Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

[vt]

Please vote your views

[unlucky]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I'm the one (so far) who voted yes, in case anyone's wondering. The world can't solve the situation in Syria, but can't ignore it either. As with other intractable conflicts in the past, the correct strategy is containment, i.e. prevent the violence from spreading and escalating to the extent possible. A strike - if sufficiently damaging- will probably be effective in dissuading the Syrian government from using chemical weapons again. That is a worthwhile goal as part of a larger strategy of containment.

[don]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

This is a tough one. Is the Big Plan the best plan? What scenario has the best chance of retaining our privileges here at home? Loss of the Reserve Currency would be painful.

[verdo]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

It's a definite no from me. I mean, ignoring everything else here for a moment: If Kerry's evidence is so darn convincing/concrete, why has NATO literally disintegrated on the issue to the point where the only significant supporters left seem to be France and Turkey? I highly doubt the U.S. and these two countries are the select few that care so deeply about chemical weapons being used. My conclusion here is that most countries haven't seen much convincing evidence yet to support Kerry's claims, and that is enough for me to say no on this for the time being

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/5...autostart=true

Posting this not because I accept it hook line sinker, just because it shows what doesn't show up in your average reports on senate/house hearigss.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Loss of the Reserve Currency would be painful.

You'll get over it.

The other 95.5% of us don't have it, and we seem to survive.

I'll remind you of two quotes I left on The Secret of Oz thread ...

Americans don't really know what it's like to have to buy another currency to buy gold, oil or other such things.

In the end, slowly depreciating the $USD against a #1 currency will be the best option for the USA. A managed reduction in standard of living until equilibrium is restored to an unmanageable debt load.

[ltullos]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I'm unconvinced that the argument to protect Syrian children and populace from chemical weapons is anything but an emotional cover for actions planned long ago. Without the burden of any facts, I suspect the endgame is ensuring the Saudis don't accept Yuan for oil and disrupting Iran supplies to preserve the USD reserve status.

[don]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

You'll get over it.

The other 95.5% of us don't have it, and we seem to survive.

I'll remind you of two quotes I left on The Secret of Oz thread ...

The lesson of the last 20 years is ignore the World's Reserve Currency at your own peril.

Canada may not have it but in your opinion how independent of the US hegemon is the Far North?

Completely . . . not at all . . . a little bit?

[DSpencer]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

This entire situation is so ludicrous that you couldn't make it up if you tried. Let me make sure I have this right:

President Obama, who won the election in part because of his anti-war stance, wants to get involved in another Middle Eastern war.
Secretary Kerry agrees that Syria's President is a horrible monster, despite a seemingly pleasant double date they shared.
We would be fighting on the rebels side which includes Al-Qaeda, the group that launched an attack against the US that Americans vowed to "Never Forget".
The evidence is disputed and international support is lacking with some even claiming the rebels themselves used chemical weapons or will in the future.
Attacking Syria is supposed to make us safer even though at least Iran has vowed to attack us if we attack Syria.
The whole issue is created by some kind of international humanitarian guidelines that decide what ways of killing and maiming other people are acceptable and which aren't.
In the process of enforcing these rules we will undoubtedly kill innocent men, women and children.
And lastly it will cost us a huge amount of money (debt) that we can't afford to pursue this.

It's insane that this is actually being considered. At least in Iraq we were trying to get that OIL!

[bill]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

. At least in Iraq we were trying to get that OIL!

For who?
http://rt.com/business/petrochina-exxon-iraq-oil-290/

8-9-2013China's biggest oil producer PetroChina will be developing Iraq's giant oil field West Qurna with American Exxon Mobil. The deal could make Chinese energy giant the biggest foreign investor in Iraq’s oil industry.
China already dominates the oil fields around southern Iraq, Reuters reports.

PetroChina was the first foreign company to strike an oil deal in Iraq after US-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein. It is now developing Iraq's biggest oilfield Rumaila with BP.

The PetroChina-Exxon agreement could be announced in weeks.

"PetroChina will participate in developing the field," Reuters quotes an industry source.
Earlier this year PetroChina's ex-chairman Jiang Jiemin told Reuters that the Chinese energy major was keen on working with Exxon at West Qurna.

The American company currently holds a 60 percent stake in the $50 billion West Qurna project, pumping out around 480,000 barrels per day.

PetroChina is also in talks with Russian Lukoil to have a share in another development project at the field, West Qurna-2, according to the agency. West Qurna-2 is expected to produce 500,000 bpd in 2014 and needs $30 billion in investments.

What US wants from Syria is secure pipeline easements.
see my post here.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...484#post266484

keep an eye on this location,,
http://www.worldportsource.com/ports...minal_2258.php

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I've found it interesting that the term "weapons of mass destruction" has not been mentioned once by the Obama administration despite the fact that that is the reason given by the Obama administration why the U.S. should engage in a military operation in Syria. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein purportedly possessed were chemical weapons, the exact class of weapons the Obama administration is now using as justification for participation in a(nother) "dumb war" as Obama called the Iraqi war in 2002.

[Adeptus]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

As with other intractable conflicts in the past, the correct strategy is containment, i.e. prevent the violence from spreading and escalating to the extent possible. A strike - if sufficiently damaging- will probably be effective in dissuading the Syrian government from using chemical weapons again. That is a worthwhile goal as part of a larger strategy of containment.

The problems I have with a war are:
a) USA does not have the rest of the world's permission (despite their ability) to be the world's police. They've lost the moral high ground a long time ago.
b) Obama's initial inability to wait for investigation results and just go full throttle into an attack was a very concerning attitude in my eyes.
c) Likewise, the talking heads on TV for over a week saying "Chemical weapons were used in Syria, and so we should attack Assad", but never actually asking WHO actually used the chemical weapons, where they came from etc etc was a huge red flag in my eyes that something was fishy.
d) Russia's report contrasting exactly the supposed evidence that the US has identified Assad is to blame is enough cause for pause. I don't trust either report (btw, where the F is the US' evidence? A report is no more than an opinion without open evidence to inspect) - but would trust a UN inquiry into both.
e) At the end of the day we know this has dick all to do with Chemical weapons that killed a few thousand people, when Assad's military already killed 100,000 by conventional means before that, to say nothing of the millions killed each year in African countries by rogue militaries or dictators where oil and natural gas are either non-existant or not easy to extract any time soon, and which the US has not expressed any interest in bringing democracy or justice to those countries.

In short, I find the vast majority of MSM BS to be insulting to our intelligence, not just for what they say, but mostly for what they are unwilling to ask and delve into.

[lektrode]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I've found it interesting that the term "weapons of mass destruction" has not been mentioned once by the Obama administration despite the fact that that is the reason given by the Obama administration why the U.S. should engage in a military operation in Syria. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein purportedly possessed were chemical weapons, the exact class of weapons the Obama administration is now using as justification for participation in a(nother) "dumb war" as Obama called the Iraqi war in 2002.

+1
and if 2002 was a "dumb war", why isnt this proposal even DUMBER?

furthermore - if there was "no justification" for iraq, why was it somehow 'morally necessary' in bosnia? (never mind libya or liberia)

and further - is the reason why they dont/wont use the term WMD, because in doing so would admit that the iraq action _was_ justifiable and that even further, the mere fact that these chems are now turning up in syria _confirms_ speculation/observations leading up to 2003, that saddam&co moved the stuff north and 'buried it in the sand' somewhere - like maybe syria?

kind of odd how there's been little in the way of 'speculation' - in the chattering class/liberal-dominated media - about where the stuff went (in 2002-03), when the prev admin (clinton&co, the eu/nato, un sec council etc) were apparently convinced that saddam did indeed have this stuff (as evidenced by the fact that he used em, not once, but at least twice) - and now they wont even USE the term WMD?

HILARIOUS - how they they can just ignore all this stuff, while our nobel 'PEACE' prez wants to start yet another war, with NO VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE WHATSOEVER...

and once again - merely another excuse to 'pivot-away' from the "pivot to JOBS" - and has the potential to shovel yet _another_ trillion bernanke bux into the incinerator (to further fatten the coffers of the 'federal' reserve&co) - and FOR WHAT ????

just outrageous, the SILENCE from the media on these issues and we wont even get into kerry's sabre rattling...

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

The lesson of the last 20 years is ignore the World's Reserve Currency at your own peril.

Canada may not have it but in your opinion how independent of the US hegemon is the Far North?

Completely . . . not at all . . . a little bit?

Good question. I can only give my perspective. I think Canada figured out a long time ago, that when you sleep next to the 800-pound gorilla, you can at best, be its peaceful obsequious cousin. No country is an island in the globally-connected modern world.

People tend to forget that Canada and the US have the largest trade relationship in the world. Electricity, oil, nat. gas, manufacturing, etc. the list is massive. Both parties benefit equally, and politically our issues are akin to petty sibling rivalries, even when our governments are on opposite magnetic poles as they are today. Together, in my opinion, we are the only entity that could be essentially 100% independent within our borders.

I don't perilously ignore the $USD or its current status of "best looking horse in the glue factory". I just ensure that when I accumulate enough of it, I quickly exchange it for something of hard productive value. 42 years for the free floating $USD now - that's just over the centre mark on the gauge of average fiat currency life cycle. One would be taking unnecessary risk to store their wealth in any single basket at this stage.

[don]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Good question. I can only give my perspective. I think Canada figured out a long time ago, that when you sleep next to the 800-pound gorilla, you can at best, be its peaceful obsequious cousin. No country is an island in the globally-connected modern world.

People tend to forget that Canada and the US have the largest trade relationship in the world. Electricity, oil, nat. gas, manufacturing, etc. the list is massive. Both parties benefit equally, and politically our issues are akin to petty sibling rivalries, even when our governments are on opposite magnetic poles as they are today. Together, in my opinion, we are the only entity that could be essentially 100% independent within our borders.

I don't perilously ignore the $USD or its current status of "best looking horse in the glue factory". I just ensure that when I accumulate enough of it, I quickly exchange it for something of hard productive value. 42 years for the free floating $USD now - that's just over the centre mark on the gauge of average fiat currency life cycle. One would be taking unnecessary risk to store their wealth in any single basket at this stage.

Well put fiat, the relationship between the macro, country level and the personal, us!