Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Tchocky]

Huh, thought it was less

In any case - going to war for oil doesn't make any sort of sense. Wars are expensive, messy, and blunt. The increased ME tension chucks an instability premium into the market (fungible!), wiping out any benefits you might get from the war (murky at best!).

[Platapus]

I agree. I was being facetious/cynical about the oil being our motivation.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

No, Clinton blatantly lied, all he had to do was said he had a personal failure but he lied, remember his famous "I did not have sexual relations" bit?

Oh dear, there must be a reason why in Europe America has the reputation of being an extremely prudish country. Drowning another country in blood is okay, getting own soldiers killed in wars lied over is forgivable as well - but if some stupid female singer causes a nipplegate or a politician is too ashamed for having his sex life on page one of the newspaper as if he would simply turn to the camera and show is best piece to the photographers - that is a scandal that promises to become one of the biggest stains on the historys of the shiny white nation.

A Clintonian lie about a sexual embarassement that was a very minor one and in the first affected only three people: him, his wife, his secretary, and Bushian lies leading to war and thousands of US soldiers killed, and billions of dollars sunk in pointlessly claimed lies again; or Nixonian lies like before and after Watergate - I think that are lies from two totally different space-time-continuums.

What Clinton did, one could laugh about. You cannot say that about Bush's and Nixon's "missteps".

Marlon Brando's philosophizing in Apocalypse Now on my mind...

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I agree. I was being facetious/cynical about the oil being our motivation.

Silly me

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

No, Clinton blatantly lied, all he had to do was said he had a personal failure but he lied, remember his famous "I did not have sexual relations" bit?

Yes, he lied about getting laid. That was a moral mistake. Why is that anyone else's business? The very fact that he was questioned under oath about that is proof that it was indeed a witch-hunt. "We can't nail him for doing anything illegal, so lets attack his morals." What a joke. The Republicans made themselves look particularly stupid with that one.

did it warrant impeachment? eh maybe, nothing near what obama has done though.

Specifics, please. All your accusations mean nothing if there is no actual evidence. If there was actual evidence you can be sure there would be people in congress trying it.

I do have an idea of what I am talking about.

Who are you trying to convince? Me, or yourself? Show facts. Anything else is idle boasting.

I did not say McCarthy was a great guy but it turns out his basis for his campaign was correct, there was then a communist/left wing radical cancer spreading in our government and other parts of society.McCarthy's personal issues and overzealousness ruined him and made what was a legitimate effort to weed out political vermin and a danger to our country.

What cancer? Again, evidence is required. McCarthy threw broad accusations around, but he never once showed an actual incident that he could prove. Not one. The same happended with the "Lavender Scare", when McCarthy said he had lists of homosexuals within the government. At the very worst Joe McCarthy was a monster. At the very least he was a jackass.

Unfortunately, since he failed people have convinced themselves there are no real communist radicals who present a danger, just americans with different views, plus they took the name "progressive" over and waited a few decades, patiently growning.

He couldn't prove his accusations. Now you claim they were true. Do you have proof?

What we have in the government, academia and entertainment today is the result of this cancer not being treated but going undetected long enough to metastasize , now there may be going back.

While I agree with some of your summations, your use of sensationalist rhetoric puts you in the same class as him. He failed because he could not prove even one of his claims. He wasn't talking about wrong-minded people taking the wrong path, he was talking about actual subversion. You really don't want to take his side of things.

McCarthy was a flawed man who did so bad things, but he was right, history has vindicated him in that regards, even bad people can be correct on things.

How exactly has history vindicated him? He was a sensation-monger then and nothing has changed.

[Tchocky]

You're forgetting the Communist takeover of the State Department in the early sixties.

There's that portrait of Lenin in Foggy Bottom if you don't believe me.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

You're forgetting the Communist takeover of the State Department in the early sixties.

There's that portrait of Lenin in Foggy Bottom if you don't believe me.

[mookiemookie]

More money down the drain. This is ridiculous.

Little did we know we were getting Bush 2, Electric Boogaloo.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I am starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists have it right. If your bored, here's a 14 minute video made a year ago that play's connect the dots in a dramatic fashion, and perhaps morbidly entertaining to watch.



I passively linked to this video few pages ago, but since im bored i'll point it out directly. I have to give the author of this video some credit. Even if watching this with the metaphorical grain of salt (or the entire damn salt shaker), he seems plays connect the dots quite well. What I note is that it was made a year ago and seems to be somewhat accurate on current events. That said, it's still conspiracy theory. Even if it's not, there's not much to be done at this point except sit back and watch events unfold and hope for the best.

I haven't finished watching the video yet, but it's plausible. Still a conspiracy theory, like you say, but a very well researched and presented one. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I do all conspiracy theories, and, like you say, even if it isn't one then there's not a great deal us little people can do.
In my opinion we are seeing the end of the American empire, it may culminate in a big war or it may come peacefully, but it is definitely coming. The 20th century was Americas century, the US had the prime spot from the early 1900s onwards, entering WWI at the closing stages so that the manpower bleed in the meatgrinder wasn't servere enough to cause economic problems in peacetime, and managing to get through all of WWII with scarcely a single bomb dropped on the industrial heartland, meanwhile Europe and Japan were both smashed into pieces through conflict and industrial centers turned into ruins. This has given the US a big advantage and it has taken it and run with it, but since the fall of Rome an Empire can scant last more than a century and we are seeing the transition take place. Before America, it was Britain that held that spot, from the early 1800s through to the end, we defeated the French, humbled other European powers and went all colonial on most of Southern Africa, and then we hit the brick wall that was World War One, and that was the end of our Empire. Before us, I would say that France held the spot, but then lost it in the bloody revolution of the late 1700s, and before France, I would have to say it was the Dutch, the 1600s are traditionally known as the Dutch Golden Age, and before them, probably the Holy Roman Empire, before the Thirty Years war blunted them. Before the HRE it was the Italians, and before them it was likely somewhere in Eastern Asia or South-Eastern Asia while Europe lingered in the Dark ages. At some point in between you have the Byzantines as a candidate, but we all know what happened to them.

Sad to say that most downfalls of Empires do occur around a drastic event, one can hope, if this should be the end of Americas century, that the drastic event was 9/11 and that there will be no more events of mass casualties, but I do fear that this will not be the case.
In terms of who the 21st century belongs to...hard to say, probably either South America, China or the Middle East. The next decade or two will tell.

[Packlife]

First to the guy talking about Obama using drones on US citizens, yup your right he did but that US citizen wasn't little susy playin hopscotch, the "citizen" was a man who denounced America an picked up the Al-Qaeda flag an went from making rhetoric videos then moved up to planning attacks. A traitor is a traitor then again maybe we should of invaded that country so we could give a traitor due process.

An sympathy for Bush?? Sure but only for 9/11 but Iraq was a total farce, Colin Powel was told by Georges people oh yeah its solid intel dont worry we got ya back, 10 years later no WMD, if anybody should of been impeached it was Bush for Iraq an sending the economy on a 1 way trip to hell.

Now replying to Skybird. Saying that the Free Syrian Army is more on our side is not an assumption, it's well known they're probably 1 of the only allies we'd have. An your assumption that most of the Syrian people want a more Sharia law style extremist country is kind of correct but not fully, there just happends to be more of those groups mostly due to groups like Al-Qaeda coming in an influencing it. Many of the Syrian ppl who support Assad only support him because they're scared of the extremists, even one of the FSA commanders said that would be the primary concern should Assad fully fall of extremists taking over.

And I'm not underestimating their
air defense I simply went off what a Syrian official told 1 off CNN's reporters that their defenses are not as great as they once were, an that official even said they wouldn't be able to put up a strong resistance to US air power if an when it does come. The Serb's might of been able to pull something like that off, but it's a little harder to build multiple fake airfields full of fake jets etc since Assad's troops have their hands full w/ the rebels.

An yeah the rebels are using the propaganda machine well, but this is what caught my attention, the rebels show the videos of gas victims, Assad has not why hasn't he if its the rebels who are doing all the gassing?? The only type of propaganda Assad has tried to use tying rebels to the gas attacks was a video on the state sponsored news showing a room w/ a couple mortar rounds that looked like normal mortar rounds a bucket w/ some white powder in it an that was about it, I just think it's weird that Assad hasn't released any videos like the rebels. No I don't have illusions about the Syrian rebels, the ones on our side are the few an the ones on the extremist are the many, I've never said otherwise.

An no their style of democracy isnt like ours, but then again no other democratic country is like our's either but we didnt come out of our revolution the democracy we are today, hell took something like 10 years before all 13 colonies would sign an ratify the constitution.

An for Muslim's whose religion plays a huge part in their lives you can bet it will play a part in their democracies an there's nothing wrong w/ that. Now the fact that there are more extremists then "good" guys proves the point in my previous post, we can stand by an do nothing an Al-Qaeda will have a new home to plan attacks on the US an they'll have plenty of chemical weapons to do it. But Obama doesn't want to tip the scales so that's mostly a mute point I guess.

But I think most of these arguments get away from the main point an why were even considering/about to strike Assad. I believe he is the 1 who used chemical weapons, if it was the other way around I think it would be him putting out video's of dead soldiers etc the lack of him doing this when it's been reported that he loves propaganda hint's he is guilty, plus it's not just a coincidence that right after some rebels tried to take him out a week or so ago more gas attacks followed. You can look at his progression from arresting, to beating, to shooting, to shelling an bombing into a full out military operations against his own people is it so much a leap that he would use his chemical weapons against them he's used almost everything else. At the base of this is that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime has been for just about 100 years, an I don't think its right to just stand by an let him do it, not to mention it makes us look weak to Iran, if we do nothing why would Iran have any reason to take us serious about not allowing them to build nukes. Like somebody said earlier this Syrian civil war is also a proxy war between Israel an the US vs Iran.

[Packlife]

Who in their right mind would move the UN headquarters to Russia?? Russia is not a diplomatic government they have a longggggggggg list of human rights violations, ppl over here were upset by water boarding, water boarding is childs play in comparison to what the Ruskies do to ppl. During their war w/ Chechnya it came out that a few apartment bombings were not carried out by Chechen rebels but by the group the replaced the KGB. An Russia has not been diplomatic about Syria, they make money off Syria that's why they'll vote no every time in the UN if a yes means they lose money, regardless of the situation.

[Feuer Frei!]

Not much happening until after Saturday it seems:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will receive a report on Saturday from weapons inspectors investigating an apparent Syrian chemical attack.

SOURCE

29 August 2013 Last updated at 11:38 GMT

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Not much happening until after Saturday it seems

We hope.

The BBCs Jeremy Bowen is in Damascus and is tweeting away:

https://twitter.com/BowenBBC

There is a level of anxiety in Damascus ahead of the likely strikes, the black market is thriving and military facilities are being evacuated.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes, he lied about getting laid. That was a moral mistake. Why is that anyone else's business? The very fact that he was questioned under oath about that is proof that it was indeed a witch-hunt. "We can't nail him for doing anything illegal, so lets attack his morals." What a joke.

If I remember right, the questioning under oath was related to a sexual harassment case.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Oberon

We hope.

The BBCs Jeremy Bowen is in Damascus and is tweeting away:

https://twitter.com/BowenBBC

There is a level of anxiety in Damascus ahead of the likely strikes, the black market is thriving and military facilities are being evacuated.

A dead give-away will be when they start pulling out the weapons inspectors.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a start is imminent.