Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2013, 12:52:22 PM »
Brace for shit storm ...

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

Cos he's really JR Ewing...  :)

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2013, 12:53:35 PM »
Cos he's really JR Ewing...  :)
I thought I shot that motherfucker. God damn him and his big Texas hat

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2013, 12:56:26 PM »
I'm sure FtF will be along to explain his 'facts'....sadly this doesn't support him.

http://gulfbusiness.com/2013/04/top-10-countries-with-the-worlds-biggest-oil-reserves/


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2013, 01:26:06 PM »
Brace for shit storm ...

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


Sorry, that should have been more clear. 


He's digging a massive hole for our economy with the annual $1.5 million deficits, plus the new ObamaCare entitlements which have not kicked in yet.  We still have the continuing increases in the off-the-books debt such as SS, Med, Federal pensions.  We can never make good on this.  If and when interest rates get back to historical norms or higher, we won't even be able to pay the interest on it.  It will very likely ruin our currency and thus destroy our economy at some point.

To be fair, we probably reached a point of no return with this before he even got into office, but instead of attempting to address it, he exacerbated it.



Having all this energy to sell may bail us out somewhat.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2013, 01:39:20 PM »
I think that holding all the energy cards is our end game scenario. Who needs currency when we have all the oil? not sure if that's true.

re: currency ... where were you during Bush? at least Obama isn't going to cut taxes which to my mind is another form of spending.

if we were to trade energy for debt forgiveness that would be a major blunder. fiat currency won't put a plain in the air or a car on the road.

We are in the middle of a currency war with china and perhaps another nation. I won't pretend to understand how this works.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2013, 01:48:53 PM »
... where were you during Bush?...



2 incredibly expensive unwinnable destabilizing wars - with tax cuts at the same time -  during the first term, and going along with Nancy Pelosi and the Ds on a big jump in spending when they re-took the House during his second term?

Pretty pissed off on the one hand, still glad it wasn't Al Gore or John Kerry on the other hand.  Worst President ever - at the time.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2013, 02:08:16 PM »
I think that holding all the energy cards is our end game scenario. Who needs currency when we have all the oil? not sure if that's true.

re: currency ... where were you during Bush? at least Obama isn't going to cut taxes which to my mind is another form of spending.

if we were to trade energy for debt forgiveness that would be a major blunder. fiat currency won't put a plain in the air or a car on the road.

We are in the middle of a currency war with china and perhaps another nation. I won't pretend to understand how this works.

This is worth listening to...parody but oh so frighteningly true and scary too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038jkx6 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2013, 02:24:13 PM »
Quote from: PaperBoy
Pretty pissed off on the one hand, still glad it wasn't Al Gore or John Kerry on the other hand.  Worst President ever - at the time.

Bush was handed a thriving economy and a budget surplus which he both promptly destroyed. Obama was handed a smoldering bomb crater. Sonny Boy is a giant shit like of a President. But please keep fooling yourselves. At least you can hang all your sorrows on Obama. He's handy for blame game. Surely you can admit that.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2013, 02:28:47 PM »
They're all equally incompetent/venal/corrupt, D or R, every man-jack (and woman-jill, I guess) of them. This whole Right vs. Left battle is pointless and a little silly.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2013, 02:39:30 PM »
Bush was handed a thriving economy and a budget surplus which he both promptly destroyed. Obama was handed a smoldering bomb crater. Sonny Boy is a giant shit like of a President. But please keep fooling yourselves. At least you can hang all your sorrows on Obama. He's handy for blame game. Surely you can admit that.



I admit Obama has so many bad characteristics he's easy to rip into.  I'll say that for the guy

Presidents don't run the economy, they get too much blame for recession and too much credit for good times.  They can tinker around the edges with taxes and regulations, get Congress to pass good legislation of keep them from passing bad.  The govt as a whole can get in the way of the economy or out of the way.  There is more potential to do damage that to do something positive. 

I could definitely make a list of what Bush should have done, and I can make one of what Obama should be doing. Just one example - default credit SWAPs (and the other SWAPs) should not be held and traded by people that don't own the underlying bonds.  They should be a form of insurance only - it's like if me and everyone else in town had a fire insurance policy on my neighbors house - everyone has an interest in it burning down, and the ins co has to pay off massive policies.  Yet it was allowed under Bush despite Warren Buffets warnings, and they are still issued and traded now.

They are both terrible.  I will say I think Bush meant well and Obama doesn't.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2013, 12:07:19 AM »
They're all equally incompetent/venal/corrupt, D or R, every man-jack (and woman-jill, I guess) of them. This whole Right vs. Left battle is pointless and a little silly.

I'm not quite there yet since I still see small glimmers of hope. They might just be hallucinations, though.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2013, 12:13:22 AM »

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.





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?

I don't understand the tone of your post, Paperboy. It sounds like a lecture or a sermon, even though we're singing from the same hymnal. You're preaching to the choir. I'm a borderline isolationist.

Maybe you just shared your views for all of the members who saw your post. It's difficult to see a connection to the quotes to which you responded. For the record, I'm not convinced by any claims from any sources. You and I both know that intelligence can be "massaged".

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2013, 03:02:04 AM »
I don't understand the tone of your post, Paperboy. It sounds like a lecture or a sermon, even though we're singing from the same hymnal. You're preaching to the choir. I'm a borderline isolationist.

Maybe you just shared your views for all of the members who saw your post. It's difficult to see a connection to the quotes to which you responded. For the record, I'm not convinced by any claims from any sources. You and I both know that intelligence can be "massaged".


Looking back that response doesn't really match your comment. Sometimes I get on a roll and am not thinking about the original post.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2013, 03:59:19 AM »
I'm really against getting involved in Syria. That place is just a mess and I don't think we should be there. I saw a headline last night quoting Kerry saying that the purpose of our involvement wasn't regime change. If that's the case, then WTF are we pursuing a military option? Sounds like a mission with unclear goals and one that should be avoided.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2013, 04:16:06 AM »
I'm really against getting involved in Syria. That place is just a mess and I don't think we should be there. I saw a headline last night quoting Kerry saying that the purpose of our involvement wasn't regime change. If that's the case, then WTF are we pursuing a military option? Sounds like a mission with unclear goals and one that should be avoided.

The mission is quite simple: ensure that Dear Leader saves face.


The absolute best scenario is one that involves both sides fighting for years to come.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2013, 04:42:54 AM »
A couple things that come to mind are - the people who have been the shrillest about George W Bush having 'lied us into war' based on the apparently faulty intel about WMD in Iraq are the ones now lining up eager to believe Obama about who unleashed chemical weapons this time.


The other thing is about Obama foolishly drawing that 'Red Line'.  He is clearly on the side of al-Qaeda and the other Islamist terror groups fighting Assad - what happens if it turns out they murdered a bunch of war orphans to have them serve as props in an attempt to draw him into using our air force on their behalf?  Nothing? 


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2013, 05:06:05 AM »
While I generally despise the loss of life, how do we have an interest in those people killing each other?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2013, 05:13:14 AM »
The mission is quite simple: ensure that Dear Leader saves face.


The absolute best scenario is one that involves both sides fighting for years to come.

You said that the USA oil reserves exceed those of the Middle east combined, so why are you right this time? In round figures?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2013, 05:25:47 AM »
While I generally despise the loss of life, how do we have an interest in those people killing each other?


We don't. However on a global scale war and killing of people is a commodity, an industry. The biggest companies in the world make weapons, second to oil and gas...and the former ensures the value and security of the latter. The West's current dilemma is one of knowing who the bad guy is, or more importantly, who will the bad guy be who remains. To simply say (as some do because it's simple for them) it's Assad V Al Qaeda is absurd..it's much more than Al Qaeda being in the wings. The regions of the middle east are tribal; they have a structure that goes back millenia. The fact that AQ will exploit the divisions is happenstance, but the problem the West (or more accurately their respective war machines) have, is as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan; and that's the end game. What is the desired final outcome? Kicking the ball down the field as ex UK military commander has said, and letting it bounce about as it wants isn't an option..There has to be a beginning, a middle and an end..with minimal casualties. When that happens, I'll buy a ticket for Flying Pig airways. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2013, 06:00:37 AM »
... on a global scale war and killing of people is a commodity, an industry. .

This says it all. War isn't about honor or protecting innocents or any of the other bullshit excuses offered by the warmongers. It's about rich old men getting richer.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2013, 09:08:13 AM »
While I generally despise the loss of life, how do we have an interest in those people killing each other?
We sell them the technology to do so.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2013, 09:26:53 AM »
The absolute best scenario is one that involves both sides fighting for years to come.

Why?
Quote from: aldousburbank
We sell them the technology to do so.

^^^^^ this +1

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #52 on: August 28, 2013, 10:19:33 AM »
So (ha) we have no interest in direct intervention.  Let the rich old men continue to sell arms to both sides.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #53 on: August 28, 2013, 11:13:34 AM »
So (ha) we have no interest in direct intervention.  Let the rich old men continue to sell arms to both sides.

It was always so. In the UK, Pariament is being recalled tomorrow, and a vote may be taken in the evening by the house to accept and carry forward what Blair; I mean Cameron has explained and proposed. Rumour has it we already have a sub in the Gulf that can launch cruise missiles, it wouldn't surprise me if US and UK special forces have been in Syria for months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23864016

And the view from the 'left'....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

This is more significant than it might appear...

Quote
Among politicians voicing concerns about a possible attack is shadow health minister Diane Abbott, who told the BBC the UK risked being "stampeded into bombing Syria without any thought about the end game".

Amid reports she might be forced to resign from Labour's front bench, if her party supported a motion backing the use of force in Syria she told the BBC: "If the motion is a blank cheque for military action, it would put some of us in a very difficult position."


Conservative MPs will be whipped to support the measure, meaning ministers will be expected to support the government or face having to resign.

Tory MP Sarah Wollaston has suggested this is an "abuse of power" and MPs should be allowed a free vote.

There is unease on Tory backbenches about intervention in the conflict.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #54 on: August 28, 2013, 11:23:05 AM »
1) Arm the fuck out of both sides
2) Shake vigorously
3) Reap profit

How do people live with themselves?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #55 on: August 28, 2013, 11:28:45 AM »
1) Arm the fuck out of both sides
2) Shake vigorously
3) Reap profit

How do people live with themselves?

How? They simply don't have to watch TV or listen to the radio. Out of sight out of mind..

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #56 on: August 28, 2013, 12:20:07 PM »
You said that the USA oil reserves exceed those of the Middle east combined, so why are you right this time? In round figures?

From Government Accounting Office report dated Oct 2010:

       Oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil, half of which may be recoverable, which is about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves



Dumbass

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #57 on: August 28, 2013, 12:52:32 PM »
From Government Accounting Office report dated Oct 2010:

       Oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil, half of which may be recoverable, which is about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves



Dumbass
may ... estimated ...

dumbass? where'd that come from?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #58 on: August 28, 2013, 01:21:11 PM »
From Government Accounting Office report dated Oct 2010:

       Oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil, half of which may be recoverable, which is about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves



Dumbass


And the several links I posted (Including BP) are dated this or last year... Based on....erm, evidence.. not estimated.

(Insert suitable insulting pronoun)

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #59 on: August 28, 2013, 01:34:44 PM »

And the several links I posted (Including BP) are dated this or last year... Based on....erm, evidence.. not estimated.

(Insert suitable insulting pronoun)


Fer cryin' out loud - it's all estimated.  Did you think there was some guy with a flashlight down there measuring it?






Quite right PB...which is why I qualified it...


Sooo, you give us outdated and wrong info to make a point - then when someone points out it's outdated, you suggest you knew it was wrong all along?  Do I have that right?