Syria

  • Thread starter DeletedUser16008
  • Start date

DeletedUser16008

Well here we are. No one has brought it up and this could well be the most important issue of this century so far.

Next week Obama calls on congress to back military action although its been made clear he may well order strikes regardless of what congress says and very soon the US could very well become Al Qaeda's private airforce/navy strikeforce and partner in crime.

U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this year uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials. We know this.

Chemical weapons have been used by the rebels and is admitted they lost some men handling CW, regardless of whether assad has or hasnt used CW also it is FACT that the rebels have. So the line about CW not being tolerated when the US is planning on backing admitted terrorist led CW using rebels is absolute nonsense.

Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi.The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front (allied to Al Qaeda) the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.

This is the same group blamed for 9/11 and if these rebels were in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else for that matter they would be tagged Terrorists. This is insane if we are to believe terrorists in one country are to be feared and hated but the very same people in another are actually rebels and to be aided .............. :blink:

The atrocities of the rebels is widely documented and easily matches the Assad regime if not eclipses it.

There is no doubt the rebels are NOT worthy of support there is NO stability to be had once the Assad regime topples as the 1200 different factions will just turn on each other, it is also widely accepted the likely outcome will be an extremist regime in such a power vacuum.

Qatar and Saudi have been supplying weaponry both conventional and CW and Saudi has even offered to pick up the bill should the US strike. At the same time it is also widely accepted the biggest Terrorist supporter and funder in the world currently is Saudi Arabia.

The Assad regime is NOT a nice regime no question BUT.

Given the appalling acts the rebels have committed and given they also include active terrorist groups hostile to any western nation in other locals, given the % of US people AGAINST intervention is somewhere between 85 - 91% and Obama has decided to ask congress since the UK threw out the wish to go to war ( about time ) given the % of UK and other UN country members populations is also about 80% + against... including France's population even though its prime minister Holland is sabre rattling and sucking up like a dog turd.... only one thing can be concluded.

It does not matter how messed up this is the wish by Obama and the other cronies to go yet again to war fuels their own agenda and has nothing to do with the peoples wish or what is humane. War is good war makes money,they need it desperately and intend to have it..

This coming war is planned and has been for some time and probably to get to Iran but has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.... certainly nothing to do with what is humane... this is all just a lie. Cui Bono ... who benefits ?

I urge people NOT to listen to the mainstream media BS as its all bought and sold, look to alternative media for reports of how messed up this really is. Look at the terrorists uncle sam will soon be giving support to .... what did US soldiers die for in the last few years if they are helping the very people that were killing them last year ? for that matter what did anyone die for ?

What the heck has Syria got to do with anything but an idiots guide of ... how to help your local terrorist and make some money on the side whilst killing a few thousand more civilians and possibly making a huge bonus if the conflict spreads and draws in other nations........ yay lets destabilise the region further.

It is INSANE to get into a conflict in Syria that will not only destabilize the Middle east further but also threatens to widen and could include Russia and China in some fashion.

I can only conclude Obama and co are totally calculated and INTEND to destroy not only as many people as possible with yet another conflict but also the US international respect and standing. It is very hard to see how this is NOT an attempt to force a new regional war possibly escalating into WW3. One thing is for sure, Nobel peace prize winners don't normally go around starting wars supporting terrorists and encouraging breakdown in relations with other nations. Not unless there is an agenda to do so.

Personally I can see links to the US Bankrupt Economy House of Saud, the Oil and gas in the region and Israel, but for now ill leave that bit out.

Your thoughts

If you don't agree fine but please state why or if you have thoughts please post. If you don't care then your a total idiot or probably under 12 years old. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34315

You keep posting debates that I already agree on :p The US taking military action in Syria is the height of idiocy, and would be a disaster.
 

DeletedUser

It seems that we are all in agreement. Syria would just be another Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan, but it would be worse. After all, them Syrian government forces happen to have a lot of experience in fighting wars.
 

DeletedUser16008

Developments.

Syria has agreed to Russia's proposal that it put its chemical-weapon stockpiles under international control. US Secretary of State John Kerry initially suggested such a scheme - as a way to avoid a military strike on Syria. The US State Department, though, has since issued an apparent retraction, saying it wasn't a genuine offer.

When asked at a news conference whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid military action, Mr Kerry replied that he could hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week.

US officials subsequently clarified that Mr Kerry was making a "rhetorical argument" rather than a serious offer.

However, Mr Lavrov later said he had urged Mr Muallem during talks in Moscow to "not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on their subsequent destruction".

He said he had also told Mr Muallem that Syria should then fully join the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr Muallem told reporters through an interpreter that Syria welcomed the Russian initiative.

so it looks to me like a sensible option is being offered, the question now is what excuse the US cronies will have to ignore it. I dont see how they can but anything is possible with that lot..

fingers crossed
 

DeletedUser34315

This is certainly one of those times where the vast majority of the US citizens don't support the government's apparent desires to start a war... just felt I'd point that out :p Go blame our lame-dog president for this warmongering..
 

DeletedUser

This is certainly one of those times where the vast majority of the US citizens don't support the government's apparent desires to start a war... just felt I'd point that out :p Go blame our lame-dog president for this warmongering..

Same here in the UK. I haven't met a single person who advocates military action.
 

DeletedUser16008

Same here in the UK. I haven't met a single person who advocates military action.

+1

Im pretty active on other forums and in RL about this kind of thing, I have yet to talk to one western person I know who supports or advocates military action, a couple of radical muslims who have personal or religious issues but thats it.
 

DeletedUser

I wouldn't support any military actions either. Also on another point i think china's statements (at the g20 meeting i think) were spot on as to the fact that economically it's not a good time to launch military strikes for any side. (Still this would be a small thing compared to the loss of life IF military action took place.
 

DeletedUser16008

I wouldn't support any military actions either. Also on another point i think china's statements (at the g20 meeting i think) were spot on as to the fact that economically it's not a good time to launch military strikes for any side. (Still this would be a small thing compared to the loss of life IF military action took place.


As we are it seems stepping back from the brink lets look at Chinas comment a little more closely. China does business not war, so for China any war that disrupts its resource flow or harms its price points on export hurts it. This is diametrically opposed to the US whos main stimulus relies on its military and conflict.

With the US its economy is centrally linked to the Military, without it the US collapses, its all they have left in order to stimulate the economy you need a war when you produce little else. This is where i believe the US empire is right now, just like the UK was last century and the Roman empire long ago.

The seven stages every single empire has gone through…

Stage 1: A country starts out with good money, which is either gold or having assets or tradable goods or expertise.

Stage 2: As it develops economically and socially, it begins to take on more and more economic burdens, adding layer upon layer of public works and social programs.

Stage 3: As its economic affluence grows so does its political influence, also its power and it increases expenditures to fund a massive military.

Stage 4: Eventually it puts its military to use, and expenditures explode, creating the illusion of real wealth and progress when in fact its war based, as long as it keeps expanding.

Stage 5: To fund the wars, the costliest of man’s endeavors, eventually it steals the wealth of its people by replacing their money with currency that can be created in unlimited quantities or bebased. Fiat currency . It does this at the outbreak of war, as in the case of WW I to WW II, (when the US confiscated gold and it became illegal to hold ) or during the war as in Vietnam when the gold standard was entirely abandoned. Since then all fiat currency not just the dollar has continued to be printed in vast unending quantities.

Stage 6: Finally, the expansion of the currency supply is felt by the population as severe consumer price inflation, loss of earnings and or jobs trigger a loss of faith in the currency. As this point war becomes the only distraction and only then for a time until critical mass.

Stage 7: An en masse movement out of the currency into other tangible assets (commodities) take place, the lead currency collapses along with the power that nation has, and a paradigm shift in power and control takes place and the vacuum left is filled and the process begins all over again

Throughout history this has been 100% accurate with no exceptions. These stages can overlap even drop back to one previous for a while or even stay the same, for a while. Eventually though the march resumes.

Today I believe the US is in stage 6, the smart ones and informed are aware and positioning now and the sheep although still accepting stage 5 are doing so less and less as time goes on, they are also moving into stage 6. Id say we've been in stage 5 for the past 30 years and the transition to stage 6 since 08.

Make no mistake its great the US has now stepped back and Obama even cancelled going to congress but what this also shows is the power is shifting and although the US is still perceived as being all powerful it is not and the comment by China i don't think should be taken as it sounds but rather a shot across the bows of the US of what could be possible if China were to dump the dollar or call in its debts.

I think what we have just seen with Russia and China more in the background is stage 6 growing in ascendancy. The wheel is turning


Bit deep huh ? :laugh:
 

DeletedUser34315

Ancient empires really didn't work like that though. The military came before the large social projects, and the political power. Also, rome, greece, etc never had fiat currencies. Their coins had a physical value; the value of the metal they were made out of.
 

DeletedUser16008

This isnt the case GG, Greece "Lydia" if we take that as the beginning started with coinage and that was fungible.For the first time there was a way of measuring value and trade so the cradle of civilization grew centralised around Athens, great wars did not come before the great works began and social growth was brought on initially by the first truly free market, trade flourished because of the stability and great works were undertaken and grew because for the very first time there was a stable and measurable exchange of value not war.Civilization thrived until Athens got involved in an extended and overburdened war well outside of their borders with Sparta. They lost access to their gold and silver mines Electrum and silver were used as a divisible amount of the worth of coinage but it was still based on gold or silver, without it over time Greece had a deflationary problem as all their coinage was leaving Athens to pay their armies, so they began debasing their money and mixing it more and more with copper to pay their armies who were over stretched the further afield they went and the longer the war went on. There was a break in that war but they continued to fund more public works instead of consolidating and so the debasement continued, Gresham's law took over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law and the gold started to disappear off the market leading Athens eventually into hyper inflation and then bankrupcy. Eventually Greece surrendered to Sparta and became nothing but a vassal state.

The same happened to Rome albeit over a far longer period and much greater arena with the empire finally shattering in Europe with egypt later to follow. Essentially the empire only began to erode as Rome vastly expanded with its military might and the glory of Rome hails from that period ( stage 3 ) etc this took hundreds of years but the result was the same The Ottoman empire and the British empire took far less time but again the result was the same.

True these empires didnt use fiat but the value of copper and other metals had only a fraction of the worth of the original gold coin and whatever system they all started with was debased as they went through the cycles. Each new system starts with a new full value and goes only one way... down. The past hundred years or so we have had systems that tend to last about 30 - 40 before a change. We have been on the a current system for about 39 years if you take it from when Nixon took the gold standard away and currency truly became fiat. Its almost time for another change if history is to be followed.

What we have now are countries with real tangible wealth (commodities and value ie labour force, resources ) and others with nothing other than what they can keep control of, such as Britain had with India or parts of the middle east pre ww2 or the petro dollar based US tied to oil now, you control the resources you control monetary value. Oil has a Dollar measure of value simply by the fact others have no choice but to use dollars to trade it, effectively this is all the dollar has left holding it up. It is no coincidence the last few wars have been in oil rich countries. Syria is a backdoor to Iran and Iran has oil not under western control, this the west has coveted and strived to regain control of since the fall of the shah.

It gets really complicated from here it involves Hezbollah, Israel, Shia and Sunni many others and lots of other nastiness I don't pretend to really have a handle on there are too many hands in each others pockets to even start

Its also about a pipeline of natural gas via Qatar through Syria to Europe circumnavigating Russias control over the gas market of Europe and Chinas oil market trade direct with Iran outside of the Petro Dollar.

Its complicated but its mostly about resources. The US has the biggest military machine the world has ever seen to finance, it cannot do this without using it and/or stealing and using other countries wealth to fund it, hence the perpetual wars we have seen the US involved with in resource rich countries in the last 20 years or so.

Ultimately this is all the interest the west has in Syria nothing more. Assad is nothing special as a tyrant and like Gaddafi and Hussain that regime is if nothing else more stable and functional than what the alternatives are, we only have to look to Iraq and Libya to see what a mess its left behind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser19518

Ancient empires really didn't work like that though. The military came before the large social projects, and the political power. Also, rome, greece, etc never had fiat currencies. Their coins had a physical value; the value of the metal they were made out of.

I can confirmed that Gandalf. ;)
 

DeletedUser16008

I can confirmed that Gandalf. ;)

Best debate that point and back it up with a proper post of evidence confirming it then.

This isnt a forum section for pointless comments but a debate one, either add to the topic or stick to the saloon etc

Thanks
 
Top