Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#101 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:05 PM

  No, Tabbooma was laughing that you showed him how to google. and no you said, "There's enough evidence out there supporting claims that it was the rebels who used the gas to make it questionable at best for us to bomb" Tabbooma searched and could not find all this evidence so he asked you to provide it so Tabbooma could see for himself. Still don't see all this evidence you speak of..

 

You know I'm not surprised you've once again resorted to your usual "LOL" 

 

Did you take the time to check the other articles or did you just fixate on the ones you could snicker at while omitting the rest? 

 

Has either Obama or anyone else in the administration come out and stated that it WAS, for sure, Assad who used them? 

 

Like I said, questionable at best.



#102 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:08 PM

Your reports are from may, no?



#103 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 06:29 PM

If the government has the proof that Syria was behind the attack than Tabbooma says we should knock out his air force, port and chemical facilities, this would expedite the removal of the regime and also send a messsage to all despots out there if you use chemical weapons you will be hammered. This war at its current rate will go on for a very long time, the time is now to shorten this war. Assad is going to eventually lose and no one knows what or whom is going to run the show, why wait, start that process now.

 

We've been bombing the middle east for decades, I don't think the despots care.  Assad watched what happened to Sadam and all of Iraq right next door.  So, whatever "message" that is sent via bombs isn't going to change people. It's also likely those bombs end up killing a lot of innocent people in trying to send a "message".

 

And regarding starting the process.  So, a new regime takes over.  Sadam was supposed to be the "good guy" to lead Iraq and look what happened there.  The Taliban were put in power by the USA.  Now, nearly 30 years after we gave them weapons when they were the rebels, we've chased the Taliban from power and are still hunting them through the mountains of Afghanistan and constantly losing American lives in the process at a massive financial cost to the US.

 

It's one big circle jerk over there Booma.  It's never going to change.  Because things do not change via US intervention and our efforts only result in more deaths, then all our efforts do is embolden extremists and terrorists to want to cause harm to Americans. 

 

Enough is enough. 

 

The best thing for the US is to stay the hell out of any conflict over there. It doesn't do us or them any good when we get involved.



#104 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:44 PM

Since when was Sadam ever the good guy, because he fought the Iranians? Tabbooma is not talking about arming the rebels, what Tabbooma has heard is that up to 60% of them are jihadists and does not want to arm them, yes bombing will kill some innocent but there is going to be a whole lot more innocent lost by letting this war drag on, take away power to kill his people and level the playing field. Assad is going to lose eventually, how can we sit by and let this go on. We can make a difference and should... The Saudis, and Turkey need to step up

 

 

We've been bombing the middle east for decades, I don't think the despots care.  Assad watched what happened to Sadam and all of Iraq right next door.  So, whatever "message" that is sent via bombs isn't going to change people. It's also likely those bombs end up killing a lot of innocent people in trying to send a "message".

 

And regarding starting the process.  So, a new regime takes over.  Sadam was supposed to be the "good guy" to lead Iraq and look what happened there.  The Taliban were put in power by the USA.  Now, nearly 30 years after we gave them weapons when they were the rebels, we've chased the Taliban from power and are still hunting them through the mountains of Afghanistan and constantly losing American lives in the process at a massive financial cost to the US.

 

It's one big circle jerk over there Booma.  It's never going to change.  Because things do not change via US intervention and our efforts only result in more deaths, then all our efforts do is embolden extremists and terrorists to want to cause harm to Americans. 

 

Enough is enough. 

 

The best thing for the US is to stay the hell out of any conflict over there. It doesn't do us or them any good when we get involved.



#105 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:15 PM

We need to stop being the world's police. Period.

 

It's not our country.  Not even the same continent.  If anyone should take care of the situation, it's the Arab league.  

 

I'd personally like to see a 100% exit from the middle east.  It's not our job to maintain the peace over there.  It's not a job that can be accomplished, so why do it?



#106 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:49 PM

So lets just sit back and watch people get slaughtered, the Turks are going to have to step in, but for now we can level the playing field and at the same time hammer a regime for using chemical weapons. Plus, the USA is never going to walk away from Israel, Jordan or Turkey. Isolation is not the answer, we have been down that road before and it did not work out too well ;)

We need to stop being the world's police. Period.

 

It's not our country.  Not even the same continent.  If anyone should take care of the situation, it's the Arab league.  

 

I'd personally like to see a 100% exit from the middle east.  It's not our job to maintain the peace over there.  It's not a job that can be accomplished, so why do it?



#107 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,183 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 03:38 PM

So lets just sit back and watch people get slaughtered, the Turks are going to have to step in, but for now we can level the playing field and at the same time hammer a regime for using chemical weapons. Plus, the USA is never going to walk away from Israel, Jordan or Turkey. Isolation is not the answer, we have been down that road before and it did not work out too well ;)

 

 

People have been slaughtered before, see: Darfur, Rwanda, etc, and many other parts of the world, but since we have no interest there, no one cares.



#108 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 03:44 PM

General Dempsey, (General of the Joint Chief of Staff) seems very apprehensive about this Booma.  I don't think it's as simple as you think.  

 

 

  Dempsey said U.S. involvement, even if it's limited in nature, would probably lead to an extended stay.

"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid," he wrote.

Dempsey explains that risks include retaliatory attacks by the al-Assad regime, civilian casualties and "extremists" -- including al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran -- gaining more control and access to weapons, including chemical weapons.

Two days before the alleged chemical attacks in Syria, Dempsey replied to a request from New York Rep. Eliot Engel on Dempsey's assessment of different military options in Syria. The general outlined a difficult path for U.S. success in Syria.

"In a variety of ways, the use of U.S. military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict," Dempsey wrote. "It is my belief that the side we chose must be ready to support their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not."

 

What does happen if a dangerous Iran says you know what?  Screw you USA for attacking our ally and lobes a bomb at Tel Aviv.  Then what happens?



#109 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,183 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:03 PM

General Dempsey, (General of the Joint Chief of Staff) seems very apprehensive about this Booma.  I don't think it's as simple as you think.  

 

 

 

 

What does happen if a dangerous Iran says you know what?  Screw you USA for attacking our ally and lobes a bomb at Tel Aviv.  Then what happens?

 

That is my point, we only care because of our interest in Israel (and Oil in the region).

 

 

If this was a country in Africa with no Oil, congress and president would not care in the slightest.



#110 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:07 PM

Absolutely Andy

 

The 1400 who died is incredibly sad.  In Rwanda 500K people died in 100 days and we did nothing.

 

This has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. 



#111 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:08 PM

Rebels use sarin gas (provided by, according to them, Saudi Arabia) in May, UN confirms. Rebels tell reuters news reporter that they didn't know they were using chem weapons (provided by Saudi's) in the last incident.
 

President and congress addresses the situation without any formal proof but supposed email interception say so (sure?) that Assad's regime is responsible. Never once has the US leadership addressed the fact the UN concluded the rebels guilty in May over the April use.

 

News at 11.



#112 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,941 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:06 PM

1175262_584276154962867_652326379_n.jpg



#113 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,639 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:45 PM

People have been slaughtered before, see: Darfur, Rwanda, etc, and many other parts of the world, but since we have no interest there, no one cares.

 

 

That is my point, we only care because of our interest in Israel (and Oil in the region).

 

 

If this was a country in Africa with no Oil, congress and president would not care in the slightest.

 

 

Absolutely Andy

 

The 1400 who died is incredibly sad.  In Rwanda 500K people died in 100 days and we did nothing.

 

This has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. 

 

this, this, and this



#114 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,585 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:39 PM

Wrote to my Senators and Congresswoman today asking them to vote against further action in Syria.

Looks like Boehnor and Pelosi are both supportive of attacking.

Guess Raytheon will be hiring to build replacement missiles for the ones we use, and I'll just pray that we don't get drawn deeper into this mess.

:(



#115 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 08:35 PM

I wrote mine immediately following Obama's press conference.  Even Senator Ayotte who probably has asked Obama if she can push the button herself.



#116 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

Tabbooma read those reports and watched the video, all it says is reporters were told, told by whom? lot or he said, she said...  and how can you say the President and congress addressing without formal proof? Are you privy to the reports or hearings? Was it released when Tabbooma was at work?

Rebels use sarin gas (provided by, according to them, Saudi Arabia) in May, UN confirms. Rebels tell reuters news reporter that they didn't know they were using chem weapons (provided by Saudi's) in the last incident.
 

President and congress addresses the situation without any formal proof but supposed email interception say so (sure?) that Assad's regime is responsible. Never once has the US leadership addressed the fact the UN concluded the rebels guilty in May over the April use.

 

News at 11.



#117 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:19 PM

That's not true. Tabbooma cares

People have been slaughtered before, see: Darfur, Rwanda, etc, and many other parts of the world, but since we have no interest there, no one cares.


#118 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:22 PM

Rwanda? What could of been done? They were hacking each other up with machetes in a jungle, we can save lives long term by shortening this war 

Absolutely Andy

 

The 1400 who died is incredibly sad.  In Rwanda 500K people died in 100 days and we did nothing.

 

This has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. 



#119 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:29 PM

They have been bombing Israel for some time with rockets through Hezbollah, weapons provided to them from Iran through Syria. If Iran bombed Israel directly, than the Israelis would defend themselves, and Israel already bombed Assad a couple time and he did nothing. Assad has to go.

General Dempsey, (General of the Joint Chief of Staff) seems very apprehensive about this Booma.  I don't think it's as simple as you think.  

 

 

 

 

What does happen if a dangerous Iran says you know what?  Screw you USA for attacking our ally and lobes a bomb at Tel Aviv.  Then what happens?



#120 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,995 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:38 PM

We have fundamental differences in opinion Tabooma.  

 

You think more killing now will result in less killing later.

 

I think that more killing now will only result in more killing overall.

 

Assad goes and the next guy up is an Al Queda leader, which isn't an unlikely scenario given who the rebels are.  Happy?



#121 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 09:45 PM

Al Qaeda is not running Iraq, so Tabbooma does not see the Syrian people being run by Al Qaeda... Like Tabbooma said he really doesn't know what will happen, The Turks will not allow us to arm the Kurds who are fighting Al Qaeda right now. The Turks have to get involved big time, the Saudis and Qater need to open their pocket books and fund it. We can level the playing field and shorten this mess, if we have proof he used the chems than he has to be hammered.

 

We have fundamental differences in opinion Tabooma.  

 

You think more killing now will result in less killing later.

 

I think that more killing now will only result in more killing overall.

 

Assad goes and the next guy up is an Al Queda leader, which isn't an unlikely scenario given who the rebels are.  Happy?



#122 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,639 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 12:52 AM

would people comment on this, please.

 

i'm 9 minutes in and interested:

 



#123 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:24 AM

2 mins in Tabbooma had to pause, Tabbooma does not buy it. Obama is not a hawk, nor a neocon, he got us out of Iraq and is bringing home the troops next year in Afghanistan... He is now reacting to a despot using chemical weapons and not some grand conspiracy to take over the middle east.... Wrong party. ;) Tabbooma will watch the rest tomorrow, does not want to have heart burn before he heads to bed ;)  



#124 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,941 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:57 AM

1185245_10151537322001734_1563391189_n.j



#125 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:15 AM

Okay, Tabbooma got up to the 10.53 min mark and finds the video interesting to say the least. He states that no real evidence for the attack is being put forth by the USA? (hearings are still on going today releasing evidence) The USA has been crying wolf regarding Irans intentions with nukes ( Yep Iran has no intentions of building nukes or weaponizing materials)  the USA is vocally supporting the jihadist rebels in Syria? ( The reason we have not been shipping arms as the president said we would is because of the fear of Jihadists getting them) This video looks like it was already made before to argue against the neocons like Wolfowitz and crew,  It's all bunk to suggest that this administration is following the same precepts as the neocons.



#126 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

The CIA has been training Syrian rebels in Jordan since June. They are about to be deployed for the opposition to Assad.

http://www.telegraph...attlefield.html

 

Non-weapons aid (medical, web gear, NV, etc..) has been trickling into Syrian rebel hands for months (potentially a year) now. The stated reasons why the US CIA weapons program was delayed is because the Syrian conflict is already ripe with weaponry. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in theater with the UK, has been providing the rebels with arms (including chemical weapons, according to the rebels) for a while now.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0341316034.html

 

http://www.reuters.c...E85M07820120623

 

The reason is simple; a natural gas pipeline is sought from Syria to avoid one through Iran. You see, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also enemies with Iran. And the reasons are deeply rooted in complex, and over western power's heads, politically driven. That's been the case for a long time. See, Saudi Arabia would liek to remove Assad and install a puppet regime so that the flow of energy resources can be controlled to avoid Iranian influence. This undermines both Iran and Russia. So the interest is geopolitically driven. It has absolutely nothing to do with chemical weapons use. Nothing.

 

 http://www.theguardi...nergy-pipelines

 

And that's where the US comes in:

 

http://www.lawfarebl...-is-very-broad/

 

 

In other words, dont believe the hype. This has absolutely nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons (what your government and White House Inc. Media are telling you). It has absolutely everythign to do with energy, money and religion.

 

the problem with this situation is that if the US can not control the rebel outcome favorably to US "interests", they satnd to lose the regional control to jihadists and other extremists.



#127 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,639 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

The CIA has been training Syrian rebels in Jordan since June. They are about to be deployed for the opposition to Assad.

http://www.telegraph...attlefield.html

 

Non-weapons aid (medical, web gear, NV, etc..) has been trickling into Syrian rebel hands for months (potentially a year) now. The stated reasons why the US CIA weapons program was delayed is because the Syrian conflict is already ripe with weaponry. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in theater with the UK, has been providing the rebels with arms (including chemical weapons, according to the rebels) for a while now.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0341316034.html

 

http://www.reuters.c...E85M07820120623

 

The reason is simple; a natural gas pipeline is sought from Syria to avoid one through Iran. You see, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also enemies with Iran. And the reasons are deeply rooted in complex, and over western power's heads, politically driven. That's been the case for a long time. See, Saudi Arabia would liek to remove Assad and install a puppet regime so that the flow of energy resources can be controlled to avoid Iranian influence. This undermines both Iran and Russia. So the interest is geopolitically driven. It has absolutely nothing to do with chemical weapons use. Nothing.

 

 http://www.theguardi...nergy-pipelines

 

And that's where the US comes in:

 

http://www.lawfarebl...-is-very-broad/

 

 

In other words, dont believe the hype. This has absolutely nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons (what your government and White House Inc. Media are telling you). It has absolutely everythign to do with energy, money and religion.

 

the problem with this situation is that if the US can not control the rebel outcome favorably to US "interests", they satnd to lose the regional control to jihadists and other extremists.

 

and this is the conclusion I find every time I research CIA intervention in foreign affairs.

 

Tabby, thanks for your response. TASB I look forward to reading all of these links.



#128 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,183 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:42 PM

That's not true. Tabbooma cares

 

 

You and I as well as many others care, but if a 100,000 people died with machetes, don't you think some troops on the ground would have stopped at least some of these murders?

 

All of us saw the movie about Rwanda, all they asked for was a show of support, not even getting involved, but every government including the US turned their back because there is no interest and nothing to gain except helping people in need, Or Because it did not line someone's pocket with cash.

 

The point is, in Rwanda there was time to go in and save people.  

 

Action against Syria will not save one life, will hurt the people of Syria, and further blow the Middle East into even more turmoil.



#129 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:12 PM

http://www.thetradin...l-gas-pipeline/

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an articlefrom 2009

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications thanIlya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?



#130 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,405 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:28 PM

FYI Kerry and the hearings are starting up again on CNN

 

Wish he/us cared as much about the children who were being killed in Gaza by white phosphorous attacks as they do about the Syrian children who have been killed



#131 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:41 PM

http://www.fair.org/...-more-credible/

 

Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?

 

Let's compare a couple of accounts of the mass deaths apparently caused by chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21. One account comes from the U.S. government (8/30/13), introduced by Secretary of State John Kerry. The other was published by a Minnesota-based news site called Mint Press News (8/29/13).

The government account expresses "high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack" on August 21. The Mint report bore the headline "Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack." Which of these two versions should we find more credible?

The U.S. government, of course, has a track record that will incline informed observers to approach its claims with skepticism–particularly when it's making charges about the proscribed weapons of official enemies. Kerry said in his address that "our intelligence community" has been "more than mindful of the Iraq experience"–as should be anyone listening to Kerry's presentation, because the Iraq experience informs us that secretaries of State can express great confidence about matters that they are completely wrong about, and that U.S. intelligence assessments can be based on distortion of evidence and deliberate suppression of contradictory facts.

kerry.jpg

Secretary of State John Kerry making the case that Damascus has used chemical weapons (US State Department)

Comparing Kerry's presentation on Syria and its accompanying document to Colin Powell's speech to the UN on Iraq, though, one is struck by how little specific evidence was included in the case for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. It gives the strong impression of being pieced together from drone surveillance and NSA intercepts, supplemented by Twitter messages and YouTube videos, rather than from on-the-ground reporting or human intelligence. Much of what is offered tries to establish that the victims in Ghouta had been exposed to chemical weapons–a question that indeed had been in some doubt, but had already largely been settled by a report by Doctors Without Borders that reported that thousands of people in the Damascus area had been treated for "neurotoxic symptoms."

On the critical question of who might be responsible for such a chemical attack, Kerry's presentation was much more vague and circumstantial. A key point in the government's white paper is "the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media." It's unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?

In a conflict as conscious of the importance of communication as the Syrian Civil War, do citizen journalists wait an hour and a half before reporting an enormous development–the point at which, as Kerry put it, "all hell broke loose in the social media"? Unless there's some reason to expect this kind of a delay, it's very unclear why we should think there's any connection at all between the allegedly observed rocket launches and the later reports of mass poisoning.

When the evidence isn't circumstantial, it's strikingly vague: "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence," the report asserts. Taken at face value, it's one of the most damning claims in the government's report–a veritable confession. But how was the identity of this official established? And what exactly did they say that "confirmed" chemical weapons use? Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps "mindful of the Iraq experience," Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

Powell-UN-e1360080576232-300x150.jpg

Colin Powell making the case that Iraq possessed proscribed weaponry

Another key claim is asserted without substantiation: "Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21, near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin." How were these personnel identified, and what were the signs of their operations? How was this place identified as an area used to mix sarin? Here again the information provided was far less detailed than what Powell gave to the UN: Powell's presentation included satellite photographs of sites where proscribed weapons were being made, with an explanation of what they revealed to "experts with years and years of experience": "The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions," he said, pointing to an annotated photograph of bunkers that turned out to be storing no such thing. Powell's presentation graphically demonstrated that US intelligence analysts are fallible, which is part of why presenting bare assertions without any of the raw materials used to derive those conclusions should not be very convincing.

Kerry did offer an explanation for why the report was so cursory: "In order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly." It is not clear, however, why intelligence methods that produced visual and audible evidence that could be shared with the public 10 years ago cannot be similarly utilized today. It does point to why the $52 billion the United States spends on surveillance annually, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden (Washington Post, 8/29/13), provides relatively little information that's of value to American democracy: The collection of information is considered so much more valuable than the information collected that it rarely if ever can be used to inform a public debate. Instead, as we discuss the dreadful question of whether to launch a military attack on another country, we are offered an undemocratic "trust us" from the most secretive parts of our government–an offer that history warns us to be extremely wary of.

Muhawesh-150x150.jpeg

Mnar Muhawesh

Unlike the U.S. government, Mint does not have much of a track record, having been founded only about a year and a half ago (CJR, 3/28/12). The founder of the for-profit startup is Mnar Muhawesh, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American woman who believes, reasonably enough, that "our media has absolutely failed our country" (MinnPost, 1/18/12).  One of its two reporters on its Syrian chemical weapons piece, Dale Gavlak, is a longtime Associated Press Mideast stringer who has also done work for NPR and the BBC. AP was one of the few US corporate media outlets to question official assertions about Iraqi WMDs, contrasting Powell's assertions with what could be discerned from on-the-ground reporting (Extra!, 3-4/06).

Mint takes a similar approach to the Syrian story, with a reporter in Ghouta–not Gavlak but Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian freelancer and journalism grad student–who "spoke directly with the rebels, their family members, victims of the chemical weapons attacks and local residents." The article reports that "many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out" the chemical attack. The recipients of the chemical weapons are said to be Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda-linked rebel faction that was caught possessing sarin nerve gas in Turkey, according to Turkish press reports (OE Watch, 7/13).

Mint quotes Abu Abdel-Moneim, described as the father of a rebel killed in the chemical weapons attacks, as saying that his son had described carrying unconventional weapons provided by Saudi Arabia to underground storage tunnels–a "tubelike structure" and a "huge gas bottle." A rebel leader identified as J describes the release of toxic weaponry as accidental, saying, "Some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions." Another rebel referred to as K complains, "When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them."

Gavlak-150x150.jpg

Dale Gavlak

Of course, independent media accounts are not necessarily more credible than official reports–or vice versa. As with the government white paper, there are gaps in the Mint account; while Abdel-Moneim cites his late son's account of carrying chemical weapons, the rebels quoted do not indicate how they came to know what they say they know about the origin of the weapons. But unlike the government, Mint is honest about the limits of its knowledge: "Some information in this article could not be independently verified," the story admits. "Mint Press News will continue to provide further information and updates."

This humility about the difficulty of reporting on a covert, invisible attack in the midst of a chaotic civil war actually adds to the credibility of the Mint account. It's those who are most certain about matters of which they clearly lack firsthand knowledge who should make us most skeptical.



#132 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,585 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:53 PM

...as they do about the Syrian children who have been killed


News Flash... I suspect that what's coming has very little to do with children being killed.



#133 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,585 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:54 PM

But it wouldn't surprise me if we killed some more in our "effort to protect them."



#134 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:38 PM

There is plenty of oil in Iraq and the Saudis nor Qatar have a puppet government there that they control, so how are they going to get one in Syria, because they are sunni??

http://www.thetradin...l-gas-pipeline/ Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.



#135 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:46 PM

No way did the Saudis give the rebels chemical weapons, where's the proof?  Of course the CIA have contractors on the ground, they use ex special forces as private contractors.

The CIA has been training Syrian rebels in Jordan since June. They are about to be deployed for the opposition to Assad.

http://www.telegraph...attlefield.html

 

Non-weapons aid (medical, web gear, NV, etc..) has been trickling into Syrian rebel hands for months (potentially a year) now. The stated reasons why the US CIA weapons program was delayed is because the Syrian conflict is already ripe with weaponry. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in theater with the UK, has been providing the rebels with arms (including chemical weapons, according to the rebels) for a while now.



#136 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:53 PM

Yes, could of stopped some and we should have at least tried. But to be clear there are tons of natural resources in Africa, if it's about oil and resources than why do we mostly stay out of Africa? The Chinese are building railroads and raping countries of natural resources as we speak, check out the good work they are doing in the congo. This administration is going after Assad because it is the right thing to do

You and I as well as many others care, but if a 100,000 people died with machetes, don't you think some troops on the ground would have stopped at least some of these murders?

 

All of us saw the movie about Rwanda, all they asked for was a show of support, not even getting involved, but every government including the US turned their back because there is no interest and nothing to gain except helping people in need, Or Because it did not line someone's pocket with cash.

 

The point is, in Rwanda there was time to go in and save people.  

 

Action against Syria will not save one life, will hurt the people of Syria, and further blow the Middle East into even more turmoil.



#137 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:52 PM

There is plenty of oil in Iraq and the Saudis nor Qatar have a puppet government there that they control, so how are they going to get one in Syria, because they are sunni??

 

I don't have answers to that. What i do have, is this info put together. Take it or leave it.



#138 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:29 AM

http://www.presstv.i...s-war-in-syria/

 

Saudi Arabia has called for a foreign military action in Syria, saying it will support the US military intervention against the government of President Bashar al-Assad over an alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus.



Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal made the remarks on Sunday during a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in the Egyptian capital Cairo. 

"Any opposition to any international action would only encourage Damascus to move forward with committing its crimes and using all weapons of mass destruction," said Faisal.

"The time has come to call on the world community to bear its responsibility and take the deterrent measure that puts a halt to the tragedy," he added. 

The Cairo meeting was called to discuss the growing war rhetoric against Syria, which started after foreign-backed opposition forces accused the government of President Assad of launching a chemical attack on militant strongholds in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21. 

Syria has strongly rejected the allegations and says terrorists carried out the deadly chemical weapons attack. 

The head of the so-called Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba, also delivered a speech in Cairo on Sunday and called on Arab countries to support the possible US military offensive. 

However, the Arab League remains divided over the issue of any foreign aggression in Syria. Egypt and several other countries said they were opposed to foreign military intervention against Damascus. 

Last week, the Arab League condemned the chemical attack in Syria but said it does not support the military action without UN approval. 

On Saturday, US President Barack Obama said he has decided that Washington must take military action against the Syrian government, which would mean a unilateral military strike without a UN mandate. 

Obama said that despite having made up his mind, he will take the case to US Congress. But he added that he is prepared to order military action against the Syrian government at any time. 

Obama once again held the Syrian government responsible for the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. 



#139 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

http://www.dailymail...John-Kerry.html

 

Secretary of State John Kerry said during a hearing Wednesday in the House of Representatives that counties in the Arab world have offered to foot the entire bill for a U.S. military mission that destroys the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.'

Kerry, with a cadre of anti-war activists sitting behind him and holding red-painted hands aloft in protest, declined to name the countries that have proposed opening their purses.



Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2dyTpM6kr 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



#140 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:46 AM

Not buying it, Tabbooma has a bit more faith in this administration

I don't have answers to that. What i do have, is this info put together. Take it or leave it.


#141 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:52 AM

"Buy" whatever you like, Tabs. it's a consumer market.



#142 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,338 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 12:50 PM

http://www.theguardi...stions-answered

 

Did Syrian rebels have sarin gas? Your questions on the crisis answered

Our Middle East editor answers readers' questions on Russia, Syrian opposition groups, al-Qaida and more

 

 

The Syrian opposition is highly fragmented and divided between groups based abroad and inside the country. When protests began in March 2011, the first coherent body to emerge was the Syrian National Council, established in Istanbul. Externally, that was backed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and western countries. It included a big Syrian Muslim Brotherhood element as well as liberal and secular figures associated with the Damascus Declaration group. Groups on the ground began to operate under the name of the Free Syrian Army, with different local agenda and backing from different sources, including the Gulf.

Nowadays the main political grouping is the Syrian National Coalition, set up in Qatar in 2012, again with Gulf backing. The main legal internal opposition is the Damascus-based National Co-ordination Body, which calls for a negotiated settlement with the Assad regime.

There are now hundreds and perhaps thousands of armed rebel groups. More moderate outfits such as Liwa al-Tawhid answer to the Supreme Military Command, headed by Selim Idriss, a senior army defector. The SMC is used to channel Gulf, especially Saudi, funds and is thought to have received US and British training in Jordan.

 

 

Thi sis a pretty good article. I'd continue reading if this situation is more than a popcorn fart to you.



#143 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,405 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 06:25 PM

Determined Political Protest against US Bombing of Syria Needed NOW

 

 

Barack Obama is selling the planned US Cruise missile bombing of Syria as a “humanitarian” act in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.  Bombing Syria will kill more civilians, polarize the situation further, and invite even more intervention and weapons into the country, making it more likely that the civil war could expand into an extremely dangerous regional conflagration. Moreover, launching an attack on a country that isn’t threatening yours is the supreme international war crime.

 

The bloody Syrian civil war – where big powers are funding both sides – has already killed 100,000.  Atrocities have been committed by both the Assad government and the mixed group of pro-Western and Islamic Fundamentalist opposition.  None of the warring parties offer a future for the 23 million Syrians, many who are refugees from U.S. and Israeli wars on Iraq and Palestine.

 

This planned U.S. airstrike on Syrian is already unpopular, but that doesn’t mean Obama won’t do it.  The British Parliament, which George Bush bullied into supporting the US war on Iraq, said “no” to bombing Syria, and the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows only 9% of those polled favor U.S. military intervention.  

 

Obama is now amping up his argument, demanding Congressional approval for his planned attack, bowing to some pressure that he include them.  But the Obama administration says even if Congress doesn’t endorse his plans, he won’t be bound by their vote. His argument for intervention is directed at other countries governments, at pressuring Congress to come along, and at you, to go along with the war crimes he plans.

 

People in this country have to get visibly and loudly into the streets in protest; on the airwaves, on the Internet, and everywhere, to denounce this coming attack.

 

No, not in our name! Humanity and the planet come first. No to U.S. planetary domination.

 

 

 

 

http://warisacrime.o...yria-needed-now



#144 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,330 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:56 PM

Al Franken was interviewed between briefings today and he said that after 12 hours of briefings, looks like he is voting for strikes on Syria... Al Franken is the farthest from any type of hawk



#145 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,405 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:59 PM

Al Franken was interviewed between briefings today and he said that after 12 hours of briefings, looks like he is voting for strikes on Syria... Al Franken is the farthest from any type of hawk

 

They've been pushing these strikes as a means of helping to protect Israel "our closest ally" in the region, there's no doubt we'll see more than a few other pro-Israel politicians who vote for these strikes as well. 



#146 Royal

Royal
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,912 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 11:02 PM


- - - - -
Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?


It turned gay and moved to California.

#147 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,405 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 04:40 PM