Chemical Weapons

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The cost of oil' date=' and the supply of oil, is controlled by Saudi Arabia. I doubt action would matter other than a nice pretence for companies to put the prices up on consumers.[/quote']

 

I'll have to reply a bit later as I'm just getting set to go out for a bite to eat, back a bit later.

 

Oil prices would be fucked if Syria and Iran started fucking with the Hormuz strait and setting oil fields ablaze. Could do some serious damage.

[Stu Monty]

I'll have to reply a bit later as I'm just getting set to go out for a bite to eat, back a bit later.

 

Oil prices would be fucked if Syria and Iran started fucking with the Hormuz strait and setting oil fields ablaze. Could do some serious damage.

 

Actually, you're probably right there, SA aren't going to turn the taps on to keep the flow. My understanding is that the amount you can pump is basically decided by them. If you try to go over it they turn on the taps of their massive fucking reserves and the price drops and it hurts. Something Chavez learnt to his cost early doors apparently.

[Red Phoenix]

Nope, there are two oil pipelines in Syria, and one of them - the Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline - stopped working when the Yanks fucked it up a decade ago when attacking Iraq and hasn't been flowing since then. The other - the Trans-Arabian pipeline - skirts the Golan Heights, which is Israeli occupied. I've been trying to get Vlad to back up his assertion that the US 'want to go into Syria to protect the oil pipelines', because there's no real basis for it.

 

I'm not talking about actual pipelines, I see what you meant by non-existent now. They're proposed pipelines!

 

If anyone has access to the Financial Times, this is supposed to be on there :

 

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

 

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

 

In dozens of interviews with the FT conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.

 

Why would they invest that type of cash if they're not planning on getting something significant from it in the long run?

 

Link is here, fucking paywalls! Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms - FT.com

 

Here's the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, but again, another paywall with one link, this time Wall Street Journal. (This is happening because I'm trying to find what I think you'd consider acceptable sources) : Iraq, Iran, Syria Sign $10 Billion Gas-Pipeline Deal - WSJ.com

 

Other source : Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

[Code]

I wish somebody would tell me what stories I've swallowed. I've asked this before, but nobody seems to want to answer. Nor have they answered several other questions. What pipelines are they trying to protect, vlad?

 

I guess you thought Iraq had WMD as well, did you not?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Actually, you're probably right there, SA aren't going to turn the taps on to keep the flow. My understanding is that the amount you can pump is basically decided by them. If you try to go over it they turn on the taps of their massive fucking reserves and the price drops and it hurts. Something Chavez learnt to his cost early doors apparently.

 

Yeah. You'd think if the West had been smart, they'd just have 'taken' countries like Saudi Arabia rather than selling them ace weaponry. I mean, if you're going to slaughter kids, you might as well slaughter the ones that give you a genuine advantage and trillions in revenue.

 

I guess you thought Iraq had WMD as well, did you not?

 

Something like that, Code.

[BCM]

I think you have to be a bit niaive to think otherwise.

 

The US along with the UK (and other countries) have spent years in training many other countries security (Syria and Libya for recent arguments sake), Army, police and medical services. They have ploughed money.

 

While setting up these contracts they get in with a lower level ranking hierarchy than your national leader. They work with these people bribing them with the fruits of labour of they go with the American/British way of how to do things.

 

While all this is going on, arms are being supplied to the rebels in preparation for a government/dictator overhaul. As we have the fellas out of the leaders circle of trust on our side, it becomes easier to infiltrate and get the regime change sorted.

 

Let's make no bones about this, the US believes that their way is the right way. They hide under the blanket of 'One world' but let's be frank, it is not about that, it is about getting their claws into an area that does not comply with the western's capitalist view of the world. Plus there is oil in that region, which they will undoubtedly want more access and control over.

 

This is all based on greed, they had Assad on their side for years and when he decided not to play ball on how the US wanted him to they set the ball rolling. The same with Libya, Gaddaffi had become older and more mental, playing right in to the US's hands. The beauty about that for them was, they didn't have to take him out, they let the rebels who they armed and supplied weapons to do it, therefore washing their hands of any involvement. But they just play the terrorism card as the reason for being involved.

 

Middle Eastern countries would not want to bomb us or the US if we didn't stick our nose in places where it's values of capitalism are not wanted.

 

I agree with every single word of that.

[BCM]

Bumped into someone i know, who works on the pipelines in Libya, had to be rescued by the Special forces with Hercules planes when the war kicked off over there. Had not seen him for 3 years.

Is now back over there and says its a lot worse over there now. Militia rule in large parts of the country, he says they are ok where they are because they are fenced in and have private security which are usually ex special forces soldiers.

 

Just found this too, something that really unsettles you when you see US/UK looking to attack another country

 

Special report: We all thought Libya had moved on – it has, but into lawlessness and ruin - Africa - World - The Independent

[Delmar]

Something like that, Code.

 

That made me smile...

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The senate committee have approved use of force against Syria.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That made me smile...

 

There are times when you just think... nah, can't even do it.

 

The senate committee have approved use of force against Syria.

 

Now for the u-turn from the British government.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

There are times when you just think... nah, can't even do it.

 

 

 

Now for the u-turn from the British government.

The debate is live now heres a link to the guardian report live from it.

Syria crisis: Senate committee approves authorization of use of force - live | World news | theguardian.com

[Coro]

I don't understand the conspiracy theory accusations. Question everything to do with this especially given US history of invading countries using false information.

 

The UN says there is evidence (testimony from Syrian refugees) of rebels having used chemical weapons. If both sides are guilty of using these weapons how is it possible to support US led military action against just the regime?

 

Can't help but think it's just a continuation of this -

 

Statement of Principles

 

 

 

June 3, 1997

 

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

 

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

 

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

 

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

 

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

 

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

 

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

 

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

 

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

 

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

 

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

 

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

 

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

 

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

 

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

 

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

 

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

 

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[Nightcat]

I don't understand the conspiracy theory accusations. Question everything to do with this especially given US history of invading countries using false information.

 

The UN says there is evidence (testimony from Syrian refugees) of rebels having used chemical weapons. If both sides are guilty of using these weapons how is it possible to support US led military action against just the regime?

 

 

But, you are thinking way too rationally and critically, for a world full of Venticincos.

 

The senate committee have approved use of force against Syria.

 

Have they? Now I'm shocked. No one was expecting that outcome.

[BCM]

90 days to bomb chemical dumps, must be a lot of them

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

But, you are thinking way too rationally and critically, for a world full of Venticincos.

 

 

 

Have they? Now I'm shocked. No one was expecting that outcome.

So now we shall see if America wants to get anything from this attack as it still dosent have UN backing.

If they go ahead without that backing then yes there is more to this.

I dont think they will without UN backing as compared to every other time America wants something they just use the war on terror to do it.

Exactly like they could do with Syria but havent.

[Red Phoenix]

Now for the u-turn from the British government.

 

Probably not just yet. If it happens though, get ready for something "coming to light" over the next week or two that will "change Cameron's stance" on the whole issue. I can see it possibly happening too.

[Red Phoenix]

90 days to bomb chemical dumps, must be a lot of them

 

As far as I know they can't simply bomb chemical weapons dumps because of risk of dispersal of the chemical weapons into the atmosphere, which could clearly cause a massive loss of life and totally screw everything up for their plans. What they are apparently talking about though according to at least a couple of outlets is trying to target buildings where the weapons are in their early stages of being made, or something, so they're not anywhere near as potent in the atmosphere. The whole thing sounds insane to me though and I've not even followed that up yet, am still trying to get a decent picture of what the background to this whole thing is.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

As far as I know they can't simply bomb chemical weapons dumps because of risk of dispersal of the chemical weapons into the atmosphere, which could clearly cause a massive loss of life and totally screw everything up for their plans. What they are apparently talking about though according to at least a couple of outlets is trying to target buildings where the weapons are in their early stages of being made, or something, so they're not anywhere near as potent in the atmosphere. The whole thing sounds insane to me though and I've not even followed that up yet, am still trying to get a decent picture of what the background to this whole thing is.

They cant bomb anything yet as this one vote dosent mean to much. It still has to go to full senate to be voted on and also the house of representatives for them to vote on.

Still seems to me this is nothing more than America flexing muscle.

I am normally the first person to accuse America of using something like this for there own gains.

I really think this time the only thing there after is brownie points with the UN.

People are reading to much into this although like I said I normally look at anything with them involved as them up to something.

[Red Phoenix]

They cant bomb anything yet as this one vote dosent mean to much. It still has to go to full senate to be voted on and also the house of representatives for them to vote on.

Still seems to me this is nothing more than America flexing muscle.

 

Ah yeah agreed, totally. Was just meaning if and when they do actually start this madness that they can't simply locate chemical weapons stockpiles and bomb them because of the risk of dispersal, especially near any civilian population areas. But yeah, we're not going to hear the end of this until something happens.

 

For us in the UK it could actually be tied to propaganda efforts to make the public more accepting of any future decision to get involved in this. The MoD and others are certainly capable of it, that's for sure. The careerist journos sucking up to those in power instead of doing their jobs properly clearly don't help either.

 

Funny how Snowden and all the stuff he revealed about the corrupt surveillance state has conveniently gone out of the news too lately. Not too sure about it myself, but some are saying that the two are definitely related.

[Ranxerox]

You know, stating things as fact and making bold assertions doesn't really make it any more credible. In that post you're basically saying Assad didn't do it, the Americans have lied, and they're going to war for Israel. Is there anything, at all, other than your tone, that backs up any of that?

 

where are the assertions here, these are all statements of fact.

 

In the end your entire argument rests on taking at face value the word of the US. They're the ones offering nothing but assertions.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Ah yeah agreed, totally. Was just meaning if and when they do actually start this madness that they can't simply locate chemical weapons stockpiles and bomb them because of the risk of dispersal, especially near any civilian population areas. But yeah, we're not going to hear the end of this until something happens.

 

For us in the UK it could actually be tied to propaganda efforts to make the public more accepting of any future decision to get involved in this. The MoD and others are certainly capable of it, that's for sure. The careerist journos sucking up to those in power instead of doing their jobs properly clearly don't help either.

 

Funny how Snowden and all the stuff he revealed about the corrupt surveillance state has conveniently gone out of the news too lately. Not too sure about it myself, but some are saying that the two are definitely related.

Your spot on about the chemical stockpiles in Syria and that is why I cant see any missile attack happening either. It only takes one bomb to hit a stockpile to cause something even bigger than whats hapend already. Even in the west probably knowing exactly where the stockpiles are probably situated its to big a risk.

What is annoying me is Kerry saying its sarin that has been used. It cant be sarin as all them people you see helping in the videos of the attack would now be infected as well.

Iv e seen the Snowden stuff being mentioned more and more lately and its funny you mention about its being pushed out of the news lately, as it reminds me of sept 10th the day before the towers got hit and Chaney saying how 2.3 trillion dollars couldnt be accounted for from the military coffers and the next day the attacks happen. When the pentagon was hit it just so happens the only part of it destroyed was the part holding all the records concerning the budget and military spending.

Funny enough as that was also forgotten about as well after the attack.

[Ranxerox]

Andrew Sullivan gives the best summation I have yet read. Be sure to take the time to follow the link to William Polk, a definitive explanation and well worth the time if you truly want to understand what's going on.

 

That Sickening Feeling « The Dish

[polymerpunkah]

Thanks for the Polk link. Been waiting for some sort of reasonable summary.

 

We need to remind ourselves what Afghanistan did – bankrupting the Soviet Union - and what Iraq cost us -- about 4,500 American dead, over 100,000 wounded, many of whom will never recover, and perhaps $6 trillion.

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why Obama would want any part of that stupidity.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

where are the assertions here, these are all statements of fact.

 

Well, if you can give me evidence that this is a proxy war for the Israeli, that'd be great.

 

In the end your entire argument rests on taking at face value the word of the US. They're the ones offering nothing but assertions.

 

My argument has nothing to do with the US.

[Bjornebye]

Fuck Isreal.