Author Topic: Syria: The Next Stop?  (Read 21478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #60 on: August 28, 2013, 01:59:34 PM »

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

I'm no expert, but I suspect such as BP have geologists who drop test wells to find and survey fields... Consequently, they have pretty good current figures. Note, current.

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Sooo, you give us outdated and wrong info to make a point - then when someone points out it's outdated, you suggest you knew it was wrong all along?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

Which is why I followed it up with other links... which are more recent..and based on known fields. None suggest the USA has more known oil reserves than the Middle East, which was the original claim.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2013, 11:24:52 PM »
Will Syria be the next stop on the USA's eternal war world tour?

Probably, I mean Obama has already carried on Bush's "War on Terror" and if anything has escalated it.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2013, 12:29:51 AM »
Probably, I mean Obama has already carried on Bush's "War on Terror" and if anything has escalated it.

He escalated it. It often seemed more like a war on freedom than a war on terror.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #63 on: August 29, 2013, 12:35:47 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.

You and I are in the 91%, but our opinions don't count in the grand scheme of things. It could be that the planned military action is meant as a message to Iran, which is the main target for regime change. It's not been adequately confirmed that Assad is responsible for the attack, but that likely doesn't matter to some people. They'll find any reason to fulfill their original plans.


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #64 on: August 29, 2013, 12:45:25 AM »
While I generally despise the loss of life, how do we have an interest in those people killing each other?

The first explanation by the authorities is that it's a humanitarian crisis and a war crime. This side claims that other forces will feel like they can use such weapons if we don't nip it in the bud now. There's also the fear that non-state groups will obtain these weapons. Personally, I think that they were looking for any reason to attack Assad because of his ties to Iran.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #65 on: August 29, 2013, 12:50:25 AM »
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

For the record, I never said that. Al Qaeda factions are a part of the rebel forces, as well as other hostile groups. That, alone, should give our leaders pause before they decide to support one side or the other. In fact, portions of the rebel forces are more likely to attack us than Assad is.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #66 on: August 29, 2013, 01:43:42 AM »
For the record, I never said that. Al Qaeda factions are a part of the rebel forces, as well as other hostile groups. That, alone, should give our leaders pause before they decide to support one side or the other. In fact, portions of the rebel forces are more likely to attack us than Assad is.

I didn't say you did Nucky; it isn't what I implied. I agree how with the rest of your assessment. I know one thing, the innocents will suffer.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #67 on: August 29, 2013, 01:52:39 AM »
I didn't say you did Nucky; it isn't what I implied. I agree how with the rest of your assessment. I know one thing, the innocents will suffer.

 :D That's what I thought. After PB scolded me after he misunderstood me, I just wanted to be sure (just kidding, PB).

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #68 on: August 29, 2013, 03:59:15 AM »
Interesting developments in parliament overnight. MP's have been recalled and today they'll be a debate. The original widely trailed proposal was to have a vote on whether the UK should engage in military action. It seems it's now been modified to take into account the wishes of the UN; whereupon it will then be put to the house on voting (If the UN decides on a military action) if the UK should participate. It isn't as cut and dried as some may think. Memories linger over the debacle with Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the same MP's voted for that then, and had the luxury of repenting ever since. It isn't down party lines either, and there are noises for and against from all sides. As one long serving MP asked this morning, if they do decide to strike, exactly what is/are the target(s)? No-one has actually said.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2013, 05:04:46 AM »
Leader of the opposition has said that he won't support direct military intervention, and he won't whip his party to either. He's insisting that no action can be taken until the UN inspectors have finished their work; and even then, it's not a done deal by any means. What it means is that although in principle the PM can use executive powers to implement military action; he'd be on his own if the house didn't support him. Politically, it would be ruinous. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #70 on: August 29, 2013, 05:27:36 AM »
That's better than here where the cowards in Congress are running for political cover.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #71 on: August 29, 2013, 05:39:50 AM »
That's better than here where the cowards in Congress are running for political cover.

It's not going to be over til the woman of larger proportions sings...

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

This is quite a good summary...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23879744


John Simpsons view (He's pretty sound and well versed)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23866915

And Jeremy Bowen (peerless Mid east embedded journo)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23872603

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #72 on: August 29, 2013, 09:07:38 AM »
Reaction in Europe since the announcement of CW use in Syria. There's argument over who wrote this and when (John Cleese? John Humberton? 2007?) and though the stereotypes, while once accurate, are now dated, I think it's still funny and we could use a laugh  :P

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #73 on: August 29, 2013, 09:47:34 AM »


Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #75 on: August 29, 2013, 12:17:08 PM »
From the school of "don't prevaricate, say what you really mean"   :o   For the record, Labour likes to pitch itself left of the centre ground (But the parties are much of a muchness) but their leader's actions will apparently take him out of favour with the Democrats in the US...oh and the French!


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/29/miliband-labour_n_3834361.html?utm_hp_ref=syria-conflict

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #76 on: August 29, 2013, 04:37:55 PM »
The UK parliament has voted AGAINST the principle of military intervention in Syria. The PM has said he will not use Royal prerogative (In other words go against the house) and use it. Well, well, it remains to be seen what happens now. His last statement before adjournment:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron tells MPs: "It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly."


I would imagine he'll be having a lengthy phone call across the pond now...

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #77 on: August 29, 2013, 05:34:40 PM »
The UK parliament has voted AGAINST the principle of military intervention in Syria. The PM has said he will not use Royal prerogative (In other words go against the house) and use it. Well, well, it remains to be seen what happens now. His last statement before adjournment:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron tells MPs: "It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action; I get that, and I will act accordingly."


Hear, hear. What a pleasure it must be to live in a country where the chief executive actually cares what the legislative members (and the people) want and acts accordingly.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #78 on: August 29, 2013, 05:41:58 PM »
A few in Congress want to hold hearing and vote.  I suspect Mr. Obama will ignore them, but we'll see.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #79 on: August 29, 2013, 06:57:45 PM »
Hear, hear. What a pleasure it must be to live in a country where the chief executive actually cares what the legislative members (and the people) want and acts accordingly.


Kind of like the ''good ol' days'' of the G.W. Bush administration.

Sweet nostalgia.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #80 on: August 29, 2013, 06:57:50 PM »
The UK parliament has voted AGAINST the principle of military intervention in Syria...



Good for them.  It must be nice to have serious people n office.

As an aside, this is an insight to how much damage Obama has done to our relationships with our allies.  In the past Britain would typically have gone along with the US on something like this.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #81 on: August 29, 2013, 09:27:20 PM »
i'm dusting off my selective service card and trying to straighten out my spine.  maybe a trip to the desert will finally clear out my sinuses

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #82 on: August 30, 2013, 01:28:53 AM »
That's better than here where the cowards in Congress are running for political cover.

Rand Paul made some great points tonight. Both he and Kucinich said that we should not aid our enemies.

@Basswood: That was a good find, as was the hilarious clip in the "Breaking Bad" thread. Now, my annoying history geek personality must come forth. If it wasn't for France, we might be singing "God Save The Queen" instead of "America" ("My Country Tis Of Thee"). They're the same tunes with different words. My grandpa was in England right after World War II. The Americans and the British got into a pub fight over that song's lyrics with the poor band and singer caught in the middle of it. By the way, Davy Crockett was half French.

@Aldous Burbank: Raytheon should stick to batteries. Smedley Butler and Steve have it right. War is a racket (for the most part). There are some just ones. YMMV

@Yorkshire Pud: Congratulations to your representatives! I must admit that your system seems more democratic right now. King Barack I will do as he pleases, our Congress and Constitution notwithstanding.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2013, 02:34:51 AM »
Well, it goes without saying the news is full of it this morning. Taking the broad view of the ones who are familiar with these things it seems as follows:

Cameron initially wasn't going to call any vote for anything, but came under pressure from within is own party (Conservatives) and the opposition (Labour) to do so-the proposal hadn't by this stage been decided. This is when it started to unravel for Cameron.

He had obviously been in close contact with Obama and was keeping an eye on the goings on in the UN. The opposition (to military intervention) from those who had an instinct to these things grew more vocal. The problem was, there was no plan B. There was a vague "something must be done" chorus, which is right and proper, but is mainly humanitarian rather than a military scenario. The problem as anyone with a brain can see, is how one can very rapidly result in the other unless everyone is on board...And although it's unpalatable to some/many, that involves Iran, Russia, and the Arab league. Cameron didn't wait until the UN had established the bad guy before making his noises about military strikes-cart before the horse.

This of course makes him vulnerable, because he's set his stall out and essentially he's planning on doing whatever the Whitehouse proposes; now all here remember ten years ago when Blair lied to the UK people, because he didn't want to let down his fuck buddy Bush. The MP's in todays parliament were amongst those who voted for the strikes on Iraq, but did so based on misinformation presented by Bush and Blair. As Bush stumbled over those immortal words back then "We won't be fooled again".

Cameron agreed to a vote in the house; that there would be a vote to "do something in principle" (?) but if there was any military intervention, there would be a second vote. Labour presented an amendment to the proposal...both were voted don last night in the house. Both were voted against, but the important one was the vote against the principle..Not the actual actions of strikes.

Cameron went wrong because he hadn't thought through (or his advisors) what it was might happen. It's one thing launching strikes on a foreign country, but unless it's backed by UN mandate it's a declaration of war. Even if Assad is a murderous bastard (And he undoubtedly is), simply acting like the world's prefect isn't conducive to long term stability. As Nucky said, some wars are just and although taken with deep reservations, they have overthrown tyrants. But then (WW2), had a very clear bad guy and very clear objectives. This civil war in Syria has neither and all. Plus there will inevitably be the involvement of Iran and by extension, Israel. After that happens; well I think we can all imagine the worst scenario.

How does it make Cameron look? To the rest of the world, possibly weak; especially in the Whitehouse. It may even make his own political position here vulnerable. The irony is, he's been voted down on the wrong proposal that was presented for the wrong reasons. But as his closing statement said; the people have spoken. So in many ways he's been made to do what thee people want.

I don't think anyone with a brain would suggest that the British are cowards; but we do have a sense of not getting involved in things that history has shown we cannot make good. French and the USA politicians may (almost certainly) be furious with the decision, but unfortunately, it's the way it is. Because of what has happened last night, it does now mean that unless there is a proposal to get humanitarian aid in there (with the UN in it's entirety involved) the UK will be on the sidelines watching possibly the USA starting something ALL of us may not live to regret. I seriously think it's that grave a situation, and I hope I'm very wrong. This is not the time for party posturing, this is a time for thinking through the scenario of a third world war.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #84 on: August 30, 2013, 02:52:25 AM »


Good for them.  It must be nice to have serious people n office.

As an aside, this is an insight to how much damage Obama has done to our relationships with our allies.  In the past Britain would typically have gone along with the US on something like this.

On the second point, no; It's the actions ten years ago that has contributed to the response this time. They were lied to and voted on misinformation back then. They haven't voted against Obama (he's actually more popular here than Bush was, but I think cynicism of politicians in general has diluted that), they've voted against getting involved something unwinnable and littered with many deaths.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2013, 03:01:40 AM »
Rand Paul made some great points tonight. Both he and Kucinich said that we should not aid our enemies...



The allies and enemies of the United States are not the same as Obama's political friends and enemies - many are the exact opposite.  Foreign and domestic.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2013, 03:22:24 AM »


The allies and enemies of the United States are not the same as Obama's political friends and enemies - many are the exact opposite.  Foreign and domestic.


It was always thus; Et Tu Brutus?

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #87 on: August 30, 2013, 03:40:19 AM »

It was always thus; Et Tu Brutus?



Orders of magnitude.  I can't imagine any previous President knowingly siding with al-Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood.  Especially when it comes to taking over a US friend like Egypt, or a country with a long difficult to defend border with Israel like Syria does.

The man is a menace like nothing we've had before.

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2013, 03:55:24 AM »
On the second point, no; It's the actions ten years ago that has contributed to the response this time. They were lied to and voted on misinformation back then. They haven't voted against Obama (he's actually more popular here than Bush was, but I think cynicism of politicians in general has diluted that), they've voted against getting involved something unwinnable and littered with many deaths.



Being 'popular' is not the same as decision makers in the government working with a long time ally.

Britain continued to work closely with the Bush administration until the very end of his term.

And misinformation yes, lied to, no.  That's from the Left wing revisionist playbook.    The fact is every major intelligence agency in the world said Iraq had WMDs - the CIA, UK, French, Russian, Israeli, Saudi, all of them.  The House and Senate Intelligence Committee members were shown the intel - Rs and Ds alike - and it was shared with our allies.  And they shared whatever they had. 

We know he had poison gas (a WMD), because he used it on the Kurds.  And on the Iranians before that.  Which is reason enough to attack if I am reading today's headlines correctly.  There were miles of semi trailers on the road from Baghdad to Damascus when war was inevitable but before it started.  Who knows what was in those trucks.  The questions are what happened to the rest to it, and to what extent were the amounts exaggerated.

Maybe it was all a big conspiracy among the various intel agencies, but to say it was just a lie made up by Bush is not true.  No matter how much people hate him and no matter how much they want him to have been worse than Obama. 

Syria: The Next Stop?
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2013, 04:02:47 AM »


Orders of magnitude.  I can't imagine any previous President knowingly siding with al-Qaeda

Short memories; Obamas predecessor did. He employed it's leader! As well as the CIA having shady communications with him, when it was already established the attack on the USS Cole and the embasy in Kenya had been made by AQ. I defend neither, just pointing out the machinations that politicians and their administrations get up to in full view but overlooked. 

 
Quote
and the Moslem Brotherhood.  Especially when it comes to taking over a US friend like Egypt, or a country with a long difficult to defend border with Israel like Syria does.

Egypt last/this year, tomorrow wherever. You're too fixated on Muslims; they're simply the bogeyman of this generation, they'll be another one when we're feeding the worms. Never has a US administration (Or Russian for that matter-post 1990) become involved in a battle that wasn't because of it's own self interest in arms supply and influence. It is always the case irrelevant of the president.
Quote
The man is a menace like nothing we've had before.

That's letting off the hook the ones who went before...