Poll: Should the international community intervene directly in Syria?
Yes.
No.
Unsure/undecided.
[Show Results]
 
Syria-What should be done?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2013, 07:25 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
I am a bit perplexed about the congressional debate/vote that will be coming up as soon as next week. I watched some of the meeting yesterday with congressional members and I was very interested in what Rand Paul had to say (now I am not sure of Rand Paul's reputation however its his words I find interesting) where he asked John Kerry if the meeting was not simply "Theater".

You can watch the exchange here...





So I am interested in exploring this subjects with the Americans of this board. Is it true that Obama will carry out his action even if congress says no, and what do you think would be the implications (if any) if that situation does happen?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 08:56 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(04-09-2013 07:25 AM)bemore Wrote:  I am a bit perplexed about the congressional debate/vote that will be coming up as soon as next week. I watched some of the meeting yesterday with congressional members and I was very interested in what Rand Paul had to say (now I am not sure of Rand Paul's reputation however its his words I find interesting) where he asked John Kerry if the meeting was not simply "Theater".

You can watch the exchange here...





So I am interested in exploring this subjects with the Americans of this board. Is it true that Obama will carry out his action even if congress says no, and what do you think would be the implications (if any) if that situation does happen?

Well there are differing legal opinions on this but the prevailing one is that as the Commander in chief Obama had the authority to order a limited strike without congressional approval but once he asked for a legitimizing vote he would no longer have that mandate if the vote were to turn out against the proposal. I am hoping the republican do what they have been doing for 5 years now and vote against anything the president proposes mainly because I do not want to have anything to do with Syria.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(03-09-2013 04:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 06:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  Look at the history of Alqaeda presence in the overthrow or attempt at an overthrow of leaders and the seem to coincidentally coincide with US foreign policy. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Alqaeda was instrumental in splitting the Iraqi resistance which was doing a good job against Americans then after Alqaeda comes in, they split the resistance up turning it into a civil war, the US worked with Alqaeda in Iraq. Then Alqaeda mysteriously shows up in Libya and now Syria.

When has US and Alqaeda interests been opposed to one another?
I don't know actually. I don't see any pattern in their activities. I've looked them up on the map. They look pretty independent, going along with U.S. interests would be just a small part of what they do. What would for example go against U.S. interests? All that U.S. needs is just a bunch of rumors and ignoring the United Nations to go in with blazing guns.

Do you think Al Quaeda is willing to be convinced to occasionally strike where USA needs? What are they doing in the rest of the world, then? They have to be genuine anti-American extremists to do what they do. If there are any forces behind that, they must believe they can eventually control or contain Al Quaeda. What does Muslim Brotherhood think about AQ? Do they think AQ is a double agent?
I don't know, it's just too messy. There has to be at least half a dozen of independent groups, each playing along for a while and then breaking up. Probably lots of backstabbing all the time. It's interesting to speculate. America is big on financial speculation, while Muslims are forbidden by Islam to charge interest. But they have oil and America needs oil - or not oil, but it needs Muslims to sell oil for dollars. Dollars made out of nothing like fiat money. Muslims realize that dollar is fake and bankrupt and try to cut the ties with dollar. America destroys Saddam Hussein and opens his oil country to foreign markets. Muslims do what?
And I still don't see what role the AQ plays in this. If it was a double agent, why wouldn't the Brotherhood destroy it?

It really doesn't matter either way.

Al-Qaeda isn't really any different than gangs in America, or other groups in America. You can point to the elite rulers in the US as responsible, but they really don't even need to accept or admit to being responsible; the outcome is exactly the same, and the benefit to those you could blame is still there.

Certain people benefit from the instability of certain regions and/or processes, and certain groups aid toward the end of instability and dysfunction. You don't really have to stamp Al-Qaeda "Made in the USA", it doesn't matter when looking at the end.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
I would like to see a different poll that applied the golden rule:

Back when the US was embroiled in a civil war far more bloody than the one in Syria, which also involved the latest and most deadly weapons of the day, how would Americans have reacted if another country, say Russia, was debating how to intervene and stop the bloodshed, and ultimately decided to bomb Washington DC and take out their military? Would Americans on either side of the issue, North or South, welcomed Russian intervention, and thanked the Russians for saving them from themselves? Or would Americans have vowed revenge against Russia, with the most extreme elements willing to do whatever they could to get back at Russia for interfering (ie be terrorists)?

Syrians are human beings with the same emotions and reactions as anyone else. Why assume they will respond any differently? Now remember the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA that nearly all terrorist activity in the US is retaliation for US interference in middle east countries' affairs?

Also, put this in context... The last time the US was presenting all this compelling evidence about the use of chemical weapons used against the Kurds in Iraq, the US insisted the evidence was conclusive that Iran launched the attack. It's recently been proven that Reagan gave Saddam the chemical weapons because he losing the war against Iran and couldn't fight both the Iranians and the Kurdish uprising. Recently leaked documents prove Reagon knew Saddam would use them against the Kurds, and that after it happened, the US made up false evidence and propaganda to blame Iran.

And, also put it in perspective. Obama has killed far more civilians in the middle east with his drone strikes than were victims of this chemical attack. The UN published a report that Clinton had killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and when pressed on the issue, his secretary of state, Albright, casually said "it was worth it". And of course don't get into the Bush/Cheney Iraq issue.

So, with that bloody background, why is it that the US is so anxious to attack Syria? What is in it for the US? Saying it's a purely humanitarian mission is laughable, since the US has done nothing while millions were killed in other conflicts. There has to be more to it. Now, ask yourself, who understands a complex situation best? The one who is puzzled after he sees the outcome? Or the one who is could accurately predict way in advance exactly how it would turn out?

So what about all the people who, a year ago, before all this happened, accurately predicted that there would be some disputed crisis the US would use as justification to attack Syria, and who were able to explain precisely WHY it would happen?

In a nutshell, no economist will dispute that the US gains enormous benefit from being the world's reserve currency, and being the only currency with more dollars out of the country than in. And this is because all oil in the world must be sold only in US dollars, so every country MUST go to the US as the middle-man to buy their oil and buy US dollars. It allows the US to print a lot more money than otherwise would be possible since it creates demand for dollars. Now look at the historical record. Every single time, without one exception, that a country has tried to sell oil in anything but US dollars, the US has attacked that country immediately afterward, making up all sorts of accusations. It happened in Venezuela, when the US imposed sanctions after they sold oil in Euros. The US put up with Qadaffi for years despite his crazy behavior, but as soon as he started selling oil in Dinars he was taken out. The US had already pummeled Iraq into abject poverty and left it defenseless, but as soon as Saddam started selling oil in Euros, he was taken out. In March 2006, Iran opened an exchange to sell oil in other currencies. Within 60 days the US convinced the UN to impose sanctions blocking Iran's ability to sell oil, and ever since, has been doing everything possible to convince the people to attack Iran. However, despite all the propaganda, it's been a hard sell amongst war-weary Americans still getting over Iraq. Given that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty that requires Iran to retaliate if the US attacks Syria, as soon as turmoil started in Syria, the people who follow this accurately predicted the US would turn this into a crisis, and thus get a war against Iran, who, despite the sanctions and US blockade, has recently been secretly selling oil to India in rupees.

If you study the Petrodollar and monetary policy, you can accurately predict with pinpoint accuracy exactly when the US is going to start a war--it always follows a country's attempt to sell oil in non-US dollars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(05-09-2013 02:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I would like to see a different poll that applied the golden rule:

Back when the US was embroiled in a civil war far more bloody than the one in Syria, which also involved the latest and most deadly weapons of the day, how would Americans have reacted if another country, say Russia, was debating how to intervene and stop the bloodshed, and ultimately decided to bomb Washington DC and take out their military? Would Americans on either side of the issue, North or South, welcomed Russian intervention, and thanked the Russians for saving them from themselves? Or would Americans have vowed revenge against Russia, with the most extreme elements willing to do whatever they could to get back at Russia for interfering (ie be terrorists)?

Syrians are human beings with the same emotions and reactions as anyone else. Why assume they will respond any differently? Now remember the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA that nearly all terrorist activity in the US is retaliation for US interference in middle east countries' affairs?

Also, put this in context... The last time the US was presenting all this compelling evidence about the use of chemical weapons used against the Kurds in Iraq, the US insisted the evidence was conclusive that Iran launched the attack. It's recently been proven that Reagan gave Saddam the chemical weapons because he losing the war against Iran and couldn't fight both the Iranians and the Kurdish uprising. Recently leaked documents prove Reagon knew Saddam would use them against the Kurds, and that after it happened, the US made up false evidence and propaganda to blame Iran.

And, also put it in perspective. Obama has killed far more civilians in the middle east with his drone strikes than were victims of this chemical attack. The UN published a report that Clinton had killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and when pressed on the issue, his secretary of state, Albright, casually said "it was worth it". And of course don't get into the Bush/Cheney Iraq issue.

So, with that bloody background, why is it that the US is so anxious to attack Syria? What is in it for the US? Saying it's a purely humanitarian mission is laughable, since the US has done nothing while millions were killed in other conflicts. There has to be more to it. Now, ask yourself, who understands a complex situation best? The one who is puzzled after he sees the outcome? Or the one who is could accurately predict way in advance exactly how it would turn out?

So what about all the people who, a year ago, before all this happened, accurately predicted that there would be some disputed crisis the US would use as justification to attack Syria, and who were able to explain precisely WHY it would happen?

In a nutshell, no economist will dispute that the US gains enormous benefit from being the world's reserve currency, and being the only currency with more dollars out of the country than in. And this is because all oil in the world must be sold only in US dollars, so every country MUST go to the US as the middle-man to buy their oil and buy US dollars. It allows the US to print a lot more money than otherwise would be possible since it creates demand for dollars. Now look at the historical record. Every single time, without one exception, that a country has tried to sell oil in anything but US dollars, the US has attacked that country immediately afterward, making up all sorts of accusations. It happened in Venezuela, when the US imposed sanctions after they sold oil in Euros. The US put up with Qadaffi for years despite his crazy behavior, but as soon as he started selling oil in Dinars he was taken out. The US had already pummeled Iraq into abject poverty and left it defenseless, but as soon as Saddam started selling oil in Euros, he was taken out. In March 2006, Iran opened an exchange to sell oil in other currencies. Within 60 days the US convinced the UN to impose sanctions blocking Iran's ability to sell oil, and ever since, has been doing everything possible to convince the people to attack Iran. However, despite all the propaganda, it's been a hard sell amongst war-weary Americans still getting over Iraq. Given that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty that requires Iran to retaliate if the US attacks Syria, as soon as turmoil started in Syria, the people who follow this accurately predicted the US would turn this into a crisis, and thus get a war against Iran, who, despite the sanctions and US blockade, has recently been secretly selling oil to India in rupees.

If you study the Petrodollar and monetary policy, you can accurately predict with pinpoint accuracy exactly when the US is going to start a war--it always follows a country's attempt to sell oil in non-US dollars.

Or it could be about the use of chemical weapons against civilians.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 05:45 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(05-09-2013 04:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 02:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I would like to see a different poll that applied the golden rule:

Back when the US was embroiled in a civil war far more bloody than the one in Syria, which also involved the latest and most deadly weapons of the day, how would Americans have reacted if another country, say Russia, was debating how to intervene and stop the bloodshed, and ultimately decided to bomb Washington DC and take out their military? Would Americans on either side of the issue, North or South, welcomed Russian intervention, and thanked the Russians for saving them from themselves? Or would Americans have vowed revenge against Russia, with the most extreme elements willing to do whatever they could to get back at Russia for interfering (ie be terrorists)?

Syrians are human beings with the same emotions and reactions as anyone else. Why assume they will respond any differently? Now remember the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA that nearly all terrorist activity in the US is retaliation for US interference in middle east countries' affairs?

Also, put this in context... The last time the US was presenting all this compelling evidence about the use of chemical weapons used against the Kurds in Iraq, the US insisted the evidence was conclusive that Iran launched the attack. It's recently been proven that Reagan gave Saddam the chemical weapons because he losing the war against Iran and couldn't fight both the Iranians and the Kurdish uprising. Recently leaked documents prove Reagon knew Saddam would use them against the Kurds, and that after it happened, the US made up false evidence and propaganda to blame Iran.

And, also put it in perspective. Obama has killed far more civilians in the middle east with his drone strikes than were victims of this chemical attack. The UN published a report that Clinton had killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and when pressed on the issue, his secretary of state, Albright, casually said "it was worth it". And of course don't get into the Bush/Cheney Iraq issue.

So, with that bloody background, why is it that the US is so anxious to attack Syria? What is in it for the US? Saying it's a purely humanitarian mission is laughable, since the US has done nothing while millions were killed in other conflicts. There has to be more to it. Now, ask yourself, who understands a complex situation best? The one who is puzzled after he sees the outcome? Or the one who is could accurately predict way in advance exactly how it would turn out?

So what about all the people who, a year ago, before all this happened, accurately predicted that there would be some disputed crisis the US would use as justification to attack Syria, and who were able to explain precisely WHY it would happen?

In a nutshell, no economist will dispute that the US gains enormous benefit from being the world's reserve currency, and being the only currency with more dollars out of the country than in. And this is because all oil in the world must be sold only in US dollars, so every country MUST go to the US as the middle-man to buy their oil and buy US dollars. It allows the US to print a lot more money than otherwise would be possible since it creates demand for dollars. Now look at the historical record. Every single time, without one exception, that a country has tried to sell oil in anything but US dollars, the US has attacked that country immediately afterward, making up all sorts of accusations. It happened in Venezuela, when the US imposed sanctions after they sold oil in Euros. The US put up with Qadaffi for years despite his crazy behavior, but as soon as he started selling oil in Dinars he was taken out. The US had already pummeled Iraq into abject poverty and left it defenseless, but as soon as Saddam started selling oil in Euros, he was taken out. In March 2006, Iran opened an exchange to sell oil in other currencies. Within 60 days the US convinced the UN to impose sanctions blocking Iran's ability to sell oil, and ever since, has been doing everything possible to convince the people to attack Iran. However, despite all the propaganda, it's been a hard sell amongst war-weary Americans still getting over Iraq. Given that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty that requires Iran to retaliate if the US attacks Syria, as soon as turmoil started in Syria, the people who follow this accurately predicted the US would turn this into a crisis, and thus get a war against Iran, who, despite the sanctions and US blockade, has recently been secretly selling oil to India in rupees.

If you study the Petrodollar and monetary policy, you can accurately predict with pinpoint accuracy exactly when the US is going to start a war--it always follows a country's attempt to sell oil in non-US dollars.

Or it could be about the use of chemical weapons against civilians.Consider

Oh oh oh, chas has evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people?

WHERE IS THE MOTHER FUCKING EVIDENCE?

And now chas will perform the his classic back pedal dance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(05-09-2013 05:45 PM)I and I Wrote:  Oh oh oh, chas has evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people?

WHERE IS THE MOTHER FUCKING EVIDENCE?

And now chas will perform the his classic back pedal dance.

He provided precisely as much evidence as the assertion he was responding to.

Drinking Beverage

Anyway, here are the latest developments in Syria:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/assad-u...mic,33731/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-ma...ong,33752/

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 06:44 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(05-09-2013 05:45 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 04:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Or it could be about the use of chemical weapons against civilians.Consider

Oh oh oh, chas has evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people?

WHERE IS THE MOTHER FUCKING EVIDENCE?

And now chas will perform the his classic back pedal dance.

Did I say that? No. Please stop attributing things to me.

I stated the reason that the U.S. government might be using. Ask them for evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
@chas, first, remember the last time the US claimed it had irrefutable evidence of the use of chemical against civilians... It was against the Kurds in Iraq, and the US claimed it had proof that Iran was behind it. Anybody who disputed that was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Low and behold, 20 years later, documents are revealed that proved that Reagan gave Iraq the chemical weapons and approved of him using then on the Kurds, and that the "proof" that Iran was behind it was all fabricated propaganda.

The US also made similar claims about 'yellow cake' and nuclear materials to justify the invasion of Iraq. And, that too was a total fabrication. The document proved to be forged, with evidence that the CIA did it.

Now, we've got a repeat. Again the US claims it has "proof".

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.... Fool me three times.... Well you've got be pretty gullible for that to happen.

And what about my question, "How would Americans respond if a foreign country bombed us to stop our civil war?" Or the findings from the 9/11 commission and CIA that almost all terrorist activity in the US is in retaliation for US interference in middle east countries internal affairs? Do we ever learn, or will history just keep repeating itself indefinitely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(05-09-2013 08:18 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @chas, first, remember the last time the US claimed it had irrefutable evidence of the use of chemical against civilians... It was against the Kurds in Iraq, and the US claimed it had proof that Iran was behind it. Anybody who disputed that was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Low and behold, 20 years later, documents are revealed that proved that Reagan gave Iraq the chemical weapons and approved of him using then on the Kurds, and that the "proof" that Iran was behind it was all fabricated propaganda.

The US also made similar claims about 'yellow cake' and nuclear materials to justify the invasion of Iraq. And, that too was a total fabrication. The document proved to be forged, with evidence that the CIA did it.

Now, we've got a repeat. Again the US claims it has "proof".

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.... Fool me three times.... Well you've got be pretty gullible for that to happen.

Assuming a claim is false without investigation is just as asinine as assuming it's true without investigation.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: