List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

[patches70]

As a utilitarian, I am interested in what the best outcome is and how the US can help it become achieved. I recognize it's a complex question. I do not think that means we should stop trying to find the answer.

You can always send food and medicine to be handed out to whomever needs it. So long as such supplies are freely obtained and not through confiscation. That's actually humanitarian but no matter the outcome of the civil war there will be people who suffer for it.

If you want help determining who you want to suffer, then you merely need pick a side. If you don't want anyone to suffer, then the best you can do is to not contribute to the suffering, like by bombing via cruise missiles or bombers.
Plenty of people have tried to get the two sides to talk but that's not going so well, I guess you could try and get the opposing sides talking.

It's a bad situation, those who wish to leave and escape the violence, should be free to do so. Those who are left then have chosen to fight. So be it, let people live with their decisions.
I don't see how it helps the situation by intervening to make one side suffer more than the other, as that's the plan being put forth by the administration. By Obama's own mouth he's said this is just to punish Assad, not oust him. It's not to end the civil war, thus, all that's being proposed it to kill some people from one side of the conflict. Along with the near certain collateral damage victims who just wanted to stay alive.

It is not the US' job to fix the problems of the world. We'd be better served by not causing so many, like all the problems that are caused by the petrodollar system. Economic freedom is a cause worth striving for that will help far more people in the world.

[rishaed]

As a utilitarian, I am interested in what the best outcome is and how the US can help it become achieved. I recognize it's a complex question. I do not think that means we should stop trying to find the answer.

You can always send food and medicine to be handed out to whomever needs it. So long as such supplies are freely obtained and not through confiscation. That's actually humanitarian but no matter the outcome of the civil war there will be people who suffer for it.

If you want help determining who you want to suffer, then you merely need pick a side. If you don't want anyone to suffer, then the best you can do is to not contribute to the suffering, like by bombing via cruise missiles or bombers.
Plenty of people have tried to get the two sides to talk but that's not going so well, I guess you could try and get the opposing sides talking.

It's a bad situation, those who wish to leave and escape the violence, should be free to do so. Those who are left then have chosen to fight. So be it, let people live with their decisions.
I don't see how it helps the situation by intervening to make one side suffer more than the other, as that's the plan being put forth by the administration. By Obama's own mouth he's said this is just to punish Assad, not oust him. It's not to end the civil war, thus, all that's being proposed it to kill some people from one side of the conflict. Along with the near certain collateral damage victims who just wanted to stay alive.

It is not the US' job to fix the problems of the world. We'd be better served by not causing so many, like all the problems that are caused by the petrodollar system. Economic freedom is a cause worth striving for that will help far more people in the world.

^This. Seriously....Starting fights on 2/3 (more potentially) fronts isn't strategically smart. And hey, I have no desire to mess with another country right now anyways. Considering the mess Iraq has been (Thanks a lot*exit sarcasm), Afghanistan, and everything else, I have absolutely no desire, and despise anyone who would try to bring us into another war. We should stay out, completely. As for economic interests, if the politicians really cared then they would be paying our debts off instead of accruing more of them.

[BigBallinStalin]

The dirty truth is probably that the Syrian people are not embracing the rebels as the west would have everyone believe. If a majority of the Syrian people truly were against Assad, he'd have been long gone. The truth is that the average Syrian citizen is scared to death of what the rebels will bring, at least they know Assad.

Source?

RE: underlined, let's think about it.

Have the Sunnis and Shia groups had problems with each other? (Yes, in Libya, in Iraq, etc.--especially during scenarios of civil disorder, e.g. Libya 2011-, and Iraq 2003-). It's a very old animosity, and I could recommend some books on the history of the Middle East.

Are rebel factions within Syria aligning themselves along this distinction? Yes, some are, but not all. (sources: read what sax and I have posted above for the links. There's also that link to a .pdf in response to JB a page or two ago).

Do some rebel factions seek to impose Islamic law? Yes, read the links and posts previously mentioned.

Also, given the "FSA's" coordination with such groups, then even many elements within the FSA should be considered unreliable and dangerous to innocent Syrians.

Therefore, there is certainly many innocent Syrians who do face some uncertainty, thus fear, about the proclaimed goals of various factions. Now, how many would rather Assad over any group? That's unknown--and unknowable given the difficulty of polling people during a civil war. Obviously, they're evacuation of entire areas says a lot about how much security each political organization (rebels, Assad's) brings. Also, we know that many groups seek to impose something harsher than Assad's government, people usually do not like living in such places relative to living in freer societies, and there is much uncertainty in dealing with rebel factions and their proclaimed goals v. their actual goals, etc.

So, given all this, patches claims make sense. They're too strongly geared toward an absolute answer (3-sentences v. 3 paragraphs), but they're more or less correct. I have my doubts about the 'un-underlined'.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are people who are risking their lives fighting on both sides of the conflict for many varied reasons. But I'm glad to see you have the moral omnipotence to determine who is right and who is wrong, who lives and who dies.

If I knew who was right and who was wrong, I would not be asking for help in determining that.

It all depends on who you ask. Some will say intervene and have valid reasons. Some will say stay out of it, and have valid reasons. Some support Assad, for valid reasons. Some oppose Assad, for valid reasons.

I do not believe that inaction is a valid choice if there is some action we can take to improve the situation. Saying "we should just stay out of it because it's complicated and we might mess things up" is the easy way out and not necessarily the answer that achieves the best outcome. As a utilitarian, I am interested in what the best outcome is and how the US can help it become achieved. I recognize it's a complex question. I do not think that means we should stop trying to find the answer.

There are more options than "we should just stay out of it because it's complicated and we might mess things up" which are not forms of military/non-military intervention.

[Phatscotty]

117. The Tea Party!

[saxitoxin]

I'm sorry you think Meritorious Service Medal honoree Tulsi Gabbard is a ludicrous liar and anti-American. Have you enlisted yet?

I didn't say that. She's probably just misinformed.

I'm sorry you believe the former chair of the Democratic National Convention, Iraq War combat veteran and a member of the House Foreign Affairs committee is a "misinformed woman" but that you are on the pulse of the world, Juan.

Have you enlisted yet? It sounds like they could use someone who has such a pipeline to the facts. (This is the fifth time you haven't answered, by the way.)

[saxitoxin]

BBC Reports on Mass Exodus of Civilians Fleeing for their Lives from the Rebels

A touching story I just heard on BBC World Service when I was in the car about the Jabar family, who have had to flee the rebels and are now living 22 people inside a tiny apartment. The UN Envoy has warned that, with an attack (by Mordor) likely, sectarian violence and massacres by the rebels against minorities will probably increase, especially if the Socialist Ba'ath Party and its secular-brand of government collapses to be replaced by the rebels and their clan-fighting and blood feuds. Here is the online link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23938583

Why do people like Barack McCain want Syrian children to be butchered? Picture taken today from whitehouse.gov of the hydra dual-headed president Barack McCain meeting with its advisors, NSAd Susan Powell and Senate ASChair Lindsay Graham, to plot how the Jabar family will spend their final hours on Earth:

cue Juan_Bottom: "I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS BBC THING - IT SOUNDS LIKE A CONSPIRACY TO EMBARRASS BARACK MCCAIN IN LEAGUE WITH THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION AND NETFLIX."

[saxitoxin]

55% of Syrians Support Bashar - Americans/Europeans Who Back Rebels Tend to be Racists

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... propaganda

IOW, Bashar has higher approval ratings than Obama. So why do some people support the rebels? Racism. They feel - as westerners - they know what's best and those dirty brown Arabs need to let Big Daddy come in and "civilize" them. (Despite the fact the Syrian civilization is one of the most ancient on Earth and the Hawk of Quraish is carved into buildings and bridges that date back to an era when Europeans were still running around in bear skins.) Support for military action is a thinly disguised racism.

Syrian unity - 300,000 Syrians join in singing the national anthem - a collective "NO!" to the rebels who want to drag Syria into the stone age and a "YES!" for a modern society based on secularism and the rule of Reason and enlightenment values.

[Juan_Bottom]

Turkey is the transportation hub for Natural Gas to Europe, not Syria. Iran's Natural Gas will be passing to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey, so they don't even need Syria.

Jesus, your reading comprehension is bad. Sure, Turkey is a transportation hub for energy to Europe, and where does that energy come from?
Russia. Iran. Where is the pipeline that brings the petrodollar energy to Europe? It doesn't exist. It has to pass through Syria.

Without the pipeline through Syria, Europe is hostage to the Russians for any rate hike they want to do at any time for all the oil and natgas imported into Europe.

Ummm.....
NO
That's a bullshit conspiracy theory for dumb people. There is already a Natural Gas pipeline being built between Iran and Europe, and it's going to run through Turkey and not Syria. That makes Turkey the transportation hub. So, you're very wrong. You even quote me naming the gas pipeline, didn't you at least wonder what it was?
Jesus, your ability to research outside of anti-American conspiracy websites is bad.




Do you see how you're not an expert on this subject at all, and how you're just pulling this sh*t out of your ass? How could you miss a trillion dollar Gas pipeline running through no less than 10 different countries on two different continents? Worse even, Russian companies are helping build it. Really, there's no way even a half-assed sleeping researcher could miss this.

Hey! You might just have a point there! After all, the US has been in a period of constant war for how long? Let's start another! And what was it you said just a there on this very post?

If you think that sitting off of the shoreline at a great distance and lobbing missiles at a country smaller than Nebraska is a war, then you're probably going to be disappointed by this one. Syria's oppressive government has something like $4 billion dollars left in it's cash reserves after all this fighting, while the United States probably spends that much on the White House's Christmas decorations. If Assad wants to add that $150 billion dollars in personal wealth that he stole from Syria to that pile, then he can probably hold out another year, but he will die. Whats best for everyone, EVERYONE, would be if Assad steps down peacefully and seeks asylum in China or Russia. If he's such a great hero, why doesn't he do that?
Well, he's probably afraid to live in a country where he will be oppressed the way he oppresses his own people.

Furthermore, you're not understanding the problem that you're claiming exists. It wasn't simply war that meant the end of Britain's status as the printer of the world's reserve currency. It took something like a full decade of America having the world's largest economy before the US dollar overtook England's spot. You cannot just lose a single big war or something; you also have to be on the decline and someone has to have a bigger and healthier economy than you do. For a long time... With Greece or Rome, the wars that ended their reigns just came at the very end of their respective periods of decline.

And do you know why something like 80% of all transactions are done in US dollars? Because nations need to acquire US dollars to purchase oil from OPEC, something any oil importing country has to do.

80% of all transactions are not for Oil, so that cannot be why.
All commodities are traded in US dollars, not just oil. OPEC are not the one's keeping the US dollar afloat, the whole world is. Some countrys have Iron, or Gold, and they sell that for US dollars too. It's not like one day someone discovered oil and was like "OMG, we need a global currency to be able to purchase this one special item!" Global currencies have been in existence since the time of the first nations. The Greeks, the English, the Americans.... the biggest power's currency is always the reserve currency, because that's the best system to use.
If the US was going to lose this status, it would have lost it during the recession when it's value fell by over 20%. But even with that drop in value, our money still stabilized the planet.

If we don't need the petrodollar, JB, then you should be the first in line to stand up and say that any nation in the world should be able to purchase oil from OPEC using whatever currency that OPEC members wish to accept. True economic freedom.
But what would happen to the value of the dollar in that scenario? You would quickly see all those transactions done in dollars, done using other currencies and there would be no reason at all for any nation to have to acquire reserves of US paper.
Do you even understand what that would do to the US?

They can I guess, but that system doesn't work, so OPEC wants US dollars for their oil. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads screaming "take the money!". Historically speaking, systems where two nations try to negotiate an exchange rate among themselves for their two currencys do not work. When two nations use a third, worldwide currency for trade, it guarantees that they are both getting a fair exchange rate from the other nation. It's kinda like having a neutral third party involved in negotiating prices.
Look, this is the Scenario:

Germany would like to buy a quart of Oil. Germany says that a quart of Oil valued at 5 Saudi Riyals is worth 1 German Mark. Germany offers them 1 Mark.
Saudi Arabia would like to sell Germany a Quart of oil, but they say that 1 Saudi Riyal is worth 10 Marks. They ask for 50 Marks.

The entire planet says that a quart of Oil is worth $6 (US), so they exchange their money for US dollars and everything works out.
You can see how this could be an even greater problem when a nation's currency and economy are unstable. In the '90s in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, their biggest bill was $1,000. Inflation got so bad that their biggest bill was marked 100,000,000. You can't sell your commodities to a country like that for their own currency. You need a stable, liquid, global currency to do this. And inflation hits everyone... a permanent reserve currency helps alleviate the problem.

But that is only half of why we have a global reserve currency. The other half is that having a permanent, stable reserve currency means that any country can purchase reserve currency for themselves, and eliminate any financial risks of having to constantly exchange their currency for the current reserve currency. And some of these nations even us US greenbacks to provide stability for their own banknotes. That's how trustworthy our dollar remains, even after a global recession that saw it's value drop by 20%. Syria cannot take that away from us.
The US has been chosen as the printer of the world's reserve currency because of the stability and liquidity of our money.

You see, you're talking down on me but I understand this a lot better than you do, I even explain it better than you do, and that's simply because you get your education from conspiratorial and anti-American websites. If you'd just knock that sh*t off you'd be a force on the fora. You're obviously willing to make giant fact-filled posts, you just need to research your facts first.

[patches70]

Jesus, you are a lost cause. Please, point out where on that pipeline where Saudi Arabia or Qatar tie into it?

Ummm.....
NO
That's a bullshit conspiracy theory for dumb people. There is already a Natural Gas pipeline being built between Iran and Europe, and it's going to run through Turkey and not Syria. That makes Turkey the transportation hub. So, you're very wrong. You even quote me naming the gas pipeline, didn't you at least wonder what it was?
Jesus, your ability to research outside of anti-American conspiracy websites is bad.

Russia supplies Europe with oil and natgas. Iran supplies India and China for the most part. Sanctions prohibit Iran from selling to much of Europe. As you can see that pipeline makes it nice and easy for Russia to supply Europe and at any time Russia can raise the price or even cut off the supply and Europe has no easy alternative.
The point of the third phase of the Syrian pipeline is to connect OPEC petrodollar using nations to Europe. The third phase of which has not been completed nor will be completed until Assad is ousted and someone who is more US friendly is installed into power.

You haven't understood what I said, and I give up trying to explain it to you.

Do you see how you're not an expert on this subject at all, and how you're just pulling this sh*t out of your ass? How could you miss a trillion dollar Gas pipeline running through no less than 10 different countries on two different continents? Worse even, Russian companies are helping build it. Really, there's no way even a half-assed sleeping researcher could miss this.

I didn't miss it, just point out where that line meets Saudi Arabia. Hey! It doesn't! But it does meet Iran, which is willing to trade oil for something other than the petrodollar, which is why the US has such a hard on to nail Iran.

If you think that sitting off of the shoreline at a great distance and lobbing missiles at a country smaller than Nebraska is a war, then you're probably going to be disappointed by this one.

So lobbing missiles into another country isn't an act of war? Really?

Syria's oppressive government has something like $4 billion dollars left in it's cash reserves after all this fighting, while the United States probably spends that much on the White House's Christmas decorations.

Good to see the US putting it's money to wise use....

Furthermore, you're not understanding the problem that you're claiming exists. It wasn't simply war that meant the end of Britain's status as the printer of the world's reserve currency. It took something like a full decade of America having the world's largest economy before the US dollar overtook England's spot. You cannot just lose a single big war or something; you also have to be on the decline and someone has to have a bigger and healthier economy than you do. For a long time... With Greece or Rome, the wars that ended their reigns just came at the very end of their respective periods of decline.

Yeah, the US hasn't been in decline, the economy is rosy as a peach and no other nations are approaching the US' economic power.....

80% of all transactions are not for Oil, so that cannot be why.
All commodities are traded in US dollars, not just oil. OPEC are not the one's keeping the US dollar afloat, the whole world is. Some countrys have Iron, or Gold, and they sell that for US dollars too.

Yes, that's one of the greatest things about having the reserve currency, one of those perks. We get to take possession of actual tangible goods that have real value and in return we give out pieces of paper or digital keystrokes that we created out of thin air. It's a hell of a deal!

If the US was going to lose this status, it would have lost it during the recession when it's value fell by over 20%. But even with that drop in value, our money still stabilized the planet.

The US dollar has lost some 90%+ of it's value since 1913.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5398,d.cWc


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5398,d.cWc

And this is the decline in the value of a dollar just since 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window-



The only reason that the world hasn't dumped the dollar is because of the petrodollar.

Germany would like to buy a quart of Oil. Germany says that a quart of Oil valued at 5 Saudi Riyals is worth 1 German Mark. Germany offers them 1 Mark.
Saudi Arabia would like to sell Germany a Quart of oil, but they say that 1 Saudi Riyal is worth 10 Marks. They ask for 50 Marks.

It doesn't work that way, JB. The value of the Saudi oil isn't valued in riyals, it's valued in dollars. If Germany wants to buy oil from Saudi Arabia then Germany has to get hold of US dollars. To do this, Germany either manufactures some machinery or service and sells it to the US (or someone else who sold something to the US and has dollars from that transaction), purchase US debt to acquire US paper, and then purchase the oil using dollars thus acquired. Now Germany has dollars to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia.
If Germany asked Saudi Arabia to accept German marks (or euros today), Saudi Arabia (or any OPEC member besides those in the dollar exclusion zone) would tell them, "Sorry, but you have to pay in US dollars".

Now can you see why commodities are purchased in US dollars?

The entire planet says that a quart of Oil is worth $6 (US), so they exchange their money for US dollars and everything works out.

No, the dollars someone would need have to be gotten either through trading something of actual worth to the US or to someone who has traded something else of worth to the US. Why? Because of this reason right here-

You can see how this could be an even greater problem when a nation's currency and economy are unstable. In the '90s in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, their biggest bill was $1,000. Inflation got so bad that their biggest bill was marked 100,000,000. You can't sell your commodities to a country like that for their own currency.

What you are describing are currency swaps, and they aren't used to obtain dollars to purchase oil. If you'd like I can explain how currency swaps actually work and what their purpose is for. The only ways to get dollars to purchase oil from OPEC is to sell tangible products to the US (or someone else who did for dollars) or purchase US debt (or purchase US debt from someone else who did).

The other half is that having a permanent, stable reserve currency

There is no such thing that exists today. Fiat currencies are unstable and never permanent. Our current system of currency in the US has only been in existence since 1971. As far as fiat currencies go the US dollar is quite old now.

eliminate any financial risks

Really? Please, how does one "eliminate risks"? There are always risks, you don't eliminate risks, you minimize them.

And some of these nations even us US greenbacks to provide stability for their own banknotes.

There are no such thing as greenbacks anymore, that was the system that was in place before 1971. The last greenback was finally taken out of circulation in the 1990's. Greenbacks are a debt free currency, today we have Federal Reserve Notes. The two are not the same.

That's how trustworthy our dollar remains, even after a global recession that saw it's value drop by 20%.

Because at the moment there are no real alternatives. At the moment.

Syria cannot take that away from us.

This is true, but the Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone is another matter all together.

The US has been chosen as the printer of the world's reserve currency because of the stability and liquidity of our money.

The dollar is the reserve currency because of the petrodollar and our military.

You're obviously willing to make giant fact-filled posts, you just need to research your facts first.

Tell what is wrong,
-In 1971 Nixon closed the gold window- Absolute fact.
-Shortly after OPEC and the US made an agreement that created the system of the petrodollar- Absolute fact.
-The petrodollar is now what gives the dollar it's value, when pre 1971 what gave the dollar value was that US dollars could be redeemed for physical gold from the US treasury (known as Bretton Woods)- Absolute fact.
-The US will go to great lengths to protect it's monopoly on the reserve currency- Absolute fact.
-Fiat currencies are unstable and eventually have to be replaced- Absolute fact.
-The US' monopoly on the reserve currency is what gives the US it's advantage in all things economic- Absolute fact.
-The Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone was started by China and it's members so far include Russia, Iran, Australia, Japan, Brazil, India and others- Absolute fact.

These are not conspiracy theories, they are historical facts. And please, JB, at least look up how the petrodollar works here-
http://www.primevalues.org/market-watch ... dollar.htm
and if you have questions I will answer them for you or point you in the direction to find the answer yourself. When you understand the petrodollar then you understand what gives the US such an advantage over the world. And if you understand the petrodollar and how it works, and see the developments of late (such as the bilateral agreements of a growing number of nations to circumvent the US dollar in commodity trading) then you'll understand that the US is in a real bind and that the days of the petrodollar are coming to an end. When that day comes, so does the end come for the US dollar status as the reserve currency of the world.
The petrodollar is the only reason that the US can run such debts, spend such money and have such a high standard of living as compared to the rest of the world. Protecting that status is the reason why we have such a strong military and why we spend so much on defense. It is also the underlying cause of why we intervene in certain countries while ignoring other countries that have similar problems, such as governments killing their own people and/or in the midst of civil war.

Why is it that we intervene in some nations affairs while in other nations just as evil stuff is going on but we do nothing more than pay lip service and not actually intervene?
Because those countries we intervene in are a threat to the petrodollar in some way, shape or form while those that we do not intervene offer no threat to the petrodollar. Thus is why it appears so much hypocrisy in US foreign affairs. It's no hypocrisy at all, it's calculated measures meant to protect a vital element in the US' economic well being and hegemony. Humanitarian is just window dressing.

There is a better way, but again, that is not for this thread. You can keep deluding yourself that we are intervening in Syria because we feel so badly for the Syrian people that our conscience dictates we must act. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are intervening because we are protecting our hold on the economic future of our nation and the world.

There are pros and cons to the petrodollar, most of the pros benefit the US, most of the cons harm the rest of the world. And everyday more and more people are waking up to this fact. There is no stopping this ride now, the cat is out of the bag because there are people educating others about all this and others are listening more and more. Just because you refuse to listen won't stop the cascade.
Just like there is ultimately no way to save the petrodollar.

What has yet to be determine is how violent that end is going to be. If you keep thinking the way you are thinking, then the end will be quite violent indeed.

[Qwert]

change in Wikipedia,, far before army number between Syrian Regular Troops and Rebels was quite close (100000)
Now Syrian Regular Troops grow to 178000, and Rebel Troops drop between 50000-80000. Maybe this its another reason why US want to react, because its look that Rebels losing war.

[saxitoxin]

There is already a Natural Gas pipeline being built between Iran and Europe, and it's going to run through Turkey and not Syria. That makes Turkey the transportation hub. So, you're very wrong. You even quote me naming the gas pipeline, didn't you at least wonder what it was?

LOL - so you've never heard of Qatar, the country patches was talking about, either? Each of your posts gets richer and richer! You are playing the role of the Chickenhawk to the 10s.

cue Juan_Bottom: "HELLA NO I'VE NEVER HEARD OF QATAR!"

[saxitoxin]

More of America's intellectual elite denounce Anti-Syria War Promoted by Chickenhawks and Dropouts

One of America's most popular, young, attractive, up-and-coming academics, Dr. Charli Carpenter, professor of international relations at UMass, author of three books on military protection missions, and contributor to the academic blog Duck of Minerva, in response to the shrieks and screeds of the pro-war crowd, calmly and cogently opines at Foreign Policy ...

DON'T CALL THIS A HUMANITARIAN MISSION

A recent study has found that intervening on behalf of rebels increases the number of civilians who are killed. While international relations professor Jon Western of Mount Holyoke College rightly points out that it depends on the type of intervention, successful missions have typically included robust mandates, ambitious goals, a willingness to stay the course, and significant resources from the international community subsequent to the invasion. Many involved regime change. In other words, the kind of intervention most likely to actually protect civilians is the polar opposite of the one now being proposed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... redirect=0

cue Juan_Bottom: "I've never heard of UMass, Foreign Policy or Duck of Minerva! If it's not CNN I don't wanna hear it! Everyone else is organizing a conspiracy against Obama! Charli Carpenter, like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, is just another misinformed woman! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN!"

[saxitoxin]

Corporate Media Pounding War Drums of "Pro-America" - Chickenhawks Respond

LOL - so now CNN is bouncing between pounding the drums of war and "documentaries" on the (wait for it) ... AMERICAN FLAG!



Could it be any more transparent? And yet the Chickenhawks gobble this shit up ... (I looked it up and "THE FLAG" is an "Ancient Aliens" style "documentary" that uses spooky music and lingering questions to assign a supernatural quality to a flag found in the rubble of the WTC on 9/11. This is even more sickening than when MSNBC fired Phil Donohue in 2003 for questioning the Iraq War.) Chickenhawks love these kind of anti-intellectual and irrational appeals to emotion; that's why their favorite denunciation of their opponents is "Anti-American!"

[Frigidus]

That damn liberal media and its hippy dippy flag waving and war mongering.

[saxitoxin]

Request - if you're posting in this thread and are one of the few Juan_Bottom hasn't denounced as "Anti-American" and/or "Unpatriotic" yet, please raise your hand so he can make sure he gets around to everyone. Thank you.

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul's popularity grows daily

[EBConquer]

Great thread here guys. I've very much been enjoying the read over the past few days, very insightful.

[saxitoxin]

McCain Naps, Plays Poker as Senate Debates How Many Syrians Should Die

Obama's key Senate ally and chief cheerleader on the War Against Syria, who has been nearly attached to his hip for two weeks, was caught by a well-placed photographer from the [JB]Anti-American newspaper no one has ever heard of[/JB] The Washington Post playing video poker during congressional hearings on whether the United States should bomb the Syrian people into the stone age. The U.S. Congress will rubber-stamp Barack McCain's War against Syria in 6 days -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... b0d9d4fe0a

[Juan_Bottom]

Russia supplies Europe with oil and natgas. Iran supplies India and China for the most part. Sanctions prohibit Iran from selling to much of Europe. As you can see that pipeline makes it nice and easy for Russia to supply Europe and at any time Russia can raise the price or even cut off the supply and Europe has no easy alternative.
The point of the third phase of the Syrian pipeline is to connect OPEC petrodollar using nations to Europe. The third phase of which has not been completed nor will be completed until Assad is ousted and someone who is more US friendly is installed into power.

You haven't understood what I said, and I give up trying to explain it to you.

That pipeline is not going to Russia.
It is going to Azerbaijan and Iran.
It may connect to Iraq and Qatar.

I do not know of any permanent Natural Gas sanctions on Iran by the EU. The EU did put a hella lotta sanctions on Iran around two years ago, in 2011 or 2012, but those were to end Iran's nuclear program, which they did. So whether those sanctions expired or will be removed I don't know, and I'm not gonna worry about it. The pipeline is going to Iran and that's all there is to it.

Also, there's a flaw in your hypothesis here; Iran accepted payments in Euros probably just until the EU imposed those sanctions. Iran hasn't accept US dollars in a long time. And Azerbaijan and Georgia would probably accept Euros as well, and ignore it's short-term instability.
So then if the US is so preoccupied with some kind of global conspiracy to maintain the world reserve currency, why aren't they bombing Europe, and why is Europe trying to work with them in Syria?

If sanctions block Iran's energy to Europe, how come you said that they supply Europe with energy?

Jesus, your reading comprehension is bad. Sure, Turkey is a transportation hub for energy to Europe, and where does that energy come from?
Russia. Iran. Where is the pipeline that brings the petrodollar energy to Europe? It doesn't exist. It has to pass through Syria.

Without the pipeline through Syria, Europe is hostage to the Russians for any rate hike they want to do at any time for all the oil and natgas imported into Europe.

Yeah, the US hasn't been in decline, the economy is rosy as a peach and no other nations are approaching the US' economic power.....

Yeah? like who?
I don't think you respect just how big our economy actually is or how influential we really are. We could probably lose over half of our investments in one year and still keep the #1 spot. Our GDP is double that of China, the one everyone is afraid of.
Britain had to fight two world wars (for a total of 10 years), and a crapload of proxy wars, and it still took another decade before the US greenback actually overtook the Pound as the world's reserve currency.
I mean-ah Europeans were still trading roman coins in the Dark Ages. You can't just have a short recession and suddenly everyone hates you and dumps your dollars. You have to respect historical precedent here.

If the US was going to lose this status, it would have lost it during the recession when it's value fell by over 20%. But even with that drop in value, our money still stabilized the planet.

The US dollar has lost some 90%+ of it's value since 1913.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5398,d.cWc


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5398,d.cWc

And this is the decline in the value of a dollar just since 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window-



The only reason that the world hasn't dumped the dollar is because of the petrodollar.

Declining purchasing power seems pretty irrelevant. Our dollar actually lost over 20% of it's value during the recession, but it doesn't look like anyone cared to dump stock in it.
When Nixon ended the gold standard it was because the gold tie was over-valuing our money. This made it difficult to pay off our debts after the greenback became the world's reserve currency after WWII. I remember that from high school. Therefore, the value of our money was supposed to see a sharp drop, and a continuously steady drop over time. Our country wasn't the only one to experience this drop either.
Attaching gold to your bills also seems irrelevant; What countries today rely on a gold standard?

What gold-bearing country is going to take over the world reserve currency spot?

Now again, my best education is in history, and historically speaking, when the value of a nation's currency falls, the people and bankers turn to gold to protect their investments, yes. I would bet my dollars that the drop in value of the greenback by 20% during the recession is exactly the reason why the price of gold skyrocketed; People were buying gold with their dollars to protect their finances. HOWEVER, the world did not dump their greenbacks. They only used gold to diversify their holdings; and the triumph of the greenback was shown when a massive pumping of our American dollars into our American economy stabilized the world's economy. And now the value of gold is on the decline while the value of the dollar is on the rise.

It doesn't work that way, JB. The value of the Saudi oil isn't valued in riyals, it's valued in dollars.

That was the point: it has never ever worked out that way. Since the time of ancient Greece, there has always been a reserve currency accepted anywhere, and today it's American cash.

What you are describing are currency swaps, and they aren't used to obtain dollars to purchase oil.

I'm not teaching you about currency swaps. I'm explaining why they don't work for commodities. I don't think there's been a country who accepted just anyone's currency that wasn't actually minted in gold.

The petrodollar is the only reason that the US can run such debts, spend such money and have such a high standard of living as compared to the rest of the world. Protecting that status is the reason why we have such a strong military and why we spend so much on defense. It is also the underlying cause of why we intervene in certain countries while ignoring other countries that have similar problems, such as governments killing their own people and/or in the midst of civil war.

Why is it that we intervene in some nations affairs while in other nations just as evil stuff is going on but we do nothing more than pay lip service and not actually intervene?
Because those countries we intervene in are a threat to the petrodollar in some way, shape or form while those that we do not intervene offer no threat to the petrodollar. Thus is why it appears so much hypocrisy in US foreign affairs. It's no hypocrisy at all, it's calculated measures meant to protect a vital element in the US' economic well being and hegemony. Humanitarian is just window dressing.

That's just paranoia.
Policy is set by the president, and Oil was Bush II's concern, and not Obama's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... operations
Since 1946 we've been involved in almost 100 different military actions. Guess how many of them we started?

We have actually sent troops to war-torn regions for strict humanitarian reasons within living memory. Bosnia has been repeatedly mentioned here, but what about Somalia? President Clinton is credited a dozen times there for helping evacuate foriegn civilians out of dangerous places.

There is a better way, but again, that is not for this thread. You can keep deluding yourself that we are intervening in Syria because we feel so badly for the Syrian people that our conscience dictates we must act. That couldn't be further from the truth. We are intervening because we are protecting our hold on the economic future of our nation and the world.

I didn't say that. The truth is that it will be an easy win for us. We fire off a few missiles and the New Syrian government will become our best friends for it, and we get credit for making another democracy. Syria's infrastructure and finances are depleted by war, so they spend the money that they'll make by selling their resources on the cheap. They'll spend it on American products to rebuild. Plus, Syria is surrounded by America's friends, so we will help stabilize the borders of our allied country's. And that's good for international diplomacy, just like returning to the Philippines was. But all in all, the Humanitarian reason is splenda on it.

There are pros and cons to the petrodollar, most of the pros benefit the US, most of the cons harm the rest of the world. And everyday more and more people are waking up to this fact. There is no stopping this ride now, the cat is out of the bag because there are people educating others about all this and others are listening more and more. Just because you refuse to listen won't stop the cascade.
Just like there is ultimately no way to save the petrodollar.

What has yet to be determine is how violent that end is going to be. If you keep thinking the way you are thinking, then the end will be quite violent indeed.

Have you been on that show "Doomsday Preppers? Cuz this sounds like a monologue from doomsday preppers.

And how come "the rest of the world" and it's global banking institutions are so slow to figure out what you did? Should I be storing canned food and garden seeds?

[DoomYoshi]

Since I'm in the theme of posting Merle Haggard, here's one for you "anti-Syrians".



For you to convince me that there is some reason NOT to bomb Syria, you would have to show me that there is some ethical basis behind Nationalism. As far as I'm concerned, nation states don't have a right to self-govern. Nationalism is the bastard child of racism and imperialism, so you can't in one post say that racism is bad, in another that American oil imperialism is bad and then in another say that Syrian people have the right to be ruled by whoever they want. These are self-defeating arguments.

[Frigidus]

For you to convince me that there is some reason NOT to bomb Syria, you would have to show me that there is some ethical basis behind Nationalism. As far as I'm concerned, nation states don't have a right to self-govern. Nationalism is the bastard child of racism and imperialism, so you can't in one post say that racism is bad, in another that American oil imperialism is bad and then in another say that Syrian people have the right to be ruled by whoever they want. These are self-defeating arguments.

OK, I'm lost here. Help me follow your train of thought:

1. Nationalism is an extension of racism and imperialism

2. Group X dislikes racism and imperialism

3. Group X feels that Syria should be able to choose their rulers

4. Therefore Group X are hypocrites


The problem here is that I'm not seeing how the third point puts Group X in favor of nationalism. Are you saying that just by existing as a nationstate Syria is an embodiment of racism and imperialism and we should be opposed to them? I also fail to see how we should go from point 4 to bombing Syria.

[saxitoxin]

THIS IS WHAT EVIL LOOKS LIKES

John Kerry, looking like Satan himself, cackles with joy as brave peace demonstrators from ANSWER and Code Pink assemble behind him, holding up blood-painted hands in protest at his plan to begin killing Syrians on a Roulette-of-Death with random bombings and Tomahawk missile strikes ...



Plans passes Senate Foreign Relations Committee 10-7-1 - moves to House Foreign Affairs Committee next ...

Voted to Kill Syrians

Sen. Menendez of New Jersey (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: NOR-PAC (Israeli Political Action Committee)

Sen. Boxer of California (Democrat) - voted by mail, had a pot-luck to attend

Top Campaign Donor: Emily's List

Sen. Cardin of Maryland (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: Exelon Corporation (power & energy conglomerate)

Sen. Shaheen of New Hampshire (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: Emily's List

Sen. Coons of Delaware (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: Young, Connaway, Starrgate & Taylor (law firm for Jewish National Fund - the group financing Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine)

Sen. Durbin of Illinois (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: McAndrews & Forbes Corporation (manufacturer of the HUMVEE)

Sen. Kaine of Virginia (Democrat)

Top Campaign Donor: JStreetPAC (Israeli Political Action Committee)

Sen. Corker of Tennessee (Republican)

Top Campaign Donor: Welsh & Carson (holding entity for 30 companies in defense, security and telecom sectors)

Sen. Flake of Arizona (Republican)

Top Campaign Donor: Club for Growth

Sen. McCain of Arizona (Republican)

Top Campaign Donor: Pinnacle West (power & energy conglomerate)

all senators voting "Yes" - except McCain - are Chickenhawks
top donors from opensecrets.org

Voted for Peace

Sen. Udall of New Mexico (Democrat)
Sen. Markey of Massachusetts (Democrat)
Sen. Murphy of Connecticut (Democrat)
Sen. Dr. Barrasso of Wyoming (Republican)
Sen. Dr. Paul of Kentucky (Republican)
Sen. Risch of Idaho (Republican)
Sen. Rubio of Florida (Republican)
Sen. Johnson of South Dakota (Republican)

IN OTHER WORDS - without the three Senators Israel owns, the vote would have flopped 7-10-1, instead of passing 10-7-1.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do the peace-voters have within their top 5 donators any groups from the war/energy industry or the Israel lobby? If so, then how do you explain their vote against the presumed desires of their donators?

ANd if that's the case, then do the top campaign donors from the chickenhawks really matter as much as you suggest?

[saxitoxin]

Do the peace-voters have within their top 5 donators any groups from the war/energy industry or the Israel lobby?

That's too much to ask to go through each one of these so I did a random sample ...

SENATOR MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. League of Conservation Voters
2. Mintz Levin (environmental law firm in Boston)
3. DISH Network
4. Berkshire Corporation (Mass. manufacturer of convoy belts for factories)
5. Bain Capital

SENATOR BARRASSO OF WYOMING
1. Richie's Pharmacy (mail order pharmacy)
2. Apollo Global (holding firm for Norwegian Cruise Lines, Carl's Jr. and the Elvis Presley song catalog)
3. Berkshire Hathaway
4. Alpha Natural Resources (coal miner)
5. Blue Cross / Blue Shield

SENATOR RISCH OF IDAHO
1. Murray Energy (coal miner)
2. Common Values
3. Melaleuca (organic / green products company)
4. Travelers Insurance
5. Idaho Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association (appears to be a gas station trade group)