Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« on: August 26, 2013, 01:55:16 AM »
Will Syria be the next stop on the USA's eternal war world tour? We're gearing up for military action based on the premise that "Assad is gassing his own people". That phrase brings back memories to those of us who don't have amnesia. Assad is brutal and ruthless, but he isn't suicidal. Some of his fanatical Muslim foes, on the other hand.... How do we know that Al Qaeda or some other terroristic group didn't commit mass murder with the knowledge that Assad would take the fall for it? Assad knew full well what the world's reaction would be if he used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, so it seemed unlikely that he unleashed WMD, *especially* since he fully grasped the assured dire consequences that would follow such a heinous war crime. What's your take on the situation?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2013, 02:46:15 AM »
Will Syria be the next stop on the USA's eternal war world tour? We're gearing up for military action based on the premise that "Assad is gassing his own people". That phrase brings back memories to those of us who don't have amnesia. Assad is brutal and ruthless, but he isn't suicidal. Some of his fanatical Muslim foes, on the other hand.... How do we know that Al Qaeda or some other terroristic group didn't commit mass murder with the knowledge that Assad would take the fall for it? Assad knew full well what the world's reaction would be if he used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, so it seemed unlikely that he unleashed WMD, *especially* since he fully grasped the assured dire consequences that would follow such a heinous war crime. What's your take on the situation?

It's telling that the UN inspectors wanted to visit the alleged site of the very recent chemical weapon attack on civilians..However Assad denied them (the UN inspectors still have no mandate to move unhindered as they did in Iraq) the access; that is until today. Whereupon the evidence will have dispersed and any hardware evidence will have evaporated. So although it's theoretically possible that Al Qaeda has used Assad as a stooge, it's highly unlikely. As for knowing what the world's reaction might be, I don't think he really cares. He's currently supplied by China and Russia and knows that (or will have been advised it is so) that if there was (for instance) sea borne strike with cruise missiles on his infrastructure, it would be limited to what is certain is his. Which means the intelligence is as good as the last update, so if he moves stuff around or abandons a site the missile will hit an empty target. Any attack directly on Assad (as in assassination) would be seen as a declaration of war and the consequences of that don't bear thinking about. The west is stuck between a rock and a hard place..Go after Assad and it lets Al Qaeda in more than they are now, do nothing and we'll be seen as capitulating with Assad. Either way the innocents will suffer as they always do in these situations. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23838900

The links within the above article make it very lengthy reading, but gives a fairly comprehensive insight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23783273

Not nice.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2013, 03:37:27 AM »
You're right about the victims. I'm just skeptical at this point. Some of our government officials are fine with supporting and supplying terrorists from organizations that massacred our own countrymen. I'm not convinced that Assad okayed the attack. It's possible, but he had much to lose. He knew that his "bodyguards" would not risk World War III by protecting him. Not only that, the rebels murdered children and Christians. What kind of allies are those? We should stay out of it. Let them solve their own problems. It's not about humanitarianism; it's about hegemony. It's no coincidence that Afghanistan and Iraq surround Iran.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2013, 04:12:22 AM »
You're right about the victims. I'm just skeptical at this point. Some of our government officials are fine with supporting and supplying terrorists from organizations that massacred our own countrymen. I'm not convinced that Assad okayed the attack. It's possible, but he had much to lose. He knew that his "bodyguards" would not risk World War III by protecting him. Not only that, the rebels murdered children and Christians. What kind of allies are those? We should stay out of it. Let them solve their own problems. It's not about humanitarianism; it's about hegemony. It's no coincidence that Afghanistan and Iraq surround Iran.

Afghanistan and Iraq surround Iran due to geography.. Iraq had war visited on it because there was money to be made. (Vietnam was another example)..Similarly with Afghanistan. I have no more desire for the west to risk it's soldiers, sailors and airmen and women than the next and I'm still appalled that Tony Blair, Dubya and others are not standing trial as war criminals.

The paradox and volte face of all that is if the west does nothing we're looking at Russian and Chinese influence reaching in far more than it is now--of course this throws up the legitimate argument asking if western influence is any better? Many would say not considering our past endevours. Iraq has bombs going off almost on a daily basis; Afghanistan is a basket case that will never be resolved in my opinion.

The earlier point about supplying terrorists; well that depends I suppose which side of the line you are. The indigenous population fighting off the invader could be seen as freedom fighters (As the French, Czech, Norwegian, Dutch, Greek, resistance movements were in WW2). Western governments employ mercenaries in Afghanistan and did in Iraq...the modern phrase used of course is "contractors", making it more palatable like "Collateral damage" is nicer than "blowing up wedding parties or murdering other civvies from an Apache heli".

Yes, we have supplied terrorists; we've trained many of them, because at the time it was useful for the incumbent government at the time to have them on a leash and willing to overthrow by proxy (Freedom fighter tag). Things get messy when the "freedom fighter" goes native and realises it doesn't need the leash and can learn to love their new found power and ability to spread fear independent of their hitherto paymasters...That's when they get a new tag "terrorist". It's the same no matter which government has written the cheques...but can reasonably be narrowed down to about half a dozen.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2013, 06:46:40 AM »
I'm ignoring Syria and reading The Guns of August.  It's probably more informative on the current situation than the news.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2013, 02:42:35 PM »
We already know approximately where most, if not all, of Assad`s WMD are stored. A medium scale strike of, say, 400-500 cruise missiles, along with supplementary air strikes, should clean things up quite nicely and level the playing field for all sides to continue slaughtering each other for years to come -- a GOOD thing. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2013, 03:02:17 PM »
We already know approximately where most, if not all, of Assad`s WMD are stored. A medium scale strike of, say, 400-500 cruise missiles, along with supplementary air strikes, should clean things up quite nicely and level the playing field for all sides to continue slaughtering each other for years to come -- a GOOD thing.

An interesting scenario...Conservative estimate $600 Million worth of ordnance; plus the platforms to get them there, add another $X million. Then the delicate matter of an undeclared war on a sovereign state. Sovereign state with "moral high ground" on it's side garners support from the UN (Or what's left of it), is supported by Russia and China...ALL sides really will be ALL sides. It won't be a way of obliterating the middle east if that's your intention; it'll be your ass too. (Unless you emigrate to Antarctica or Australasia)

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2013, 05:35:16 PM »
I'm starting to like this guy:


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2013, 05:59:00 PM »
I'm not convinced attacking Syria is in the best interest of the US, or at least it would not have been had Obama not made his "red line" comments a few months back.  Now, failure to act makes the US look weak and unreliable, and will send the wrong message to friends and foes alike.  I suppose honor would be served by flinging a couple dozen cruise missiles into Syria, and having the UK and France join us in such a symbolic gesture would show Western unity.  The next day the killing could begin again, after the Russians and Chinese have wagged their fingers at us.

All these uprisings in the Arab world shows just how worthless both the UN and Arab League truly are. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2013, 06:20:09 PM »
Obama IS weak and unreliable.  Our allies and our enemies already know that.  Lobbing a few missiles is not going to change that.


Al-Qaeda and the 'rebels' are our enemies, Assad is not.  If anything, we should be supporting him now.  We don't know who used gas, or if anyone did.  The pictures  I saw of those kids were not pictures of people that had been gassed.  The timing was awfully unfortunate for Assad as well.  Very suspicious all the way around.  If Obama was going to do anything, it should have been to help the rebellion when it started, before it was co-opted and taken over by the Islamist terror groups.

But that's been Obama's pattern - he did nothing in Libya until that revolution was taken over by the Islamist terror groups, then helped them. Same thing in Egypt, staying out of it until the Muslim Brotherhood stole the revolution there.  Now Syria - whether he helps the rebels further or not, he's already sent them weapons and has helped organize an international group of nations to aide them, including primarily Turkey and our new terrorist friends in Libya.  3 times he failed to support a legitimate movement to overthrow a dictator (4 if you count the people of Iran), and 3 times he's stepped in after Militant Islam hijacked the movement.


If a person were to come along and look at the administration actions and non-actions since the beginning of the 'Arab Spring', they could be forgiven if they made the assumption Obama was on the side of Sunni Terror.  It would certainly explain Libya, Egypt and Syria, it would explain how it is his half brother Malik Obama turns out to be the bag man for the Moslem Brotherhoods ''international investments'.  It would explain why Huma Abedin was Hillary's top aide for Arab/Muslim affairs at State.

We already know Obama doesn't mind terrorism, having chosen Bill Ayres as a mentor in Chicago, years ago.


Obama needs to go.   

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2013, 01:05:18 AM »
Al-Qaeda and the 'rebels' are our enemies, Assad is not.  If anything, we should be supporting him now.  We don't know who used gas, or if anyone did.  The pictures  I saw of those kids were not pictures of people that had been gassed.  The timing was awfully unfortunate for Assad as well.  Very suspicious all the way around.  If Obama was going to do anything, it should have been to help the rebellion when it started, before it was co-opted and taken over by the Islamist terror groups. 

The contributors to this thread made valid points. The quote from Paperboy crystallized things quite well. The civil war forced us into what appeared to be a Hobson's Choice scenario, but one choice was partly comprised of a group (Al Qaeda) that murdered Americans. Was it preordained that we would discover a way to push the Syrian domino? Afghanistan and Iraq were toppled. This likely wasn't a coincidence of geography, Yorkshire. The felled dominoes were directed at Ahmadinejad. Iran was the main target from the very start. YMMV

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2013, 01:12:30 AM »
Whoops.
Thought this was a thread about Sirius.

c-ya

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2013, 02:26:26 AM »
Obama IS weak and unreliable.  Our allies and our enemies already know that.  Lobbing a few missiles is not going to change that.


Al-Qaeda and the 'rebels' are our enemies, Assad is not.  If anything, we should be supporting him now.  We don't know who used gas, or if anyone did.  The pictures  I saw of those kids were not pictures of people that had been gassed.

So you support Assad having the population murdered and it's a good thing?  I see..

And what are your qualifications to say unequivocally the people shown haven't been gassed (because they didn't 'look' like they had)? You should get on the next flight over there and assist the UN weapons inspectors and tell them not to waste their time, there are no chemical weapons..On the other hand you might just not know what the fuck it is you're talking about.

Quote
The timing was awfully unfortunate for Assad as well.  Very suspicious all the way around.  If Obama was going to do anything, it should have been to help the rebellion when it started, before it was co-opted and taken over by the Islamist terror groups.

Yeah..and follow in the footsteps of previous governments who shot first and didn't bother to ask questions later.

Quote
But that's been Obama's pattern - he did nothing in Libya until that revolution was taken over by the Islamist terror groups, then helped them. Same thing in Egypt, staying out of it until the Muslim Brotherhood stole the revolution there.  Now Syria - whether he helps the rebels further or not, he's already sent them weapons and has helped organize an international group of nations to aide them, including primarily Turkey and our new terrorist friends in Libya.  3 times he failed to support a legitimate movement to overthrow a dictator (4 if you count the people of Iran), and 3 times he's stepped in after Militant Islam hijacked the movement.

PB...PLEASE don't apply to be a diplomat..In any capacity..I want to die knowing my son might live to a ripe old age. That would be severely limited if you had any say in international relations.

Quote
If a person were to come along and look at the administration actions and non-actions since the beginning of the 'Arab Spring', they could be forgiven if they made the assumption Obama was on the side of Sunni Terror.  It would certainly explain Libya, Egypt and Syria, it would explain how it is his half brother Malik Obama turns out to be the bag man for the Moslem Brotherhoods ''international investments'.  It would explain why Huma Abedin was Hillary's top aide for Arab/Muslim affairs at State.

I won't bother to remind you that the so called Arab spring was unprecedented and therefore presented a situation that hadn't been faced previously. He should have followed the success and bloodless coup that was Iraq under Bush Snr...when SH sat back until the Kurds were no longer protected and went after them unhindered. You just spout unsupported rhetoric based on nothing more than your dislike of Obama. That's it.

Quote
We already know Obama doesn't mind terrorism, having chosen Bill Ayres as a mentor in Chicago, years ago.

Oh right! Reagan didn't either (Afghanistan)...Eisenhower (Iran, Shah coup 1953)... Johnson (Indonesian purge 65-66-although approx 3 million died there, the CIA were careful not to get their hands too dirty)..Terrorism depends if you're the one on the receiving end, irrespective of who the one pointing the gun or bomb is. It's only governments who try to justify mass murder as 'liberation'.

Quote
Obama needs to go.

Then vote him out; but not before you put yourself forward for nomination...Seriously.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2013, 02:40:47 AM »
I'm not convinced attacking Syria is in the best interest of the US, or at least it would not have been had Obama not made his "red line" comments a few months back.  Now, failure to act makes the US look weak and unreliable, and will send the wrong message to friends and foes alike.  I suppose honor would be served by flinging a couple dozen cruise missiles into Syria, and having the UK and France join us in such a symbolic gesture would show Western unity.  The next day the killing could begin again, after the Russians and Chinese have wagged their fingers at us.

All these uprisings in the Arab world shows just how worthless both the UN and Arab League truly are.

My bold: Yes.. where in my opinion we'd already be if we'd attacked by now. I think things are politically far more delicate than is being made public. None of us know what is being said between DC/ Moscow/ London/ Tel Aviv, but I suspect the midnight oil is being burnt. Whatever they discuss, the innocents are still being slaughtered, the lucky ones<sic> are being forced from their homes and trudging into refugee camps in Jordan.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2013, 02:49:02 AM »
Yorkshire Pud, no one supports Assad. He's the devil we know. What if his replacement is worse for both Israel and the USA? It's been known to happen. Besides, the rebels commit mass murder and other war crimes, and Al Qaeda is a part of those forces. Like the man said, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I'm not convinced that Assad is the lesser evil. Look at our Egyptian and Libyan "successes" brought on by our interventionist policies. George Washington was right.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2013, 02:51:41 AM »
The contributors to this thread made valid points. The quote from Paperboy crystallized things quite well. The civil war forced us into what appeared to be a Hobson's Choice scenario, but one choice was partly comprised of a group (Al Qaeda) that murdered Americans. Was it preordained that we would discover a way to push the Syrian domino? Afghanistan and Iraq were toppled. This likely wasn't a coincidence of geography, Yorkshire. The felled dominoes were directed at Ahmadinejad. Iran was the main target from the very start. YMMV

My misunderstanding of what you meant Nucky; I took what you said literally re: Iran/ Afghanistan/ Iraq. I do wish the idea (intended or not) that Al Qaeda killed only Americans was put to bed. The attack on the WTC killed citizens from about 70 nationalities; the London bombings several years later several more, not just British or even Londoners. The sick irony of Al Qaeda's target is shown by the fact that more Muslims have been on the receiving end of their murder than westerners of any religious denomination. I agree that Iran is a target and has been for a while (SH was supported by the west to try and overthrow it--that turned out well!), which might explain why the west is being circumspect and doing it with more covert means; hacking their nuclear centrifuges for instance. Whatever the final outcome-and I don't see a satisfactory resolution in my lifetime-many more innocent people will suffer, on all sides.  :(

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2013, 02:56:13 AM »
Yorkshire Pud, no one supports Assad. He's the devil we know. What if his replacement is worse for both Israel and the USA? It's been known to happen. Besides, the rebels commit mass murder and other war crimes, and Al Qaeda is a part of those forces. Like the man said, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I'm not convinced that Assad is the lesser evil. Look at our Egyptian and Libyan "successes" brought on by our interventionist policies. George Washington was right.


PB said....
Quote
Al-Qaeda and the 'rebels' are our enemies, Assad is not.  If anything, we should be supporting him now.

But I agree with what you say Nucky; whatever happens, whoever is the final leader, it will be the wrong decision the west has made. We're in a no win situation. Damned if we do, and if we don't. But the history supports the notion we don't learn from it.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2013, 03:31:05 AM »
My misunderstanding of what you meant Nucky; I took what you said literally re: Iran/ Afghanistan/ Iraq. I do wish the idea (intended or not) that Al Qaeda killed only Americans was put to bed. The attack on the WTC killed citizens from about 70 nationalities; the London bombings several years later several more, not just British or even Londoners. The sick irony of Al Qaeda's target is shown by the fact that more Muslims have been on the receiving end of their murder than westerners of any religious denomination. I agree that Iran is a target and has been for a while (SH was supported by the west to try and overthrow it--that turned out well!), which might explain why the west is being circumspect and doing it with more covert means; hacking their nuclear centrifuges for instance. Whatever the final outcome-and I don't see a satisfactory resolution in my lifetime-many more innocent people will suffer, on all sides.  :(

I understand that. I didn't mean to imply that only Americans were victims on 9/11. It just passes strange that some of our leaders would defend and support groups with strong links to the group responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of their fellow Americans. You know who they are. McCain (surprise) is one of them. I also realize that most victims of terrorism are Muslims, themselves. That's not to say that other groups aren't on their list. One thing that can be said with no reservations is that most perpetrators of terroristic atrocities since 2000 are Muslim zealots (or opportunists, as the case may be).

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2013, 03:38:31 AM »

PB said....[Assad is not our enemy]
But I agree with what you say Nucky; whatever happens, whoever is the final leader, it will be the wrong decision the west has made. We're in a no win situation. Damned if we do, and if we don't. But the history supports the notion we don't learn from it.

I have to disagree with Paperboy there. He's not a direct threat to our freedom or security, but he's a bad actor in regards to Iranian-funded groups. As far as learning from historical mistakes, we don't seem to be able to recall what we did last year, let alone a hundred years ago. Hey, Assad *might* be guilty, but we've heard this same refrain in the recent past, and it's hard to regain trust when said trust has been repeatedly violated.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2013, 04:02:11 AM »
... And what are your qualifications to say unequivocally the people shown haven't been gassed (because they didn't 'look' like they had)? You should get on the next flight over there and assist the UN weapons inspectors and tell them not to waste their time, there are no chemical weapons..On the other hand you might just not know what the fuck it is you're talking about...



I didn't say anything 'unequivocally'.   

I'm saying the pictures I saw were a bunch of kids in clean clothes laid out looking peaceful.  There is no point in getting into the sickening details, but people dying from gas attacks look like they went through hell  before dying.  It's among the worst of ways to go.  I'm just saying we don't know what happened, or by which side.  And the timing and location is suspicious.

In these situations, it is always useful to ask 'cui bono' - who benefits?  Often it's quite revealing.  There was no benefit to Assad in doing this - quite the opposite.

We do know that both sides will say or do anything to gain sympathy and allies, and our leaders and their supporters in the media will also say whatever is needed to support what they want to do.  We know Obama and Kerry are beyond incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs, and we also know Obama has chosen to side with Sunni Terror.

You don't think it's possible for al-Qaeda to kidnap and kill kids from Christian villages to use as props?  Or Shia villages?  Or even their own?  They are mostly 'foreign fighters' now, they don't care about anyone's kids.  Look how they treat women and others in their society.  Look at the kids they recruit as suicide bombers.  There is no line these people wouldn't cross.




So you support Assad having the population murdered and it's a good thing?  I see...



Seriously?

There are several pieces you don't get - surprise, surprise.  First off, the idea that overthrowing Assad is going to give us a more stable, more peaceful, friendlier government is foolish.  That almost never happens, and it very likely won't happen here.  Did we get a better government in Libya?  In Egypt?  Are those situations better for anyone?  You seem to think something better automatically will follow in these situations. 

The second thing you don't get is however widespread the desire to be free is, that is very different from a desire to live in a society where others are free.  Nowhere is such tolerance harder to find than in the Arab Middle East.  So yay, people want to get rid of Assad - so they can resume killing other Moslems and non-Moslems they don't agree with.  Hardly an improvement.

Obama's Middle East interventions have replaced stable neutral dictators with anti-Western dictators and chaos.  Whether you want to think so or not.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2013, 04:19:35 AM »
I have to disagree with Paperboy there. He's not a direct threat to our freedom or security, but he's a bad actor in regards to Iranian-funded groups...


No disagreement there, but how many tyrants and wars do we want to take on?  There are other more pressing threats.  We already have too many responsibilities.  Not to mention the cost and the stretching of our military.  There are plenty of regimes we could push into the category of 'enemy' if we really put our minds to it.  Syria is a tiny country that mostly threatens Lebanon and Israel.  They are small and weak and are being contained.



I understand that. I didn't mean to imply that only Americans were victims on 9/11. It just passes strange that some of our leaders would defend and support groups with strong links to the group responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of their fellow Americans. You know who they are. McCain (surprise) is one of them. I also realize that most victims of terrorism are Muslims, themselves. That's not to say that other groups aren't on their list. One thing that can be said with no reservations is that most perpetrators of terroristic atrocities since 2000 are Muslim zealots (or opportunists, as the case may be).



We are not the world's policeman.  The job of the US administration and US military is to protect the US and it's citizens.  Period.  As the lone superpower for now, we've also taken on tasks that benefit us like keeping shipping lanes open and peacekeeping.  We anchor multi-alliances - primarily NATO, but also Israel, Australia, New Zealand, our allies in the Pacific, and in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine, among others.  We also have friends like India, some of the Arab states, and a few in Africa.

Now we have the task of pursuing militant Islam wherever it may be.  Do we really need the incompetent Obama blundering his way through fairly stable neutral dictatorships on behalf of his Sunni Islamist friends?  How does that benefit the United States?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2013, 11:47:23 AM »
We aren't that concerned about being the worlds policmen we ARE interested in protecting US interests. this is just an excuse. Personally I think the Arab League should take care of Assad. But they lack the courage. I heard someone say that a Saudi prince made a remark at the beginning of the first Iraq War that they'd just let "the America Dogs" take care of Saddam. Our addiction to cheap oil has turned us into a crack whore

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2013, 12:02:30 PM »
We aren't that concerned about being the worlds policmen we ARE interested in protecting US interests. this is just an excuse. Personally I think the Arab League should take care of Assad. But they lack the courage. I heard someone say that a Saudi prince made a remark at the beginning of the first Iraq War that they'd just let "the America Dogs" take care of Saddam. Our addiction to cheap oil has turned us into a crack whore

False.

The United States actually has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East ...combined

We export more oil than we import, and within about 20 or 30 years or so, it`s conservatively estimated that the world will come to us for their energy needs.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2013, 12:11:47 PM »
And I suppose when we export this oil we do it out of the goodness of our hearts and not to make money? And maintaining that stranglehold on oil supply would definitely be in our interest

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2013, 12:13:05 PM »
False.

The United States actually has more oil reserves than the entire Middle East ...combined

We export more oil than we import, and within about 20 or 30 years or so, it`s conservatively estimated that the world will come to us for their energy needs.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

According to that, the USA is 13..SA 2...Iran 4, Iraq 5, Kuwait 6, UEA 7, Qatar is 12... Qatar is tiny.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2013, 12:17:13 PM »
Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

According to that, the USA is 13..SA 2...Iran 4, Iraq 5, Kuwait 6, UEA 7, Qatar is 12... Qatar is tiny.
oh Pud you're so cute with your facts and evidence. When will you learn that neo cons will never concede a point. ever. regardless of how made up their opinions are. they are Ancient Aliens of politics. as in ... written from NOTHING

also Anne Coulter called and said you were a faggot. her words. not mine

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2013, 12:25:03 PM »
oh Pud you're so cute with your facts and evidence. When will you learn that neo cons will never concede a point. ever. regardless of how made up their opinions are. they are Ancient Aliens of politics. as in ... written from NOTHING

also Anne Coulter called and said you were a faggot. her words. not mine

I was deliberately careful when I said "according to that"; It's one source, but it does also say that 70% of oil is OPEC.. Thing is, Russia is also developing it's oil, but especially gas (natural)  fields.

Faggot? Moi? Tsk...more woman than she is and more man than she's going to get my dear boy!

I should also add that FtF hasn't to my knowledge posted a single post that is supported by evidence; so really it was sort of unfair for me to pick him out, it's almost embarrassing to do it.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2013, 12:42:47 PM »
Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

According to that, the USA is 13..SA 2...Iran 4, Iraq 5, Kuwait 6, UEA 7, Qatar is 12... Qatar is tiny.


Some of this is way off, maybe just outdated.   That figure for Saudi Arabia - it hasn't budged in years, yet they pump more than anyone else.  Are we to believe they find new reserves in the exact amount they pump annually?   The figure for the US apparently does not include the shale sands, probably not the reserves in ANWF, and offshore fields currently off limits in Fla and Ca

This is before even considering Natural Gas, of which the US has the largest proven reserves.  Most of it was previously inaccessible before commercially as it can mostly only be moved through pipelines.  With the advances in LNG technology, this is becoming no longer the case.

So yeah, we have plenty of energy.  Developing it is what is going to get of out of the hole Obama is digging for us, if anything does.


I would suggest using dictionaries, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, and whatever else as a part of a research endeavor, not the last word.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2013, 12:45:21 PM »
Brace for shit storm ...

How is Obama digging our hole deeper re: energy/petrol?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2013, 12:48:32 PM »

Some of this is way off, maybe just outdated.   That figure for Saudi Arabia - it hasn't budged in years, yet they pump more than anyone else.  Are we to believe they find new reserves in the exact amount they pump annually?   The figure for the US apparently does not include the shale sands, probably not the reserves in ANWF, and offshore fields currently off limits in Fla and Ca

This is before even considering Natural Gas, of which the US has the largest proven reserves.  Most of it was previously inaccessible before commercially as it can mostly only be moved through pipelines.  With the advances in LNG technology, this is becoming no longer the case.

So yeah, we have plenty of energy.  Developing it is what is going to get of out of the hole Obama is digging for us, if anything does.


I would suggest using dictionaries, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, and whatever else as a part of a research endeavor, not the last word.

Quite right PB...which is why I qualified it...here's what BP say...

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013/review-by-energy-type/oil/oil-reserves.html?gclid=CJn8nPGWnrkCFUJc3god8EIAZw

Quote
Proved reserves remain concentrated in OPEC which controls 72.6% of the world’s oil reserves.