Poll: Is this a sign of progress?
Yes, it is a trend.
No, we should've used military action.
Yes, it's progress, but not indicative of a future trend.
I have no idea/Undecided
Other
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 09:09 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Kerry is trying to keep pressure on the Russians/Syrians to negotiate the best terms for some kind of diplomatic deal.

BryanS, somebody's been drinking the cool-aid. Why would Kerry want to see some kind of diplomatic deal, when the objective all along is to have a war? You're not disputing the facts that leaks have proved this was all planned years ago and that the US was behind the rebel uprising trying to create a civil war which would provide a justification for an invasion. The US has invested a huge amount of money and resources already trying to get a war with Syria, and therefore Iran. If there's a diplomatic deal, all that is shot to pieces. All that money and effort is wasted, and they'll have to start from scratch trying a new tack to justify the war. I think you just don't like admitting to yourself the cold, ugly truth about what's going on.

Kerry has to go along with the diplomatic solution and, publicly, appear to support it, so they don't appear to voters as war-mongers. But, read between the lines and he's been doing everything possible to derail the diplomatic deal. He's already trying to get out of the deal, such as yesterday when he said that even IF Syria did handle over their chemical weapons, there had to be a UN resolution committing to attack Syria if they didn't hand over all of them. They know that has zero chance of getting passed. So if they really wanted a diplomatic solution, why throw that in? Why not give the diplomatic deal a chance, and if it failed, THEN they can push for an attack? After all they don't have UN approval for the war now anyway, so, if they don't want a war, they have nothing to lose by letting the diplomatic deal play its course.

Quote:How does your dumb ass brain believe that Russia is irresponsible pertaining to the Middle East when there is no historic le example compared to that of the US?

I and I, that's absurd. Compared to the US every other country is a peaceful dove in the middle east. As you pointed out, the US has planned to topple 7 countries in the middle east. Of course, by that standard, every other country in the world is a saint in their middle east dealings.

But the fact is that Russia, like the US, has no objection to using violence when it suits their agenda, such as Chechnya, Georgia, etc., and in the old days, Afghanistan. And even in the modern middle east, Russia isn't exactly a beacon of peace. Remember they have been selling weapons, and presumably chemical weapons, in the middle east, such as to Syria.

As I said, in THIS case it suits Russia's interests to play the responsible party BECAUSE they are making money selling stuff to Syria, so they don't want to see Syria toppled. And, I'm sure they love that in this battle with the US, Russia is seen as the peaceful nation exposing the US's hypocritical war-mongering. But this does NOT mean that Russia overall is a nation that fights for tolerance, peace and liberty.



Of course Kerry is trying to get a diplomatic deal...apparently facts on the ground have move past assertion you made that Kerry was trying to sabotage a deal. So we have a deal...need a vote in the UN yet according to the parameters of the announced deal (which is not a vote for an explicit attack if there is failure, but just a vote that promises 'consequences', so your point is now mute ).

And yes, I do dispute that the Syria situation was pre-planned. The Bush administration wanted to support opposition elements in the hopes of causing democratic transition in the Middle East. This was no big secret--it was announced public policy. But supporting opposition elements in dictator lead regimes is not the same thing as invading them.

Obama, until very recently, has been slow walking support of the rebels. Obama knew his political base was not with him if he attacked, which was why he punted and tried to get congressional support. The Obama admin has every incentive to obtain a diplomatic resolution ever since it became clear he would not get Congressional approval for a strike. Obama never should have gone along with the Libyan adventure, and he knew he faced the same kinds of political opposition if he dedicated forces to an attack again without Congressional support. I think perhaps Obama deserves credit for learning from his mistakes. [/b]

I'm in agreement with your comments on Russia and its comparison to the US. It's pretty spot on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Quote:The Obama admin has every incentive to obtain a diplomatic resolution ever since it became clear he would not get Congressional approval for a strike

Really? Serious question... If the US doesn't get a war with Syria (which is of course all about Iran who has a mutual defense treaty) how is the US going to prevent a currency crisis since the only thing holding up the dollar is that the whole world must buy US dollars to get all their oil, the blockade against Iran to prevent them from exporting oil is already slipping, and if they don't find a permanent solution and Iran gets to export oil in other countries (which it has vowed to do), they won't have any reason to stock up on US dollars? Every economist from the entire political spectrum accepts it would hurt the US to lose the monopoly it has on the sale of oil.

Also, how is it that people who follow the PetroDollar were able to predict years ago, before there even was a Syrian uprising what was going to happen? How did we all know this in advance? What about the news reports, like this: link where it was revealed US-backed countries were giving CHEMICAL WEAPONS, and Sarin gas in particular, to the Syrian rebels which they were going to use to frame the Assad regime? Isn't it a 1:1,000,000 chance of guessing that?

And I can safely predict that, even though Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years, the US _WILL_ within the next 10 years find a way to get a war with Iran. We can take bets and check back in 10 years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 02:08 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:The Obama admin has every incentive to obtain a diplomatic resolution ever since it became clear he would not get Congressional approval for a strike

Really? Serious question... If the US doesn't get a war with Syria (which is of course all about Iran who has a mutual defense treaty) how is the US going to prevent a currency crisis since the only thing holding up the dollar is that the whole world must buy US dollars to get all their oil, the blockade against Iran to prevent them from exporting oil is already slipping, and if they don't find a permanent solution and Iran gets to export oil in other countries (which it has vowed to do), they won't have any reason to stock up on US dollars? Every economist from the entire political spectrum accepts it would hurt the US to lose the monopoly it has on the sale of oil.

How would going to war with Syria prevent a currency crisis? If you are thinking this ties to Iran--ok, that might be the case--but Iran doesn't have any special ability to cause all the world's governments to cease using the US dollar as a reserve currency. That's been happening slowly without the need of any help from Iran.

Quote:Also, how is it that people who follow the PetroDollar were able to predict years ago, before there even was a Syrian uprising what was going to happen? How did we all know this in advance? What about the news reports, like this: link where it was revealed US-backed countries were giving CHEMICAL WEAPONS, and Sarin gas in particular, to the Syrian rebels which they were going to use to frame the Assad regime? Isn't it a 1:1,000,000 chance of guessing that?

Here we go again. Iranian state news is not the most unbiased news source out there. Isn't it also equally possible that this story was presented to give cover to Assad should any attack occur? And some Qatari agent approaching a UK company can just assert that Washington is ok with the idea of handing chemical weapons to Syrian rebels, and that is considered evidence? What is that...like fourth hand? Iranian government operated press says that a UK company says that an undisclosed Qatari government official says that he is giving his personal assurance that Washington supports this. Call me skeptical.

Quote:And I can safely predict that, even though Iran hasn't attacked another country in 200 years, the US _WILL_ within the next 10 years find a way to get a war with Iran. We can take bets and check back in 10 years.

If by attack, you exclude any state sanctioned terrorist attacks, then perhaps your 200yr claim may have something to it. I hope we don't need to go to war with Iran. I think Obama knew he was sabotaging any strikes on Syria when he punted to Congress. Maybe something similar can happen with Iran--the Russians step in and get the Iranians to dial back their nuclear program. But one thing is for sure, the Russians would never have jumped on this Syrian idea if they didn't fear getting ignored again on another attack by the West on a country they consider in their influence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Quote:Iran doesn't have any special ability to cause all the world's governments to cease using the US dollar as a reserve currency

Sure they do. Think this through... You're not disputing that the dollars special place as the world's reserve currency is mainly because the world needs to buy dollars to get their oil? Right? That's not disputed. In March, 2006 Iran said it would start selling oil in other currencies. The US blockade and war propaganda began just a few weeks later. Do you think that's coincidence? What if the US did NOT do this? Do you think Japan would continue to buy oil in US dollars if they had a way to buy it in Yen? If they could buy it in their own currency, which they can print as much of as they want, WHY would Japan want to have to send cars and tv's and other goods to the US to buy pieces of paper the Federal Reserve prints? Wouldn't Japan want to cut out the middle-man and buy direct if they could? So, if the US did NOT take action to block Iran, which has massive reserves, why would the rest of the world not buy from Iran in their own currency? And if that was happening, wouldn't that give Iran a competitive advantage over the other oil-producing countries that only sold oil in dollars, leading them to eventually break the dollar monopoly?

Why do you find this hard to accept? Is there any part of this in particular that you're disputing? Or you just find it uncomfortable to think that the whole Syria thing has always been about preserving the PetroDollar?

Quote:Here we go again. Iranian state news is not the most unbiased news source out there. Isn't it also equally possible that this story was presented to give cover to Assad should any attack occur?

I'm not saying I put any weight behind presstv, and I haven't checked their references. HOWEVER, when you put this in context that leaked US documents prove this was planned a couple years ago, and a couple years ago a 4 star general reports that the US is going to destabilize Syria, well the presstv article is consistent with other sources. Your theory that Iran did this to give cover for a chemical weapons attack by Assad doesn't make sense since Assad had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using his chemical weapons on his own civilians. If he used them against the rebels, or against a foreign country that was invading, THEN it would make sense. But he's desperately trying to hold on to power and get the people to keep following him. Remember when Bush's approval ratings were at rock bottom, and much of the country was against him, and some were calling for impeachment over the Iraq War? Would it have made any sense for bush to figure the way out of that mess was to drop chemical weapons on New York and wipe out his own people? Wouldn't such an action only turn against him those who were still loyal? With Assad trying to win over the people of Syria, why would he drop a chemical weapon on a residential Damascus neighborhood, slaughtering over a thousand civilians who weren't posing him any threat?

However the explanation in the presstv article makes perfect sense. The only ones who benefit by killing thousands of civilians are the rebels, if they can frame Assad.

Quote:If by attack, you exclude any state sanctioned terrorist attacks

"Terrorist" is a term that has come to mean anybody who is not on your side. When the US started arming the Syrian rebels, you understand that to Syrians, they are "terrorists". They are the ones initiating violence to take over the country. To Americans, however, they are freedom fighters. Conversely, when Iran backs Hezbollah, we see them as terrorists. To Iran, however, they are freedom fighters. All sides in this battle support armed uprising. Each side thinks the other are terrorists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
Once Irans civilian population is ran on nuclear energy and Iran doesn't need oil to buy or sell to grow it's economy then Iran can hoard it's oil, sell it at a high price and can have all kinds of control over the oil economy. This is why the west doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power. The claim that Irani is making nuclear weapons has ZERO evidence to back it up.

China which already has a stronger economy is looking to start using it's currency around the world like the dollar to compete with the dollar. Hence Obamas "asia pivot" Putting long range missiles in Korea, and the discussion of rearming Japan with a missile shield.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 04:32 PM
Re: RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 03:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  Once Irans civilian population is ran on nuclear energy and Iran doesn't need oil to buy or sell to grow it's economy then Iran can hoard it's oil, sell it at a high price and can have all kinds of control over the oil economy. This is why the west doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power. The claim that Irani is making nuclear weapons has ZERO evidence to back it up.

China which already has a stronger economy is looking to start using it's currency around the world like the dollar to compete with the dollar. Hence Obamas "asia pivot" Putting long range missiles in Korea, and the discussion of rearming Japan with a missile shield.

You forgot arming other Pacific locations with missles.

Funny, I never recall actual claims Iran "IS" making nuclear weapons. unless your take is saying someone potentially could do something is saying they are.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 04:33 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 03:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure they do. Think this through... You're not disputing that the dollars special place as the world's reserve currency is mainly because the world needs to buy dollars to get their oil? Right? That's not disputed. In March, 2006 Iran said it would start selling oil in other currencies. The US blockade and war propaganda began just a few weeks later. Do you think that's coincidence? What if the US did NOT do this? Do you think Japan would continue to buy oil in US dollars if they had a way to buy it in Yen? If they could buy it in their own currency, which they can print as much of as they want, WHY would Japan want to have to send cars and tv's and other goods to the US to buy pieces of paper the Federal Reserve prints? Wouldn't Japan want to cut out the middle-man and buy direct if they could? So, if the US did NOT take action to block Iran, which has massive reserves, why would the rest of the world not buy from Iran in their own currency? And if that was happening, wouldn't that give Iran a competitive advantage over the other oil-producing countries that only sold oil in dollars, leading them to eventually break the dollar monopoly?

Why do you find this hard to accept? Is there any part of this in particular that you're disputing? Or you just find it uncomfortable to think that the whole Syria thing has always been about preserving the PetroDollar?

I do dispute that oil is the only reason the US dollar is a reserve currency. China doesn't need a couple trillion in US reserves just to buy oil. The biggest reason the US dollar is a reserve currency is perceived stability of the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies and the share of the world GDP that the US economy represents. Both have weakened in the past decade.


Quote:I'm not saying I put any weight behind presstv, and I haven't checked their references. HOWEVER, when you put this in context that leaked US documents prove this was planned a couple years ago, and a couple years ago a 4 star general reports that the US is going to destabilize Syria, well the presstv article is consistent with other sources. Your theory that Iran did this to give cover for a chemical weapons attack by Assad doesn't make sense since Assad had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using his chemical weapons on his own civilians. If he used them against the rebels, or against a foreign country that was invading, THEN it would make sense. But he's desperately trying to hold on to power and get the people to keep following him. Remember when Bush's approval ratings were at rock bottom, and much of the country was against him, and some were calling for impeachment over the Iraq War? Would it have made any sense for bush to figure the way out of that mess was to drop chemical weapons on New York and wipe out his own people? Wouldn't such an action only turn against him those who were still loyal? With Assad trying to win over the people of Syria, why would he drop a chemical weapon on a residential Damascus neighborhood, slaughtering over a thousand civilians who weren't posing him any threat?

However the explanation in the presstv article makes perfect sense. The only ones who benefit by killing thousands of civilians are the rebels, if they can frame Assad.

Leaked documents have proven no such thing. The allegation is that Assad attacked neighborhoods that were supporters of the opposition. Yes, that is precisely where someone would attack if they were to. Now, German intercepts seem to indicate that Assad was unlikely to order the attack, but at the same time state that Assad turned down the request to use them in opposition neighborhoods multiple times over the past few months. Very few people on any side think there were no chemical weapons used--I think I read the official report from the UN will be coming out Monday, so we may have the first independent evidence on that question. However nobody yet has concrete evidence that Assad gave the order--it is quite possible that others within his government took it upon themselves to set that in motion. The German intelligence intercepts seem to indicate some of his commanders were itching to gas people.

Quote:"Terrorist" is a term that has come to mean anybody who is not on your side. When the US started arming the Syrian rebels, you understand that to Syrians, they are "terrorists". They are the ones initiating violence to take over the country. To Americans, however, they are freedom fighters. Conversely, when Iran backs Hezbollah, we see them as terrorists. To Iran, however, they are freedom fighters. All sides in this battle support armed uprising. Each side thinks the other are terrorists.

I am using terrorist in the way we have used terrorist to describe their support of terrorism. I was refuting your claim that Iran is super duper peaceful and never attacks anyone by pointing out that Iran (not talking about Syria here) may not have invaded countries, but is far from pure on its behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 04:32 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 03:44 PM)I and I Wrote:  Once Irans civilian population is ran on nuclear energy and Iran doesn't need oil to buy or sell to grow it's economy then Iran can hoard it's oil, sell it at a high price and can have all kinds of control over the oil economy. This is why the west doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power. The claim that Irani is making nuclear weapons has ZERO evidence to back it up.

China which already has a stronger economy is looking to start using it's currency around the world like the dollar to compete with the dollar. Hence Obamas "asia pivot" Putting long range missiles in Korea, and the discussion of rearming Japan with a missile shield.

You forgot arming other Pacific locations with missles.

Funny, I never recall actual claims Iran "IS" making nuclear weapons. unless your take is saying someone potentially could do something is saying they are.

Do you watch much news? The US and Israel have been saying Iran is building nuclear weapons for several years now. The US has imposed sanctions on Iran for that reason. Do you want videos of US officials making these claims that Iran is buildING nuclear weapons? Again how does on not know that the US has been making these claims?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 04:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 03:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure they do. Think this through... You're not disputing that the dollars special place as the world's reserve currency is mainly because the world needs to buy dollars to get their oil? Right? That's not disputed. In March, 2006 Iran said it would start selling oil in other currencies. The US blockade and war propaganda began just a few weeks later. Do you think that's coincidence? What if the US did NOT do this? Do you think Japan would continue to buy oil in US dollars if they had a way to buy it in Yen? If they could buy it in their own currency, which they can print as much of as they want, WHY would Japan want to have to send cars and tv's and other goods to the US to buy pieces of paper the Federal Reserve prints? Wouldn't Japan want to cut out the middle-man and buy direct if they could? So, if the US did NOT take action to block Iran, which has massive reserves, why would the rest of the world not buy from Iran in their own currency? And if that was happening, wouldn't that give Iran a competitive advantage over the other oil-producing countries that only sold oil in dollars, leading them to eventually break the dollar monopoly?

Why do you find this hard to accept? Is there any part of this in particular that you're disputing? Or you just find it uncomfortable to think that the whole Syria thing has always been about preserving the PetroDollar?

I do dispute that oil is the only reason the US dollar is a reserve currency. China doesn't need a couple trillion in US reserves just to buy oil. The biggest reason the US dollar is a reserve currency is perceived stability of the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies and the share of the world GDP that the US economy represents. Both have weakened in the past decade.


Quote:I'm not saying I put any weight behind presstv, and I haven't checked their references. HOWEVER, when you put this in context that leaked US documents prove this was planned a couple years ago, and a couple years ago a 4 star general reports that the US is going to destabilize Syria, well the presstv article is consistent with other sources. Your theory that Iran did this to give cover for a chemical weapons attack by Assad doesn't make sense since Assad had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using his chemical weapons on his own civilians. If he used them against the rebels, or against a foreign country that was invading, THEN it would make sense. But he's desperately trying to hold on to power and get the people to keep following him. Remember when Bush's approval ratings were at rock bottom, and much of the country was against him, and some were calling for impeachment over the Iraq War? Would it have made any sense for bush to figure the way out of that mess was to drop chemical weapons on New York and wipe out his own people? Wouldn't such an action only turn against him those who were still loyal? With Assad trying to win over the people of Syria, why would he drop a chemical weapon on a residential Damascus neighborhood, slaughtering over a thousand civilians who weren't posing him any threat?

However the explanation in the presstv article makes perfect sense. The only ones who benefit by killing thousands of civilians are the rebels, if they can frame Assad.

Leaked documents have proven no such thing. The allegation is that Assad attacked neighborhoods that were supporters of the opposition. Yes, that is precisely where someone would attack if they were to. Now, German intercepts seem to indicate that Assad was unlikely to order the attack, but at the same time state that Assad turned down the request to use them in opposition neighborhoods multiple times over the past few months. Very few people on any side think there were no chemical weapons used--I think I read the official report from the UN will be coming out Monday, so we may have the first independent evidence on that question. However nobody yet has concrete evidence that Assad gave the order--it is quite possible that others within his government took it upon themselves to set that in motion. The German intelligence intercepts seem to indicate some of his commanders were itching to gas people.

Quote:"Terrorist" is a term that has come to mean anybody who is not on your side. When the US started arming the Syrian rebels, you understand that to Syrians, they are "terrorists". They are the ones initiating violence to take over the country. To Americans, however, they are freedom fighters. Conversely, when Iran backs Hezbollah, we see them as terrorists. To Iran, however, they are freedom fighters. All sides in this battle support armed uprising. Each side thinks the other are terrorists.

I am using terrorist in the way we have used terrorist to describe their support of terrorism. I was refuting your claim that Iran is super duper peaceful and never attacks anyone by pointing out that Iran (not talking about Syria here) may not have invaded countries, but is far from pure on its behavior.

So Iran DOES? attack other countries? Name them please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: WTAF? American Syria Situation.
(14-09-2013 05:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 04:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I do dispute that oil is the only reason the US dollar is a reserve currency. China doesn't need a couple trillion in US reserves just to buy oil. The biggest reason the US dollar is a reserve currency is perceived stability of the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies and the share of the world GDP that the US economy represents. Both have weakened in the past decade.



Leaked documents have proven no such thing. The allegation is that Assad attacked neighborhoods that were supporters of the opposition. Yes, that is precisely where someone would attack if they were to. Now, German intercepts seem to indicate that Assad was unlikely to order the attack, but at the same time state that Assad turned down the request to use them in opposition neighborhoods multiple times over the past few months. Very few people on any side think there were no chemical weapons used--I think I read the official report from the UN will be coming out Monday, so we may have the first independent evidence on that question. However nobody yet has concrete evidence that Assad gave the order--it is quite possible that others within his government took it upon themselves to set that in motion. The German intelligence intercepts seem to indicate some of his commanders were itching to gas people.


I am using terrorist in the way we have used terrorist to describe their support of terrorism. I was refuting your claim that Iran is super duper peaceful and never attacks anyone by pointing out that Iran (not talking about Syria here) may not have invaded countries, but is far from pure on its behavior.

So Iran DOES? attack other countries? Name them please.

Terrorism is more an attack on people than it is an attack on countries. Certainly the intent might be to send a political message to the targeted country, but the actual attacks happen on civilians. Here's a summary of Iranian involvement in terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism

I'm sure you will find that this page was written by Jews, or some other conspiracy bull. I just don't buy that Iran only acts peacefully.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: