The real question is:
Why is it so important that we go after Syria?
Posted by: Political Hostage at September 4, 2013 10:20 PM
Look at the map. Syria is bordered by Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Isreal, and the Mediteranian sea. All U.S allies. Syria is "behind the lines" so to speak.
Take into consideration the financial aspect:
Rothschild national banks are behind the attacks on Syria.
At present Syria has no debt from the IMF. It only has loans from friends such as Russia. It is therefore becoming a target for American and NATO aggression.
Syria also has an independent bank.
Three tributaries in Syria supply fresh water to the Euphrates. 17% of the watershed is in Syria. Syria also borders the Tigres. The Euphrates and the Tigres supply fresh water to Iraq.
The religion in Syria is dominated by the Sunni with 69% of the population. President Bashar al-Assad's family is Alawite and Alawites dominate the government of Syria and hold key military positions. The Alawite are 12% of the population.
To answer a question with a question:
Do you really think it's about chemical weapons?
Posted by Weary_Willie at September 5, 2013 9:30 AM
Rothschild. Hmm. Really into advanced conspiracy theories there.
How about this: if Syria’s government can use chemical weapons on their own people with impunity, what use is the international law against it?
“Rothschild. Hmm. Really into advanced conspiracy theories there.”
No worse than the ows ‘1%’ crap.
What good is international law if we’re the only ones spilling blood to enforce it?
Pretty much agree, WW. I suspect independents and moderates are in about the same boat as the lefts and rights on Syria. And, you can be assured the Corpocracy is weighing in with dollars on the situation. Lockheed, et al, would love to crank up the Tomahawk assy line.
No doubt, there are a myriad of push-pulls on the Syrian issue and, while we do have options there seems to be none with an assured solution.
We can postulate re a number of scenarios: should we bias our approach using past laws and history re bio weapons? Should we be concerned about Syria’s neighbors and foreign relations, Jordan, China and Russia, etc? Should the fact that Syria’s war is basically a war that has been in continuum for a couple of thousand years over religious ideology impact our approach?
Right, left and center seem to be all over the map as to how to proceed. That in itself portends that no matter what is done the outcome will be ‘spoiled’.
It seems we are left to sort out two main issues: Assad has done bad. The Jihadists will continue to foment holy war, blowing up kids, themselves, etc for centuries to come.
So, were I Pres for a day, I would stand the Corpocracy in the corner. Put the Jihadi’s on notice that we will no longer tolerate their war hiding behind a religion. Use politics, diplomacy, USAID, trade, etc to pressure gov’ts to support such a position, preferably overtly, but otherwise, covertly.
As to Syria proper: Task the CIA/MIL to identify and organize a few secularists Syrians into a political and military leadership force. Groom/support up to 100k foreign volunteers to fight Assad and similar, as needed. Dump groups of sufficient size incountry to imbed with the Syrian fighters, take an area and turn it over to the Syrian fighters to hold, exfiltrate that group while other groups attack and take ground elsewhere. Repeat as necessary until the organized fighters can attain political/military power. Move volunteer force to other parts of the world as required, liberal leave, families to Disney World, training, etc.
Thus, we have identified the US position; support secular, non-jihadi, govt’s. Project the US ethic whereby murdering/killing of large numbers of the worlds citizens will not be tolerated.
IMO, to do otherwise will drag the religious wars out for another century or two. Takes a long time to educate and overcome such broadscale treachery.
Otherwise - - -
I would do well to hang my hat on the word ‘terrorist’ associated with the Jihadists.
When we talk about the 1 percent, we’re talking about a huge population. 3 million in the case of the American population, roughly speaking.
I think it’s a lot more plausible to say that those 3 million have disproportionate influence on the other 297 million than to say that a handful of swiss bankers or whatever control everything.
I used to be big into conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories have a tendency to be rather like a carrot and stick. You are made to fear a certain set of people, but in front of you is dangled the prospect of great insight, of holy understanding of the underlying power of the world.
But it’s bunk, and more importantly, it’s manipulative bunk, designed to get people to ask the same pointless questions over and over, while they don’t ask the smart questions, the questions that would allow them to think for themselves.
It especially works if it’s unlikely that the policy changes or political movement will ever completely succeed, or if there’s no evidence, because that necessary argument from Ignorance forever holds that critical gnosis, that holy knowledge out ahead of you.
Addiction scientists have found that a huge part of what makes drugs irresistible to people isn’t that they somehow change the pleasure centers, but instead the dopamine pathways. Does dopamine create pleasure? No, instead it creates the feeling of fulfillment you get from pursuing your needs.
Pursuit! If you get somebody on the treadmill of a bad logical system, you can keep them running for as long as you want, and since people really, really don’t like to feel they’ve been wrong all that them, they’ll often rationalize continuing to run for as long as you need to.
So, when you come up with the Rothschilds, well I sort of cringe.
Of course, my cringing causes a reaction with you, so let me ask a simple question: of all the former great powers, who remains? Then you know the answer to why international law enforcement often falls to us.
“When we talk about the 1 percent, we’re talking about a huge population. 3 million in the case of the American population, roughly speaking.
I think it’s a lot more plausible to say that those 3 million have disproportionate influence on the other 297 million than to say that a handful of swiss bankers or whatever control everything.”
Sounds like conspiracy theories from your writing. So how do you reconcile other theories from your theories?
Sounds like the more your thoughts change the more they stay the same.
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll think it’s bunk when you can tell me then names of the people who own the Federal Reserve Bank.
Until then, I may not name them Rothchilds, but I might have some doubt as to the motives of the IMF and their dealings with third world countries and how they do business with them.
Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There’s no price the big banks can’t fix
If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above.
The Anti-War left is being showcased for the absolute hypocrites that I, and most other conservatives, knew they were.
The beating of the war drum on the left is so hollow sounding it makes me sick. Though I suspect [dearly hope] that Obama will not get the votes he needs to authorize a conflict. That said, whether that will stop him is another matter entirely.
IF we bomb Syria, it is just the scale of cataclysm to hide the blatant financial shenanigans of the past five years behind a future currency reset. Syria has stated boldly that if we attack, their defense allies Iran and Hezbollah will be the arm of their retaliation. That means targeted terrorist attacks and a likely closing of the Straits of Hormuz. Doubling Gas prices (a conservative prediction) will have a massive effect on commerce worldwide and may open the door to Russia and China, who have long since, albeit quietly, abandoned the petrodollar, publicly call for the abandonment of it altogether. Acting without allies against Syria will further the decline of our image and reputation(the improvement of the same being another laughably failed Obama promise) around the world which is being speculated may give credence to the call to change the global reserve currency.
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that we DON’T know who used the chemical weapons. Doctors on the ground had no idea, and we have no idea - and don’t want to wait to find out.
When governments rush to judgement at the end of missles, they are universally incorrect.
One need only look at a recent (though by now sorely outdated) map of naval forces in the region (subs largely excluded) to see that the stage is set for a great repeat of history, much like Cuba in the 60’s.
We have a demonstrably incompetent Democrat in the White House elected on Hope (and change - rofl). We have a supposed red line that has been crossed (though in this case we aren’t even sure by whom) We have massive amounts of Naval Forces setting the stage for conflict at sea. In Assad we find a (for all intents and purposes) dictator ignoring our demands.
In the words of Cicero “Nescire autum quid ante quam natus, sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.” Though that doesn’t apply to the more ‘seasoned’ readers of WB. Begging Willie, Royal, and John’s pardon.
Only NOW, we ALSO have a failing, utterly debased fiat currency, and almost no credibility around the world. And we have an economic depression the effects of which are being manipulated and propagandized to an extent that BLS numbers are almost as funny as episodes of the Onion.
Should be an interesting autumn… stay tuned for September 15th, it may be a very momentous day.
Roy Ellis, it sounds like you’re asking for what Syria already has. An armed uprising. There’s no way we are going to control boots on the ground with the cia.
I say just let this thing play out. If the rebels win and they’re as bad as all that, we’ll be able to deal with them. If Assad wins and he’s as bad as all that, the international court can take over like they did in Bosnia.
“…the international court can take over like they did in Bosnia.”
Weary, that didn’t happen in Bosnia until NATO bombed the crap out of them.
“The beating of the war drum on the left..”
You should check on who is beating the war drums before alleging that it is the left wing. In fact, the left is very opposed to the action.
My reaction was based on my knowing how you would respond to the name “Rothschild.”
Both ideas are based on a small group of wealthy people rigging the system for their own benefit. The only difference really is that the NWO people are concerned with losing everything and being controlled, while the OWS people are complaining about not being given everything and not enough government control.
“of all the former great powers, who remains?”
The only one that believed in limited government and individual rights, but of course that’s changing now, isn’t it :)
Rich, I think this headline sums it up.
Media want war in Syria. We don’t.
Only 15% of the U.S. public wants the U.S. military involved in Syria, and only 11% wants the U.S. providing weapons to the Syrian opposition.
Middle East = Energy
Russia controls current major source of Natural Gas in Europe
Qatar = Large untapped reserves of Natural Gas
Syria = Pipeline would need to go thru in order to hook up with Russian Existing Pipeline
What is one of US’s National Security issues?…… energy security
Okay, folks, you want an idea of how I think? I think sometimes people do things for certain reasons, like, say, invade Iraq, and then once they’ve done it, they’re open to letting certain friends benefit from it. They don’t necessarily have to cause events to exploit them. Just like I’d say, a bank failure that occurs concurrent with a financial crisis isn’t necessarily the cause, but can be caused by the crisis in question.
Folks might consider me naïve. Well, let them. My attitude is, get your causality straight, because otherwise you’re prescribing the wrong medicine.
When I fault the financial industry for what happened in 2008, I’m not saying they wanted that outcome. It’s not necessarily in my world view to explain things with malice and purpose when stupidity and shortsightedness suffice. I don’t assume the people more powerful than me are smarter than me, better in control of the overall situation.
Folks can get wrapped up in perpetuating something that benefits them, and blindly ignore warning signs until the **** actually hits the fan, at which point they’re scrambling to avoid getting hit with the falling wreckage. Then once the coast is clear, they’ll go right back to doing what they thought was profitable before, telling themselves and others, like some kind of gambling addict would, that they merely hit a patch of bad luck, and that if folks just get off their back, everything will get back to normal.
You see the way that works? Very often these people are no smarter than you and I, and if they are, even then they can be shortsighted and narrowly focused, both on the task at hand, and on their interests.
I’m a longtime student of the ins and outs of psychology, neuroscience and other things having to do with the mind. If you assume all actors are rational and fully capable of forecasting the results of events, then that view requires you to believe that any crash, disaster, exploitation reflects a hidden, rational, if sinister purpose. Me? I want evidence first that they knew what they were doing, that they knew they were pitching things over into crisis.
To put this in perspective, I don’t even think the Bush Administration believed its case was false. I am fully capable of believing that they so strongly believed something that they failed to apply discipline and skepticism to the conclusion they already had in mind, and therefore failed to recognize how poor their case was. Even if they knew some of it was bull, they could have still believed that they were right, that the bad evidence was just a means to a legitimate, provable end. And with folks pushing things like the WMDS into Syria theory, they could even believe that a switcheroo was played on them.
In other words, I believe that there are significant weaknesses that can compromise people’s judgment, even when their intentions are not malevolent, and a tendency towards dogmatism and the discouragement of imagination can make things worse. I don’t need Rothschilds to explain the world’s crimes and problems, the weaknesses of human nature are more than enough.
Stephen, your last sentence says it well. As with Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank thing is still a work in progress. Latest report is that D-F called for prospective homeowners to have some skin in the game, 20% down. Now we hear the latest revision calls for 0% down.
If Corporations weren’t people we could enact regulations with some teeth. The SEC should have permanent residence in Goldman=Sachs, showers, exercise rooms, etc.
Otherwise - - -
I don’t doubt that the American public is opposed to military action in Syria to deter further use of chemical weapons. That includes both the left and the right. The Iraq debacle is front and center in every discussion of this issue. But, that doesn’t mean that such action is wrong or not in the interests of the US. American opinion was very opposed to engagement in Europe during the early days of WWII.
This is interesting. About the same time Iran opened it’s oil bourse and discontinued accepting U.S. Dollars as payment for it’s crude oil, The United States claimed, on a laptop found/stolen and owner dead, it had information on it saying Iran was weaponizing it’s nuclear program.
What a coincidence! Iran is continuing it’s bourse operations and many of our allies that buy crude from Iran are paying in their own currency instead of the dollar. Also the U.S. is continuing it’s beating of war drums against Iran while the IAEA is not finding proof of any materials being diverted!
Doubt everything. Ask Questions. We can no longer accept things at face value. The Benghazi video affair should give us a clue to why we can no longer believe what our government is telling us.
Yes, Stephen Daugherty, you can say it’s another conspiracy theory. But, who knows? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.
I so love being a pariah, and you wonder why folks do not contribute?
Ah well..since you could not see the reasoning of “Energy” and instead want to dwell on the New World Order Theories…
I hope you have done some in-depth reading of the UN/EU Documents as well as watching where agriculture is trending, ie what countries are being set up as “Suppliers” ya know the new peasant class to feed the rest of the world. It is interesting to see how it is all being down in the guise of helping the people, help themselves.
You see, I like to research and read those dry reports and touch bases with other agriculture minded folks and see what their reasoning on things are. Along the way, I frequently branch out into tracking what business may be buying up certain chem production or research facilities and who may even be heading such organizations. That is what gives a real interesting picture on corporate maneuvering and possible politic pressure being applied.
I also have a close friend who has lived in Saudia/Yemen for the past decade. Working for an US company, but having to live abroad. So I have a real good idea about the feeling towards Americans. His wife would not even stay over there, can’t say as I blame her, my experience with that area….I would go back to visit the markets but that is it.
Btw if you want to read something just for gee-whiz factor…take a look at the headlines on the Drudge Report! Gotta give the site credit for having his finger on what is happening.
Kathryn, found nothing on Drudge. Can you provide a link plz?
Syria is one of the least important countries in the Middle East when it comes to energy. A pipeline through Syria would be a matter of convenience, at most, since every bordering country can ship through its own borders to a seaport except Jordan. Jordan needs to import energy, and it does so through an Egyptian pipeline, among other methods.
If you are following the Drudge Report then you will be badly misinformed and have no freaking idea of what is going on in the real world.
For example, Drudge is notorious for pushing stories about whites being subjected to black violence. A study showed this type of story increased dramatically after Obama was elected. The story of Ashley Todd, a hoax involving a white girl being attacked by a black male, is a good example of misinformation from Drudge. And calling it misinformation is putting it kindly.
There have been numerous studies on the accuracy of Drudge stories. In general, about 1/3 of the stories are accurate, another 1/3 inaccurate, and the remaining third debatable.
Another example, from Wikipedia: “During 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group made claims about John Kerry’s war record, which were mentioned by Drudge and investigated by major newspapers and TV networks. The book, Unfit for Command: Swiftboat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, became a best-seller thanks in part to its promotion on the Drudge Report. Vietnam veterans who served on the same boat with Kerry eventually came forth to refute the charges and one apologized for participating in the campaign to discredit Kerry. But the damage had been done. The Drudge Report never apologized or corrected its original story.”
If this is your go-to source of information, you are in a WORLD of hurt.
As for being a woman living in an Arab country… That is one tough assignment. The money is tempting, but I would concur, anyone even considering it should give that idea a long, hard ponder.
Kathryn, anything that might say something against phx8’s god is not credible, Janet Napolitano says so.
Drudge Report is actually a compilation of news stories from a large number of news outlets. These include:
So, in that respect, No, it isn’t credible. Considering the source.
Since the radical left on WatchBlog will point out these are left leaning outlets, I should also say that right leaning outlets are included in the Drudge compilation. That is to say they also can stretch the truth.
Drudge is made up of a variety of news outlet stories. Most news outlets are not credible. So overall, phx8’s statement is correct.
I always look for the source. If a politician is reported to have said something I will look for a video of that politician saying it, or at least a quote. I believe the video more than a report including a quote. I would also find multiple reports and compare them to find commonalities. I would also try to find what is missing in major reports and see if they relate to the subject at hand.
In other words, don’t trust anything. Question everything. It’s not all what it’s presented as.
An afterthought, I have reason to believe we are not being told the fundamental story of why the pope resigned.
An exercise, look it up.
I’m always curious as to how you reconcile Laissez faire beliefs about regulation with the notion that business shouldn’t dictate policy.
I mean, the reality is, if you want the public good to be the primary driver of policy, you have to be capable of being willing to put some people out of business, or harm their bottom line. Government wields power over interstate commerce, so even sitting there and doing nothing is a policy.
The public good doesn’t all take care of itself. Where it doesn’t, where the policies of businesses out there fail to serve it, government has to step in. We have to decide, politically, as a nation that our first priority will be the welfare of the average person, their health, their ability to keep and maintain a level of prosperity, etc. It’s no coincidence that when we started deferring to the corporations in terms of public policy, in hopes that this would generate growth, prosperity, and more stable employment for us, that we started our generation-long decline.
We don’t have corpocracy, we have democracy where people have given up the initiative of self-determination. Undoing that is as simple as simply changing our minds about whose priorities we serve, and as complicated as unraveling all the different negative changes that have resulted over the last thirty years.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes? BY LUCK. Luck, in my opinion, is a terrible thing to rely upon in policy or politics. I don’t like to be right only by chance.
You could just as well explain the association you offer by looking at it as an expression of hostility towards America. It doesn’t have to be the cause in the change in policy, and unless you can produce something with better causal clarity than just, “what a coincidence”, you’re not gaining my trust here.
There are plenty of coincidences and correlations in the world every day. If we take all of them as face value evidence of something, you get some real absurdities.
I’m not saying it’s a fact, I’m simply stating a coincidence. I’m thinking outside the box. I didn’t expect you to take that comment and run with it. I’m just saying it may or may not be true that the U.S. manufactured the evidence against Iran with the “stolen” computer. I’m just saying it’s could be a coincidense that it happened around the time the Iranians stopped taking in the U.S. Dollar to pay for it’s crude oil. You can believe everything you hear, Stephen Daugherty, but are you hearing everything?
Thought that I would share a comment from another blog on the Syrian situation.
“Now I understand why Obama won the Noble Peace Prize, he has made the Republican party anti-war! That’s truly worthy of the prize!”
All things being equal, he’s made the Democratic Party a war party!
It just goes to show both parties are the same.
Well, not quite, Weary. There is significant opposition from the left wing of the Democratic party. But, your point is generally true in the sense that both parties reflexively oppose proposals of the other party.
Stephen, I see myself as a white knighter centrist. I resent the railroad barons and their SC lacky’s that fraudulently put corporate personhood on the books. I resent that congresspersons of yore have forever violated their oath of office by failing to observe Article V Convention, part II.
What about this latest info that corporations have been able to rewrite Dodd-Frank to change the ‘skin in the game’ factor from 20% to 0%? Do you believe that loans at zero percent played a big role in the mortgage crisis?
What do you think of McCain playing computer games while in a meeting discussing striking Syria? Well then, what about congresspersons spending half their (our) time dialing for dollars. You are probably aware of what is going on in Va. re Cunicilli and McDonald. Small potatoes, sure, but just as relevant, IMO.
In brief, we need a 3rd party, made impervious to the money influence to give us abolishment of corporate personhood law and REAL CFR. We need anti-trust to bust up the monopolies/conglomerates. We need a gov of, by and for the people rather than corpocracy.
Otherwise - - -
I do not believe the Framers wanted a constitutional convention to happen by default. I believe they wanted it to occur on purpose. I mean, just think for a second about what the point of such a constitutional convention would be. They’d be making proposals for rewriting the constitution that every state must abide by.
The very act of proposal puts out there possible changes that could get ratified eventually. The Framers obviously made that very difficult for Congress to achieve. I’d assume that applying the same standard (Two-Thirds) on both methods means they wanted a similar kind of majority before the event was in the offing.
And why not? It’s the consent of the states as a collective group we’re talking about here. It’s ironic, but though you want to deliver that power back to the states, you don’t really think like somebody of their time, you think like a modern American, in terms of the associations of the states.
The Framers went to a lot of trouble to ensure that every state ratified the Constitution, even prolonging the ratification process beyond that which was required in the document itself. You know why? So the nation would hang together by consensus, by common agreement.
So, looking back at this new constitutional convention, would it not be for the best for the states to all have the interest and stake in this process? If they don’t, it’s not going to have real public momentum behind it. The amendments will not have the public support they need to ultimately pass.
You’re too hasty, too impatient. You’re not looking at this in terms of the support you need, but in terms of the bright shining cause you see yourself as part of. Well, the constitution was designed to make it very difficult for people like you and I to just run roughshod over everybody else.
Stephen, I opt to put my faith behind the the Framer’s vs the Corpocracy.
Some have credited this pull back from the brink of war to the American Public. Others, claim it was nothing but a weak President’s failure to strike. Still others claim that it was a Russian leader’s interjection into the conflict that outsmarted the President. I believe that history will record this moment as a point where President Obama used skill, tact, timing, and deft diplomacy to preserve an important principle (the moral opprobrium regarding the use of chemical weapons) without firing a shot. President Obama has shown that he is not squeamish about using potent military options. This stridency by Obama in conflicts that more directly implicate America’s national security interest (e.g., getting Bin Laden, drone strikes, etc.), gave him credibility on this occasion. President Obama’s stated intention to strike was a virtual attack upon the Syrian dictator. Arguably, this attack set the stage for a cease fire, which has now been initiated. All of this happened without one shot being fired. The military conflict was all rhetorical, and the diplomatic solution more concrete. Touche, Mr. President; your gratuitous critics are grinding their teeth in despair. They so desperately wanted you to fail.
President Kennedy acted with a similar combination of resolute military strength and delicate diplomacy to avoid a nuclear war in 1962.
Ironically, the two nations that came to the brink of war in 1962 have joined together in 2013 to avoid war. This is a good thing.