The real reason we are going onto Syria.

[FaninAma]

Because the Fed money supply manipulation and its attempt to monetize the debt is running out of steam. The next play out the globalists playbook is to engage flailing economies in a war.

[yermom]

are the Syrians just that retarded? i mean really, while the weapons inspectors are already there?

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
This argument has been pushed by everybody from Karl Marx on through populists of the present day. If you really believe this, please do the following:

1. Look into the history of the country's foreign policy starting with Woodrow Wilson. Virtually everything from there up to WWII is in the public record. And most of the internal policy debates from WWII to 1980 or so are now public record. It's possible that pertinent material from the last 25 years is still classified, but much is in the open.
Try and find a shred of evidence that such considerations have ever been a part of foreign policy making.

2. Go to lectures at your local universities or otherwise seek out people who used to be involved in foreign policy making. Cultivate them a bit and ask them whether such considerations ever played a role in the discussions in which they were involved.

What you are going to find is that it has never been even discussed, much less formed a motivational factor in US foreign policy making. Ever. The argument relies on imputed motivations and yet all evidence we have shows most clearly that the individuals involved in making the policies and carrying them out never considered such things.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Because the Fed money supply manipulation and its attempt to monetize the debt is running out of steam. The next play out the Leftist playbook is to engage flailing economies in a war.
FIFY

[yermom]

W is a leftist now?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

42? Yes, 41? Probably.

[KantoSooner]

Archie Bunker? Leftist
George Wallace? Pinko
Grover Norquist? Comsimp
George Patton? Card carrying member, bygod.
Kaiser Wilhelm? Damn liberal.
Winston Churchill? weak kneed fellow traveler
Ronald Reagan? Union Boss
Barry Goldwater? fifth columnist
We're just eat up with traitorous filth around here.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, I wouldn't expect to find too much evidence of the policy prior to WWII. It is a recent development. In fact it is a lesson learned from the Great Depression and how the world really climbed out of that financial morass.

It was none other than 5 star general Dwight Eisenhower who warned us to be on guard against the military-industrial complex. It is also a recent development that we have borrowed ourselves almost into oblivion and have to engage in here-to-fore unprecedented monetary policy through the Fed and other central banks to try and prop up the economies around the world.

Globalism has its roots in Woodrow Wilson's administration with the establishment of a national bank but the philosophy didn't hit its stride until after WWII with the establishmemt of NATO, SEATO and and the UN coupled with financial agreements like the Bretton Woods agreement.

Economic stimulation isn't the only reason they like a constant state of war. It also allows them to use the excuse of national security to cover up their transgressions against civil liberties. Perpetual war was a central theme in the novel 1984.

And now we see an unholy alliance of neocons and liberal interventionists promoting this unending state of war.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/how-perpetual-war-became-us-ideology/238600/

I would for the sake of discussion mention that there is some opinion that certain well known families profited very handsomely from financing both sides of wars including our own Civil War. Does the name Rothschild ring a bell? http://rense.com/general78/brudt.htm

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, you're shifting on me. At first, you assert that we'll be headed off to war as a sequential step in some policy cabal's play book.
Bereft of evidence for this assertion, you now shift to some sort of play on the military/industrial complex and, one would assume, a 'systemic imperative' type of argument.
In addition to being doctrinally opposed (the former is an 'Instrumentalist' argument and the latter a 'Structuralist' one to use the Marxist terms), the two operate via very different mechanisms. 'Evidence' for the one is not for the other.

That Neocons and 'Interventionists' are in bed together is no great surprise; they both like 'Big' and they both like to assert the primacy of the smarty pants folks in government.
That being said, they both, like lots of bureaucrats before them, have a charming penchant for keeping records. So far, nothing in the records would indicate that they have anything that resembles a coherent plan for the future. Which kind of negates any argument that potential involvement in Syria is a step in any particular direction. I'd argue contra that our foreign policy concerning the current mess in Syria is, instead, very much evidence that our diplomats have a few major policy tenets they are trying to uphold (like discouraging chem weapon use) and otherwise don't know whether to **** or go blind. They're playing nighttime tennis with glow-in-the-dark handgrenades.
Maybe that's the best that can be expected for now. It's a pretty complex problem.
But I simply don't see any evidence of any conspiracy or hidden agendas.


Occam's Razor applies here, it seems to me: The simple explanation is the most likely.

[KantoSooner]

The Rothchild's money loaning to both side of numerous wars is well documented. That they did so, however, does not address whether that financing was causative or simply a VERY wealthy family taking advantage of the situation to make some good margins...and cover their *** (Jews in Europe have a well established desire to be looked upon with favor by whoever 'wins' a war. And they're not illogical in that desire.)

[FaninAma]

Fanin, you're shifting on me. At first, you assert that we'll be headed off to war as a sequential step in some policy cabal's play book.
Bereft of evidence for this assertion, you now shift to some sort of play on the military/industrial complex and, one would assume, a 'systemic imperative' type of argument.
In addition to being doctrinally opposed (the former is an 'Instrumentalist' argument and the latter a 'Structuralist' one to use the Marxist terms), the two operate via very different mechanisms. 'Evidence' for the one is not for the other.

That Neocons and 'Interventionists' are in bed together is no great surprise; they both like 'Big' and they both like to assert the primacy of the smarty pants folks in government.
That being said, they both, like lots of bureaucrats before them, have a charming penchant for keeping records. So far, nothing in the records would indicate that they have anything that resembles a coherent plan for the future. Which kind of negates any argument that potential involvement in Syria is a step in any particular direction. I'd argue contra that our foreign policy concerning the current mess in Syria is, instead, very much evidence that our diplomats have a few major policy tenets they are trying to uphold (like discouraging chem weapon use) and otherwise don't know whether to **** or go blind. They're playing nighttime tennis with glow-in-the-dark handgrenades.
Maybe that's the best that can be expected for now. It's a pretty complex problem.
But I simply don't see any evidence of any conspiracy or hidden agendas.


Occam's Razor applies here, it seems to me: The simple explanation is the most likely.

You have some very valid points. Perhaps those who profit from war simply await for inept governments to stumble into situations that lead to war and then they fan the flames and take advantage of this ineptitude ala the Rothschild family. (I inserted a link to this phenomenon after you had replied to my last post.)

i would at this point assert that the Rothschild family and their modern day derivatives are the consumate globalist policy promoters and the various governments around the world are their useful idiots.

[SoonerorLater]

War in an of itself in the modern sense is not a causative link to prosperity. War actually made more sense in those terms with the likes of Genghis Khan when they butchered their enemies, stole their women and looted their treasures. All we do now is go farther into debt and more money printing which I assume people think we would do to rev the economic engines. If we wanted to this we don't need to start a war only stir the pot so the politicians can sell the fear from the drumbeats of war.

[FaninAma]

But I do think war, especially in the current global economy, is used as a form of monetary stimulus as well as a pathway to enrich certain military industrial interests and lastly as a way to insure economic domination of the world's banking system by the US and their allies in Europe.

Saudi Arabia has pledged allegiance to the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency and in return the US protects the House of Saud's vast commodity resources while helping to keep them in power.

[yermom]

the country might get poor, but the Haliburtons of the world get rich

people make billions spending trillions of our tax dollars

[Blue]

But I do think war, especially in the current global economy, is used as a form of monetary stimulus as well as a pathway to enrich certain military industrial interests and lastly as a way to insure economic domination of the world's banking system by the US and their allies in Europe.

Saudi Arabia has pledged allegiance to the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency and in return the US protects the House of Saud's vast commodity resources while helping to keep them in power.

And it seems the enemies of "freedom" are those countries who refuse to play ball w/ the IMF. Libya, Iraq, Iran, Burma, N Korea etc...

[KantoSooner]

Examine your own assumptionis and conclusions. Make sure you have actual evidence. There are a lot of what I regard as unsupported allegations of motivation flying around here.
Not that we should get all bunched up about it; this is a chat board. But there's a whole world of interesting foreign policy stuff to discuss without having resort to conspiracy theory.

[REDREX]

The only reason we will do anything is because our idiot President drew a line in the sand and if he does not do something he will look even weaker-----He should have kept his mouth shut---------Which side do we want to win?-----Let them kill each other

[KantoSooner]

That's about it, Rex. To be fair, the majority of US presidents have done about the same during periods of hostility in the MidEast. But the operative point now is that it would not be prudent to allow Syria to publically ignore what a president says. The lesson has to be retaught: ignore a US president, lose your airforce, your military R&D and your power grid.

Looking on the bright side, if we go a bit heavy with the missiles, it will leave a valuable question in people's minds: If this is what a US President does to save face, what does he do when he gets seriously annoyed?

[diverdog]

That's about it, Rex. To be fair, the majority of US presidents have done about the same during periods of hostility in the MidEast. But the operative point now is that it would not be prudent to allow Syria to publically ignore what a president says. The lesson has to be retaught: ignore a US president, lose your airforce, your military R&D and your power grid.

Looking on the bright side, if we go a bit heavy with the missiles, it will leave a valuable question in people's minds: If this is what a US President does to save face, what does he do when he gets seriously annoyed?

Invades another country...see Iraq.

[KantoSooner]

It is amusing to note that Myanmar moved its entire capitol from the coast to a high mountain in the interior immediately after we flicked Saddam and the Taliban out.

[SoonerProphet]

But the operative point now is that it would not be prudent to allow Syria to publically ignore what a president says. The lesson has to be retaught:

Rather specious reasoning, at best. So this would be the first time a Prez had a lot of bark and little bite. Not buying it. Even more indefensible to to bluster and kill people knowing that it will change absolutely nothing on the ground.

[SoonerProphet]

Invades another country...see Iraq.

Or beat a hasty retreat when 200+ Marines are killed. What kind or irrationality drives the thought process when you think something bad will happen somewhere else when a vague threat by a president isn't backed up. Sounds like Tony Soprano.

[KantoSooner]

Your comment, Prophet, might be more compelling if the subject matter of the president's 'red line' wasn't chemical weapons/WMD.
It seems beyond controversy to me that a president would caution another leader to 'Not go there' with chemical weapons and then exact a price if that warning was defied. Further, how else do people reason except to observe what has happened in like circumstances in the past? The next tinpot dictator who wants to off a troublesome minority might very well be persuaded not to by the example of Assad taking a shot to the gut.
You can call it irrational, but that's the way the world works.

[SoonerProphet]

Your comment, Prophet, might be more compelling if the subject matter of the president's 'red line' wasn't chemical weapons/WMD.
It seems beyond controversy to me that a president would caution another leader to 'Not go there' with chemical weapons and then exact a price if that warning was defied. Further, how else do people reason except to observe what has happened in like circumstances in the past? The next tinpot dictator who wants to off a troublesome minority might very well be persuaded not to by the example of Assad taking a shot to the gut.
You can call it irrational, but that's the way the world works.

First of all it seems the entire premise of the debate is open, whether Assad used weapons or not remains a bit unclear. Just because some "journalists" have taken flight with these reports does not offer up proof. It is controversial because it violates basic ideas of sovereignty, in addition to that, we virtually cheered on Saddam when he gassed the Persians in the 80's. That might address your point about past circumstances as well. As for others shaking at American power, yeah, NK and Iran backed down with our useless invasion of Iraq now didn't they. You see what it got Qaddafi as well, he relented to the West and ended up on the wrong side of a gun.

[pphilfran]

Journalists?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3825075.html

HOUSTON -- Vice President Joe Biden says there is no doubt that Syrian President Bashar Assad's (bah-SHAR' AH'-sahd) government is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons.

Biden's comments Tuesday make him the highest-ranking U.S. official to say the Syrian regime is the culprit in a large-scale chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Biden says the Syrian government is the only actor in the 2-year civil war that possesses and can deliver chemical weapons. He says Assad has blocked U.N. investigators from the site and has been bombing it for days.

The White House says President Barack Obama hasn't settled on how to respond to the attack. The Pentagon says U.S. military forces are ready to strike Syria if Obama gives the order.

Biden spoke at the American Legion's national convention.

[SoonerProphet]

Journalists?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3825075.html

HOUSTON -- Vice President Joe Biden says there is no doubt that Syrian President Bashar Assad's (bah-SHAR' AH'-sahd) government is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons.

Biden's comments Tuesday make him the highest-ranking U.S. official to say the Syrian regime is the culprit in a large-scale chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Biden says the Syrian government is the only actor in the 2-year civil war that possesses and can deliver chemical weapons. He says Assad has blocked U.N. investigators from the site and has been bombing it for days.

The White House says President Barack Obama hasn't settled on how to respond to the attack. The Pentagon says U.S. military forces are ready to strike Syria if Obama gives the order.

Biden spoke at the American Legion's national convention.

Yep, journalists, these court jesters do little research and simply parrot government talking points. Cannot think of one major news source that even postulates a modicum of doubt in the whole WMD embroglio, just fear mongering and sensationalism, par for the course really.

[KantoSooner]

Prophet,
It's a human enterprise. It's not perfect. Neither is any opposing option, either. As for historic precedents, try Munich. Rainbows, unicorns and happy talk did not do too much for CzechoSlovak, or Polish sovereignty.
NK is quite influenced by what goes on in the world. Kim is not insane. While he's a pain in the ***, our diplomacy with China (including such things are our strategic realignment to focue the military on Asia, Japan's launch of an ICBM capable rocket and the demonstration of our willingness to use our military) put enough pressure on Kim to zip up before he hurt himself.

Saddam had gas. He used it. It was one of many reasons that we ultimately removed him from the game. Remember the whole 'WMD' argument? He did, indeed, possess them. And he used them. And he paid.

I'm all for sovereignty, but we are not required to wait to be hit before acting. Sorry if that displeases you;happythat you're not the president in this case.

I'm all for waiting until we know for sure. The thing is, I think we do, already. I don't think we intend on sharing that information, or how we gained it, with the general public. Boo hoo, the bad old intelligence community won't explain chapter and verse to the entire world. What we're engaged in now is building a public case, hopefully with as much third party 'proof' as possible. In the meantime, Assad might just back down, drop dead, move to Iran or something that would obviate the need of chastening him.

[SoonerProphet]

Prophet,
It's a human enterprise. It's not perfect. Neither is any opposing option, either. As for historic precedents, try Munich. Rainbows, unicorns and happy talk did not do too much for CzechoSlovak, or Polish sovereignty.
NK is quite influenced by what goes on in the world. Kim is not insane. While he's a pain in the ***, our diplomacy with China (including such things are our strategic realignment to focue the military on Asia, Japan's launch of an ICBM capable rocket and the demonstration of our willingness to use our military) put enough pressure on Kim to zip up before he hurt himself.

Saddam had gas. He used it. It was one of many reasons that we ultimately removed him from the game. Remember the whole 'WMD' argument? He did, indeed, possess them. And he used them. And he paid.

I'm all for sovereignty, but we are not required to wait to be hit before acting. Sorry if that displeases you;happythat you're not the president in this case.

I'm all for waiting until we know for sure. The thing is, I think we do, already. I don't think we intend on sharing that information, or how we gained it, with the general public. Boo hoo, the bad old intelligence community won't explain chapter and verse to the entire world. What we're engaged in now is building a public case, hopefully with as much third party 'proof' as possible. In the meantime, Assad might just back down, drop dead, move to Iran or something that would obviate the need of chastening him.

Don't feed me that appeasement bull**** about Munich and good ol' Neville, that is revisionist clap trap. If the French had a military, stable government, hadn't lost a generation in combat, etc...things might have been different.

Yeah, or the fact that his people were about to starve to death might have changed his tune. Does not change the fact huffing and puffing has in fact not blown the house down. You can wiggle around it all you want, threats of force have done nothing in NK or Iran to change their tunes. I don't think a punch in the gut to Assad would make the Persian raise the white flag.

Surely you jest regarding Saddam and his wmd. I think most sane discourse has moved beyond that as a rationale for war in Iraq. He was removed because of the PNAC crowd and their woeful ignorance of how the world actually works.

Has Assad threatened to "hit" us, again this discussion sounds eerily familiar. Doomed to repeat and whatnot. I certain the likes of Neibuhr & Aquinas have talked about just war theory and I am doubtful as it applies in regards to those big bad Syrians.

Considering how utterly f*cked the last intel assessment was I think they owe us a little.

[KantoSooner]

Prophet,
NK has in fact been contained in its ambitions, for 60 years now. The huffing and puffing as you call it, has worked and has prevented open war there allowing SK to turn into a pretty successful country.

As to the rest of your 'observations', you're entitled to your opinion. Everybody's got one. Suggest you reread history re Munich. Short version: I'm right, you're wrong.

Empty threats don't work. Credible threats do. Every organized nation on earth has its military councils and the like. They give the ultimate deicion maker their opinions. Convince them that a) you will act and, b)that your actions will hurt them and they're likely to advise against whatever might cause the threat to be realized. Not proof against a mad man, but those are mostly self limiting.

Just War theory includes protection of the innocent. Pretty fundamental part of Aquinas. Niebuhr was a bit pacifist to have many compelling opinions on the matter.

And, finally, no our intelligence community owes you jack squat. They owe the duly elected representatives their best assessments. Assessments that are routinely screwed around with by two bong hit congress people and then replayed as 'they gave us the wrong information.'

You'll note that I am on record as opposing any military action in Syria. I do, however, think we have adequate grounds for a punitive missile strike and it will bother me not in the least if we go for one. I would like a bit more ground prep in terms of global opinion first.

Foreign relations is a full contact sport and some players engage in eye gouging. It is salutary to smash them in the face from time to time.

[FaninAma]

I'm all for Obama and his state department engaging in all the huffing and puffing they want. I draw the line at spilling any more blood in the region. The last time I heard the color of the blood of Saudi, Kuwaiti and Turkish military personnel was the same color as that of our military personnel.

[cleller]

Don't feed me that appeasement bull**** about Munich and good ol' Neville, that is revisionist clap trap. If the French had a military, stable government, hadn't lost a generation in combat, etc...things might have been different.



Sorry, but I gotta say it:

Those Frog Eaters would have needed all the above plus Napoleon's magic lantern, Alexander's elephants, and photon torpedoes to keep the Nazis from mowing them down.

[SoonerProphet]

Prophet,
NK has in fact been contained in its ambitions, for 60 years now. The huffing and puffing as you call it, has worked and has prevented open war there allowing SK to turn into a pretty successful country.

Not sure if you are moving the goal posts on me or not, but here it goes, I didn't think containment was part of the discussion, thought it was deterrence. We have not been successful in deterring the Iranians or NK from curtailing a nuclear program, nor have our actions deterred them from pursuing a forpol we wish to affect. I agree we have kept them in a box, but one could agree the need to contain either.


As to the rest of your 'observations', you're entitled to your opinion. Everybody's got one. Suggest you reread history re Munich. Short version: I'm right, you're wrong.

Have read plenty, if you think the Soviets, French, and/or British were in any position to contain the Nazi's, or even the Wehrmacht and industrial classes, from 36-39 you haven't read enough. A European war gonna go down not amount of bluster could stop it and I have serious reservations about the ability to check the moves into the Saar, the Anschluss, or you name it, the military question would have been in doubt.


Empty threats don't work. Credible threats do. Every organized nation on earth has its military councils and the like. They give the ultimate deicion maker their opinions. Convince them that a) you will act and, b)that your actions will hurt them and they're likely to advise against whatever might cause the threat to be realized. Not proof against a mad man, but those are mostly self limiting.

Iraq


Just War theory includes protection of the innocent. Pretty fundamental part of Aquinas. Niebuhr was a bit pacifist to have many compelling opinions on the matter.

The issue of who attacked who and the like is open to debate, CIA intel or not. Our innocent's protection is not in doubt, by attacking you open our innocents to a justified attack, don't think JWT applies.


And, finally, no our intelligence community owes you jack squat. They owe the duly elected representatives their best assessments. Assessments that are routinely screwed around with by two bong hit congress people and then replayed as 'they gave us the wrong information.'

You'll note that I am on record as opposing any military action in Syria. I do, however, think we have adequate grounds for a punitive missile strike and it will bother me not in the least if we go for one. I would like a bit more ground prep in terms of global opinion first.

Foreign relations is a full contact sport and some players engage in eye gouging. It is salutary to smash them in the face from time to time.

I appreciate the arguments you have made here and on other threads regarding the efficacy of clandestine operations. I happen to agree with many of the arguments you have made along those lines. You are correct, they have a duty to a perform a job in what is often the gutters human existence and are afforded certain "obligations" to service and duty. However, when trying to make the case to attack a sovereign state they do have a responsibility, the Russians are already pushing back on the intel as well. These decision don't happen in a vacuum and I agree the policy makers often don't gas what I think. So if Hezbollah opens up, or the Russians and Chinese react in the negative, or other blowback occurs, which it will, we will have to ask ourselves if it was worth it to lob a few cruise missiles to prove what we mean.

[soonercruiser]

More evidence of the uselessness of the UN!
:grumpy:

[8timechamps]

Sometimes I think Fanin's views are a little extreme, but I have to say I think there may very well be some validity to this.

I've racked my brain to try and understand why, now, the US feels the need to get involved. Before you say "because they used chemical weapons", I'll say that this is not the first time Syria or Assad has used them. We, as a country, stand to gain NOTHING from either a drawn out campaign or a remote missile strike.

Maybe this has nothing to do with the fed, and the current market issue, but it's as good a reason as any that I've heard.

[FaninAma]

Sometimes I think Fanin's views are a little extreme, but I have to say I think there may very well be some validity to this.

I've racked my brain to try and understand why, now, the US feels the need to get involved. Before you say "because they used chemical weapons", I'll say that this is not the first time Syria or Assad has used them. We, as a country, stand to gain NOTHING from either a drawn out campaign or a remote missile strike.

Maybe this has nothing to do with the fed, and the current market issue, but it's as good a reason as any that I've heard.

If our involvement in Syria stops at wasting a few hundred million bucks on cruise missiles and establishing a no fly zone then I've misread the situation. If our involvement escalates then I think my assertion has a lot if validity.

[diverdog]

The only reason we will do anything is because our idiot President drew a line in the sand and if he does not do something he will look even weaker-----He should have kept his mouth shut---------Which side do we want to win?-----Let them kill each other

I agree with you Rex. Congress needs to start doing its job. The Constitution is very clear on how war is declared. The problem is that Obama has boxed himself in a corner.

[KantoSooner]

Prophet,
Sorry to confuse the issue by using 'containment' which was meant in the sense of constraining and not in the technical sense of Kennan's policy. Sloppy choice of words. That said, I still hold that NK has changed their actions on numerous occaisions in response to our credible threats.

To the example of 'Munich', I offer the memoirs of 'Smiling' Al Kesselring one of Hitler's seniors Generals who reported that Hitler himself never expected more out of Munich than to be allowed to keep what he already had without threat of military action. Don't forget that he picked up more than 18 divisions of hard to come by armor when he got Czechoslovakia. The German army crica Munich was not the Wehrmacht of September, 1939.

As to Iraq, I remind you that I excluded 'manmen' from the calculus. By the time the Iran/Iraq war ended, so had Saddam's nooding acquaintance with objective reality. It is also true that there was great questioning throughout the world regarding the credibiity of our threats. No one thought we'd actually use our military to fight anyone other than the Soviets in an armageddon setting.

I find the Russian pushback on the intel to be no more than gamesmanship. Syria is their last foothold in the region and they're loath to see it go. They also draw some sheer enjoyment out of watching us squirm a bit. Putin could be looking at KGB reports that show culpability for gas attacks with Assad's personal signature and he'd be doing no differently than he's doing now.

Not to be tedious, but I do not favor any action in Syria. If, however, we decide to 'do something', the only rational thing to do is cruise missiles, and we have, I believe a solid case for taking that action and can gain some kind of long term benefit from doing it.

[soonercruiser]

Military and International talking heads are saying that the Israelis actually intercepted a high up Syrian communication where a commander in the field was being cursed in Arabic for having acted on his own (can't be "her own") for having used the weapons.

The implication is that this confirmed use of the nerve agent; but brings into question who is responsible.

So, I guess we'll be seeing Assad turn over a field general to the UN for violating the Geneva Convention.
(sarcasm)

[diverdog]

Military and International talking heads are saying that the Israelis actually intercepted a high up Syrian communication where a commander in the field was being cursed in Arabic for having acted on his own (can't be "her own") for having used the weapons.

The implication is that this confirmed use of the nerve agent; but brings into question who is responsible.

So, I guess we'll be seeing Assad turn over a field general to the UN for violating the Geneva Convention.
(sarcasm)

i wouldn't trust Israeli intelligence with my poop.

[FaninAma]

Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT makes me think that there will be a chemical attack on Israel in the near future if the rebels become desperate. I do think they have some of Assad's chemical weapons in their possession.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria?page=3

[8timechamps]

Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT makes me think that there will be a chemical attack on Israel in the near future if the rebels become desperate. I do think they have some of Assad's chemical weapons in their possession.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria?page=3

I've been waiting for a "rebel" group to launch a strike on Israel for the past week or so (since this really got heated). I too believe there are rebel groups in possession of chemical weapons, and they will use them.

[FaninAma]

I've been waiting for a "rebel" group to launch a strike on Israel for the past week or so (since this really got heated). I too believe there are rebel groups in possession of chemical weapons, and they will use them.

The risk increases for such an attack the more desperate the rebels get. With the developments of the last 24 hours it appears Russia is in the driver's seat in this situation which means their lackey, Assad, will likely survive the civil war. I think this causes the opposition to get really desperate in their efforts to bring in outside forces.

[soonercruiser]

Journalists?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3825075.html

HOUSTON -- Vice President Joe Biden says there is no doubt that Syrian President Bashar Assad's (bah-SHAR' AH'-sahd) government is responsible for the heinous use of chemical weapons.

Biden's comments Tuesday make him the highest-ranking U.S. official to say the Syrian regime is the culprit in a large-scale chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Biden says the Syrian government is the only actor in the 2-year civil war that possesses and can deliver chemical weapons. He says Assad has blocked U.N. investigators from the site and has been bombing it for days.

The White House says President Barack Obama hasn't settled on how to respond to the attack. The Pentagon says U.S. military forces are ready to strike Syria if Obama gives the order.

Biden spoke at the American Legion's national convention.

Hey!
Why doesn't Joe Bite Me go over to the Middle East a shoot a shotgun in the air a few times?
Think Assad would be sceered?
:lemo: