Conquer Club

Reagan's October Surprise was Orwellian.

The heroic endeavours of Jessica Lynch was marketing. It's all just marketing. If they can't sell you from the left, or right then they sell you from the other left.

I don't see how people can think that the terrorists are inherently capable of beheading someone, which I have no doubt they are, but cannot even consider their own leaders are. What is so special about Obama, Bush, Clinton that makes them above the scrutiny of the people they lead?

shickingbrits wrote:Reagan's October Surprise was Orwellian.

The heroic endeavours of Jessica Lynch was marketing. It's all just marketing. If they can't sell you from the left, or right then they sell you from the other left.

I don't see how people can think that the terrorists are inherently capable of beheading someone, which I have no doubt they are, but cannot even consider their own leaders are. What is so special about Obama, Bush, Clinton that makes them above the scrutiny of the people they lead?

Uh, probably since Clinton, if not well before, the sitting President is almost always scrutinized.

Yeah, I've been reading Bush's testimony on 9/11. Illuminating stuff.

I called it back in 2013 - Obama is finally forced to work with our president Bashar to destroy the rebels. It's great he's finally doing this but how many lives has he cost in the last couple years sending rebels guns, and embargoing the Syrian government which was leading this fight against the takfiri?

The Syrian government appeared unruffled by the strikes, probably because it was glad to see military power brought to bear against forces that had recently killed many of its soldiers. After insisting for weeks that any airstrikes on its territory that were not coordinated with government forces would be considered an act of “aggression,” Syrian officials claimed on Tuesday that its ambassador to the United Nations and its foreign minister had been informed of the strikes ahead of time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world ... .html?_r=0

But, whatever, this is a great opportunity for the Syrian Arab Army to stop doing the heavy lifting, fall back, and regroup. With Obama targeting ISIS, the SAA can now focus all its firepower on the so-called "Free Syrian Army" instead of having to split its ammo. Grab your panties and get ready for another 50 years of Bashar, losers!



Today Quneitra, tomorrow Jerusalem!

saxitoxin wrote:I called it back in 2013 - Obama is finally forced to work with our president Bashar to destroy the rebels. It's great he's finally doing this but how many lives has he cost in the last couple years sending rebels guns, and embargoing the Syrian government which was leading this fight against the takfiri?

The Syrian government appeared unruffled by the strikes, probably because it was glad to see military power brought to bear against forces that had recently killed many of its soldiers. After insisting for weeks that any airstrikes on its territory that were not coordinated with government forces would be considered an act of “aggression,” Syrian officials claimed on Tuesday that its ambassador to the United Nations and its foreign minister had been informed of the strikes ahead of time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world ... .html?_r=0

But, whatever, this is a great opportunity for the Syrian Arab Army to stop doing the heavy lifting, fall back, and regroup. With Obama targeting ISIS, the SAA can now focus all its firepower on the so-called "Free Syrian Army" instead of having to split its ammo. Grab your panties and get ready for another 50 years of Bashar, losers!



Today Quneitra, tomorrow Jerusalem!

François tried to buddy up with Barak last year to fight them bad guys but your senators said no. Barak really wanted to go, and since Barak didn't go uncle François couldn t go alone. Now it s Hammer Time!!!

saxitoxin wrote:I called it back in 2013 - Obama is finally forced to work with our president Bashar to destroy the rebels. It's great he's finally doing this but how many lives has he cost in the last couple years sending rebels guns, and embargoing the Syrian government which was leading this fight against the takfiri?

The Syrian government appeared unruffled by the strikes, probably because it was glad to see military power brought to bear against forces that had recently killed many of its soldiers. After insisting for weeks that any airstrikes on its territory that were not coordinated with government forces would be considered an act of “aggression,” Syrian officials claimed on Tuesday that its ambassador to the United Nations and its foreign minister had been informed of the strikes ahead of time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world ... .html?_r=0

But, whatever, this is a great opportunity for the Syrian Arab Army to stop doing the heavy lifting, fall back, and regroup. With Obama targeting ISIS, the SAA can now focus all its firepower on the so-called "Free Syrian Army" instead of having to split its ammo. Grab your panties and get ready for another 50 years of Bashar, losers!



Today Quneitra, tomorrow Jerusalem!

Umm.... Obama is considering bombing Assad forces while he's busy bombing ISIS and whoever in Syria...

Secretary of Defense Hagel says that the "end-game" for Syria is regime change.
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/ ... the-levant

AP OPINION: In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets. However, that option is largely unappealing to the president given that it could open the U.S. to the kind of long-term commitment to Syria's stability that Obama has sought to avoid.

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SAID: White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying, "We're not interested in trying to help the Assad regime." However, he acknowledged that "there are a lot of cross pressures here."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/top-gene ... amic-state
Aug 26th.


Syria threatens retaliation if it's not included enough in the US bombing campaign (as recipients of information, not bombs).
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 47712.html

Obama threatens to wipe out Assad and his forces if Assad actually carries out this threat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world ... .html?_r=1

Meanwhile, the USG is training and arming more rebels who'll use their guns against the Syrian government (and the US eventually or now)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09 ... an-rebels/



So.... none of what you said makes sense, in light of reality.

Nor does it make sense in light of some of Saxi's other posts. Saxi, wtf?

Let's not lose our heads here.



I keep in mind the U.S. has to say certain things in public to keep the Zionists and McCain at bay so I take what is said in that context. The Foreign Ministry has indicated it is content with the U.S. attempting to atone for its great crimes of the last several years, and so I'm also content.

Ministry of Foreign and Expatriates Affairs said “After Syria’s confirmations on many occasions that it is ready to cooperate in combating terrorism in the framework of the full respect of its national sovereignty, and after many countries agreed on the necessity of respecting the UN Charter which affirms respecting the countries’ sovereignty and their territorial integrity, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN was informed on Monday that the US and some of its allies will target the terrorist organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” ISIS” in Syria hours before launching the airstrikes.”

In a press statement on Tuesday, the Ministry added ” Yesterday, Minister of Foreign and Expatriates Affairs Walid al-Moallem received a letter from his American counterpart delivered by the Iraqi Foreign Minister in which he informed him that “The US will target the positions of the ISIS terrorist organization, some of which are in Syria.”

http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=13902

There can be no "regime change" without troops on the ground and the U.S. doesn't have any to send. Despite Hagel's boasting, the U.S. strikes on ISIS in Syria are a great victory for Syria and will guarantee the SAA victory, mark my words. The U.S. knows this but has to plead incompetence; it can't acknowledge the action it's taking today will seal the defeat of the FSA. The U.S. is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Go U.S. Air Force! (Stay away U.S. Army!)

Confrimatory biasing.

Just breaking!!!!

The United States informed Iran in advance of its intention to strike Islamic State militants in Syria and assured Tehran that it would not target the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/ ... me=topNews

USA! USA! USA!

saxitoxin wrote:Let's not lose our heads here.



I keep in mind the U.S. has to say certain things in public to keep the Zionists and McCain at bay so I take what is said in that context. The Foreign Ministry has indicated it is content with the U.S. attempting to atone for its great crimes of the last several years, and so I'm also content.

Ministry of Foreign and Expatriates Affairs said “After Syria’s confirmations on many occasions that it is ready to cooperate in combating terrorism in the framework of the full respect of its national sovereignty, and after many countries agreed on the necessity of respecting the UN Charter which affirms respecting the countries’ sovereignty and their territorial integrity, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN was informed on Monday that the US and some of its allies will target the terrorist organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” ISIS” in Syria hours before launching the airstrikes.”

In a press statement on Tuesday, the Ministry added ” Yesterday, Minister of Foreign and Expatriates Affairs Walid al-Moallem received a letter from his American counterpart delivered by the Iraqi Foreign Minister in which he informed him that “The US will target the positions of the ISIS terrorist organization, some of which are in Syria.”

http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=13902

There can be no "regime change" without troops on the ground and the U.S. doesn't have any to send. Despite Hagel's boasting, the U.S. strikes on ISIS in Syria are a great victory for Syria and will guarantee the SAA victory, mark my words. The U.S. knows this but has to plead incompetence; it can't acknowledge the action it's taking today will seal the defeat of the FSA. The U.S. is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Go U.S. Air Force! (Stay away U.S. Army!)

How many troops did the US send to Libya 2011/2012?

Did regime change occur?


The USG is intent on crushing the Assad and Friends and have been actively doing so, which is why your vision of Assad and Obama frolicking in the meadows of Syria in order to restore peace and harmony makes very little sense.

ISIS has not only declared war on most of the Middle East and the West but also Russia and China. Talk about 'go hard or go home'.

BigBallinStalin wrote:How many troops did the US send to Libya 2011/2012?

Did regime change occur?

The USG is intent on crushing the Assad and Friends and have been actively doing so, which is why your vision of Assad and Obama frolicking in the meadows of Syria in order to restore peace and harmony makes very little sense.

Different situations.

1. The U.S. was actually attacking Libyan forces, and no one else. Whatever subsequently occurs in Syria, the U.S. is - for now at least - actually engaging the opposition.
2. Libya really didn't have an army in any conventional sense of the word; it was a collection of local garrison troops. Syria has a modern, conventional army.

And look, just breaking this evening ...

The army advanced in the Damascus suburb of Jobar, inflicting heavy losses on the militants. They also managed to capture several buildings in the area, which were used as positions by the extremist terrorists.

The troops, furthermore, gained more ground in the northeast, east and south of al-Ghouta, squashing several militant hideouts in the area.

“The Syrian army and National Defense Forces were able to significantly inflict heavy losses on militants on several roads of eastern al-Ghouta. They lost ground and are calling for help. We cut many of their supply lines and they are running away from their positions ...

http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/ ... -damascus/

Note that the only forces in and around Damascus were the so-called "FSA" not ISIS. The U.S. was completely out-strategized by Bashar and he has forced the U.S. into a position where the USAF is now acting as a virtual adjunct to the SAA; the SAA is freed from having to defend against ISIS and is now turning all its firepower on the FSA. The U.S. has just paid for the next 50 years of Syria's future. Bashar ain't going anywhere! Let's go, USAF! Now enjoy this musical interlude -



up next!

Okay, sax. Carry on with your circus.

Saxi,

I don't like Israel, the state. Their economy and existence is war. But that can be said of several countries. Why Israel in particular, for you?

Ill add my two cents on this topic, excuse me for not reading the eight pages so I might quote someone by accident or repeat some hogwash.

ISIS is nothing really different from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, same goals/driving motion, have to realize that middle east has based their culture around war/religion, it's like fighting a hydra for example, you get off one head, it just grows back eventually. A lot of us grunts made the assumption that Iraq would just revert back to the mess it was originally in, with a dictator ship, mass murder, genocide, etc, however, we didn't believe that in almost less then a year that a new terrorist group (ISIS) would form in such a short time. (We gave it at most, five years.) As for political motives, I can't say other then that China is involved in the middle east, and since we (US) owes a rather large debt to them, our involvement there will continue until this debt of ours is payed off. I say this because my 2011/12 deployment to Afghanistan was not for some democracy or freedom to the people of the area, but in that China had secured mining rights to a large mineral deposits. (If I recall, it's diamonds, gold, whatever, this is memory from nearly three/four years ago so I'm sorry for being unspecific in that regard.) And the main mission of the Army at the time was to act as security/search and destroy. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll be able to break away from the middle east any time soon and we'll have some involvement in some form or another. I don't blame our current president for this given situation, although I would like for him to focus on the homefront instead of trying to juggle everything at once. If anything I'd blame George Senior for the heavy involvement in the middle east during his presidency, with the use of CIA operatives, allying our nation with Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait, then comes desert storm but that's a history lesson for another day.

Anywho, ISIS, same group, different name, same motives when it boils down to it. Sources - Me, Veteran.

shickingbrits wrote:Saxi,

I don't like Israel, the state. Their economy and existence is war. But that can be said of several countries. Why Israel in particular, for you?

Saxi had to go to Hebrew school as a child, and has harbored a resentment ever since then.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, sax. Carry on with your circus.

I like his circus. He just shows that's he's as fanatic as UC or PS sometimes.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Okay, sax. Carry on with your circus.

I like his circus. He just shows that's he's as fanatic as UC or PS sometimes.


--Andy

I enjoy it too! I just had to poke and see what the next song would be. The song wasn't convincing, but it had a good tune.

Damn, did he at least get a bar mitzvah out of it?

@DirtyDishSoap,

Yes they are the same group: CIA dishing up dollars for the MIC.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Ill add my two cents on this topic, excuse me for not reading the eight pages so I might quote someone by accident or repeat some hogwash.

ISIS is nothing really different from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, same goals/driving motion, have to realize that middle east has based their culture around war/religion, it's like fighting a hydra for example, you get off one head, it just grows back eventually. A lot of us grunts made the assumption that Iraq would just revert back to the mess it was originally in, with a dictator ship, mass murder, genocide, etc, however, we didn't believe that in almost less then a year that a new terrorist group (ISIS) would form in such a short time. (We gave it at most, five years.) As for political motives, I can't say other then that China is involved in the middle east, and since we (US) owes a rather large debt to them, our involvement there will continue until this debt of ours is payed off. I say this because my 2011/12 deployment to Afghanistan was not for some democracy or freedom to the people of the area, but in that China had secured mining rights to a large mineral deposits. (If I recall, it's diamonds, gold, whatever, this is memory from nearly three/four years ago so I'm sorry for being unspecific in that regard.) And the main mission of the Army at the time was to act as security/search and destroy. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll be able to break away from the middle east any time soon and we'll have some involvement in some form or another. I don't blame our current president for this given situation, although I would like for him to focus on the homefront instead of trying to juggle everything at once. If anything I'd blame George Senior for the heavy involvement in the middle east during his presidency, with the use of CIA operatives, allying our nation with Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait, then comes desert storm but that's a history lesson for another day.

Anywho, ISIS, same group, different name, same motives when it boils down to it. Sources - Me, Veteran.

nailed it as always

The U.S.' #1 interest is driving up the price of oil so that China can't buy it. If China can get cheap oil then it can build its way out of a manufacturing economy and into a creative economy; it can start buying its own junk instead of relying on the U.S. to buy it from them. And when it doesn't need to rely on the U.S. it can then call-in the debt which would wipe the U.S. out of existence. So the U.S. has to do things like arm Israel to the teeth, or periodically bomb the bejeezus out of country X, or avoid drilling into its own massive oil reserves in Alaska (ostensibly due to environmental reasons), or offering cheap financing on car loans. Whatever it takes to keep the price of oil above $90/barrel.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I enjoy it too! I just had to poke

not into you like that

shickingbricks wrote:Saxi, I don't like Israel, the state. Their economy and existence is war. But that can be said of several countries. Why Israel in particular, for you?

Israel is different; it's not a question of it having a bad or good government. Governments come and go. Israel's very existence is the penultimate insult. Its mere presence is a provocation. I don't want to derail the thread so I'll leave it there.

saxitoxin wrote:I don't want to derail the thread so I'll leave it there.

--Andy

saxitoxin wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Ill add my two cents on this topic, excuse me for not reading the eight pages so I might quote someone by accident or repeat some hogwash.

ISIS is nothing really different from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, same goals/driving motion, have to realize that middle east has based their culture around war/religion, it's like fighting a hydra for example, you get off one head, it just grows back eventually. A lot of us grunts made the assumption that Iraq would just revert back to the mess it was originally in, with a dictator ship, mass murder, genocide, etc, however, we didn't believe that in almost less then a year that a new terrorist group (ISIS) would form in such a short time. (We gave it at most, five years.) As for political motives, I can't say other then that China is involved in the middle east, and since we (US) owes a rather large debt to them, our involvement there will continue until this debt of ours is payed off. I say this because my 2011/12 deployment to Afghanistan was not for some democracy or freedom to the people of the area, but in that China had secured mining rights to a large mineral deposits. (If I recall, it's diamonds, gold, whatever, this is memory from nearly three/four years ago so I'm sorry for being unspecific in that regard.) And the main mission of the Army at the time was to act as security/search and destroy. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll be able to break away from the middle east any time soon and we'll have some involvement in some form or another. I don't blame our current president for this given situation, although I would like for him to focus on the homefront instead of trying to juggle everything at once. If anything I'd blame George Senior for the heavy involvement in the middle east during his presidency, with the use of CIA operatives, allying our nation with Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait, then comes desert storm but that's a history lesson for another day.

Anywho, ISIS, same group, different name, same motives when it boils down to it. Sources - Me, Veteran.

nailed it as always

The U.S.' #1 interest is driving up the price of oil so that China can't buy it. If China can get cheap oil then it can build its way out of a manufacturing economy and into a creative economy; it can start buying its own junk instead of relying on the U.S. to buy it from them. And when it doesn't need to rely on the U.S. it can then call-in the debt which would wipe the U.S. out of existence. So the U.S. has to do things like arm Israel to the teeth, or periodically bomb the bejeezus out of country X, or avoid drilling into its own massive oil reserves in Alaska (ostensibly due to environmental reasons), or offering cheap financing on car loans. Whatever it takes to keep the price of oil above $90/barrel.

Mere hours after this was posted on The Conquer Club, the USAF announced it was targeting oil refineries (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t1) ... up goes the price of oil!

But, like I said, I'm okay with that. Every USAF bomb means Bashar is more and more secure. Bashar has to be protected from the rats; I don't care if protecting Bashar is the unintended consequence of a different plan, as long as it's a consequence. Here's a musical interlude - get up and move your feet! (You, too, BBS - those cocks aren't gonna find their way into your mouth on their own!)

saxitoxin wrote:The U.S.' #1 interest is driving up the price of oil so that China can't buy it. If China can get cheap oil then it can build its way out of a manufacturing economy and into a creative economy; it can start buying its own junk instead of relying on the U.S. to buy it from them. And when it doesn't need to rely on the U.S. it can then call-in the debt which would wipe the U.S. out of existence. So the U.S. has to do things like arm Israel to the teeth, or periodically bomb the bejeezus out of country X, or avoid drilling into its own massive oil reserves in Alaska (ostensibly due to environmental reasons), or offering cheap financing on car loans. Whatever it takes to keep the price of oil above $90/barrel.

I'm glad you're finally admitting that the primary point of U.S. foreign policy is driving up the price of oil, as it has been since 1940, and not run for the amusement of AIPAC, as was your previous claim.

Hope renewed.

Dukasaur wrote:I'm glad you're finally admitting that the primary point of U.S. foreign policy is driving up the price of oil

18JUL2011 - Saxi said

Dukasaur wrote: and not run for the amusement of AIPAC, as was your previous claim.

These are non-competitive assertions that can be advanced simultaneously.

At a certain point we will find these two objectives will come out of strategic alignment with each other (10-20 years). At that point the U.S. will choose either feeding Israel or running up the price of oil. Global conditions in this interregnum are calibrating so that the latter choice offers maximum reward. And that is why, in our lifetime, we will see Jerusalem freed, just like Syria did last time. (The only real question is what trophy will be taken this go? In 1187 Syria captured the Cross of the Crucifixion and took it back to Damascus. Maybe this time it will be Shimon Peres' dentures.)

It would be fun to see if there's a correlation between oil prices and US conflicts.


But sur'sly, ISIS makes $2 mil per a day from oil revenue. Assuming the US has destroyed all ISIS oil production (or that people expect that to happen), then how much would that affect the price of oil?

$2 million per day / TOTAL OIL REVENUE = negligible amount which hardly affects the dollar per oil barrel price?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that, excluding Iran, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) earned about $826 billion in net oil export revenues in 2013.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-to ... ?fips=OPEC

So.... $826,000,000,000 / 365 = $2,263,013,698 in revenue per day (and that's only OPEC exports--excluding Iran).

OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil

--note: Iran, #8 net exporter, was excluded, so let's just 2 * $2,263,013,698 = $4,526,027,397 in revenue per day from oil exports.

2,000,000 / 4,530,000,000 = .04% of net exports.

Y'all sound like conspiracy theorists who believe that the absolute destruction of .04% of oil export revenue will change prices to some significant amount. Y'all also realize that Saudi Arabia can shift prices to offset decreases in supply, right? And it's not like they get monopoly profit from this because OPEC accounts for 40% of total crude oil production, so there's imperfect competition eating away at OPEC's nonexistent monopoly profits.