'water security area'. Israel can desalinate seawater, but it is expensive.
Israel's Water Basics (Yedidya Atlas) November, 1999.
The offshore gas fields change the 'Israel equation', as they are soon not dependant on world energy markets - but deepwater gas platforms need a strong navy to protect them. Russian / Israeli naval accords are a natural match.

Sorry , America. - but its now kibbutznik realpolitik".

Russia paved the way for Israel to get it's NG to market. Relations with Turkey and Syria through Assad with the help of Russia has secured Israel access to the Arab Pipeline. It's far cheaper and secure for Israel and Gazprom to ship overland through Syria to Turkey. LNG offshore platforms are vulnerable to attack and an undersea pipeline to Turkey has a price tag of $23Million per km. Supporting Assad with the help of Russia and Russia's ally Iran (hence the Hezbollah involvement) also improves Iranian/Israeli relations. After Syria is all said a done, those relations will miraculously improve to the point were sanctions are lifted on Iran.

Water is no longer a problem. Freshwater is a by-product of gas fired electricity generation. Sea water in to make steam, the steam condenses as freshwater. Enough freshwater and electricity to turn the Sinai into a vast area of greenhouses to rival or even out produce Spain.

China has inked a deal with Israel to buy NG but it won't be fore domestic use as many think. China is industrializing the f*ck out of Africa. Africa all by it's lonesome can feed the entire world when China replaces ox and plow with todays massive agricultural equipment. and technology.

This Sryian crap is 100% geopolitical and energy driven.

There are going to be a lot POed Americans when they realize their little baby Israel has grown up and moved out of the house and married the Muzzie neighbour's daughter that isn't a Saudi.

So where does that leave the boogieman in all of this?

 

[Locutus]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

President Bill Clinton and his advisers developed the dubious concept of the war worth killing for, but not worth dying for

As of this writing, the astonishing run-up to possible military action against Syria appears to be reaching some sort of anti-climax.


There had been a good deal of huffing and puffing that the Syrians have been caught red-handed (again) gassing their fellow citizens. But at the same time, there is gathering sentiment in the pro-Arab media, including the usual dovecotes in the BBC, that the evidence of gas attacks might have been planted by the anti-Assad rebels to enflame world opinion. All the shilly-shallying of other recent wars is being re-enacted to create a set of reservations that justify doing nothing.

Have America’s ‘red lines’ all been erased? | National Post

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

“

But he gets to fight the other boogieman, Hezbollah alongside with al Qaeda. Maybe they could have tea or do some really cool Naval henna tattoos?

Don't you hate it when smoke gets in your eyes?

 

[Locutus]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

more musclely-man-related commentary

An Accidental War | National Review Online

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

That's what happens when you're broke and your name is mud.

Ever heard to the Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline Loco?

Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

US, Saudis and Qataris won't make f*cking penny off it. Especially if Lebanon where 'Merican and Saudis all put their eggs in one basket sign on.

America is losing it's ally Israel to Russia

P.S BOO!

 

[petros]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

Improperganda? Sometimes it's needed when you're losing your shirt as well as control of ME resources to Russia, China and Israel.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

You notice that whenever Americans refer to the allegiance of citizens to other countries it is always referred to as Nationalism.. like a malignant, irrational ideology worthy of stamping out with Imperial indignation as an impediment to Free Commerce and Trade and proper respect for the privilege of the world's only Superpower (increasingly in decline).

When applied to Americans it is always referred to as Patriotism.. and woe be to any who question the conventions of the executive branch who determine the substance that make up Patriotic thought... as all dissenters are then, by definition, Traitors.

I'll take your post as an admission of defeat. Thanks for checking in

 

[DaSleeper]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

There is a pattern in there somewhere................

Obama’s Syria ploy : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

 

[petros]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Levant- Another one with smoke in his eyes.

 

[tay]

Re: Kerry Says Chemical Arms Attack in Syria Is ‘Undeniable’

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for what he called a “moral obscenity” that had shocked the world’s conscience.


“The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Mr. Kerry said.

more

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-assad.html?_r=0

Coming back to the original post, yes although not confirmed by the UN yet, we will agree Gas has been used, we just don't know by who.

And Kerry should note that the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by any means is immoral..........

 

[Sal]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin obliterates Obama on Syria: “President Obama’s advertised war plan isn’t about protecting civilians” » The Right Scoop -

I don't know who thought this up for her, but I am right there!!! Go Sarah. *choke* She is right.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

Identify that chief and discharge him immediately. Complaining about policy, in uniform, makes him unfit to serve in the Navy.