• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons

Amy Goodman peddling the same invasion narratives as Hillary Clinton ...

We are supposed to believe grants from Soros (on the board of Carlyle) and Ford Foundations CIA front are just coincidental?

Hillary Clinton's Lies Exposed | Exploiting the Arab Spring and Misleading us
In my opinion, Democracy Now making up news "facts" to support war (like Fox News) is further proof she is an a govmnt agent/ establishment front. Only government agencies make and disseminate propaganda and disinformation programs. Pre-determined reinforced dogma to legitimize war lies we saw under Bush except in Amy Goodmans case, for the Democrat Party.

Like the Scaife websites World Net Daily and NewsMax are Republican Party establishment fronts that are fake news and information, designed to elect and reinforce Party dogma, (e.g. - Saddam has nukes, war on terror lies, christian coalition dogma, fears of Islam and Mexicans) in other words, stories that indoctrinate you to be behind the pre-determined Republican Party platform, leading you to water and making you drink, so to speak.


Pacifica Radio Gatekeepers Sponsored by Ford (CIA) Foundation

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fordfoundationciaandgatekeepers11oct05.shtml


Ford Foundation, The CIA and U.S. Establishment --Part 1

http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2012/07/ford-foundation-cia-and-us.html

_______________________________________________________________________________
"In George Orwell's "1984," Winston Smith (the protagonist who spends his days rewriting the news at the Ministry of Truth) becomes disillusioned and wants to join the underground resistance to the Party. He eventually learns that the opposition is really an illusion maintained by the Party itself to snare discontented people such as himself."

"It is not really a surprise that many of the "alternative dissident" publications that have chosen to ignore 9/11 and the war on terror, except for bland pronouncements in favor of world peace instead of world war, are funded by right-wing, oil money connected foundations."



http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow, you are saying the isolation of Saddam Hussein and the sanctions created a breeding ground for terrorism? Possibly, and I'm not supporter of the kind of sanctions we put on Saddam, it only ends up hurting the lower classes and orders of society, for the most part at least. Which is why military intervention is preferable. But lets accept the premise anyways. Even if what we did incited Osama bin Laden to attack the US, or our intervention in Kuwait did, or our positioning of troops in the Gulf did-- I don't care. Because I judge a foreign policy decision on its merits, not on whether a fundamentalist crusader thinks it is immoral. I'm not going to let OBL and his affiliates dictate US policy.
Poverty equals terrorist breeding ground. No two ways about that. Terrorists prey on the poor because the poor have nowhere else to turn. That is why we have continually poured money into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, etc because we think the better the population lives, the less likely they are to accept the quick money terrorists offer.
Military intervention solves nothing. We are not trained to do that crap. We are trained to kill people, take objectives, etc. Not negotiate public works contracts, status of forces agreements, etc. It is the equivalent of putting an assembly line worker on an IT project. Thats why you see guys peeing on people and throwing Qurans out. We get tired of helping people out that decide to blow us up the next time we come around to check on how that new well we put in for them is working. Those people are like that slut girlfriend you can't get enough of. She gives up what you want so you will buy her more crap. Then, she does the same thing for some other guy. But for some reason, even though you know that, you still keep going back. Unfortunately, in our case, we are made to keep going back instead of choosing to.
That fundamentalist crusader you speak of fought on OUR side during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Complete with American funding. We screwed him over when we cut off funding we had promised to him. Further, we shoved he and his freedom fighters out of the way so that we could fight the Iraqi's during Desert Storm. A fight we should have left to him seeing as he is Saudi himself. That's what intervention gets you. We make "friends" with the Saudi's but gain thousands of enemies.
Secondly yes we do have the right and the interest to intervene in other countries internal affairs, and we should do so aggressively. It allows for the creation of much more advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability by assisting the spread of democracy where possible. Furthermore you refuse a moral foreign policy objective with an absolutist one. We act when it is possible for us to do so, and in the most advantageous way possible. It does not make sense for example to invade Saudi Arabia, when the better option available to us for a variety of reasons is to work through the al-Saud as means for effecting reform and securing regional stability through strong allies.
Democracy cannot be forced my friend. No matter how bad we want it to spread, people have to want it. That is why our country has been so successful and others have not. We wanted what we have. Afghani people could care less about a central gov't, fire/police services, or voting. They just want to be left alone to farm. Iraqi people don't want it. They could care less. They just want the economy of a free nation. Their politicians want it because they get rich. Further, you base your entire theory of "advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability" off of the US engaging in further intervention operations. I submit they we should pull back more and not be so quick to invade another country simply because we don't like what they do. What if China didn't like what we do? What if they didn't like that we allow people to have children at their whim? What if they invaded us so that they could erradicate "useless" children to lower the global population? That may seem right to them. Not to us.
I also disagree that no politicians care about dead kids in Syria. Just because you don't care doesn't make it the norm.
If they did care, we'd be there already. We'd have been there a long time ago. In addition, if you think a lot of people care about Syria or it's people, take a look at this poll I started awhile back.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/124231-should-america-deploy-troops-syria.html
 
President Threatens Military Response Against Against Any Use of the Banned Arms

'WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama threatened military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if his forces attempt to use chemical or biological weapons, the strongest indication yet Mr. Obama would consider intervening in the grinding conflict.

The president's message appeared aimed at signaling to Mr. Assad that an American military option is open, but U.S. officials hoped the threat would be enough to dissuade the Syrian leader from using such weapons.'

Obama Warns Syria on Chemical Weapons - WSJ.com

If this is the extent of his message, I support it. I think it's reasonable for the President to make such a statement. It protects our interest in the region to relieve the concerns of Syria's neighbors.
 
Gee - I thought the Republicans said Al Queda was our enemy the troops sacrificed their lives to defeat?





Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda

Washington?s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda


Corp. Media and NATO invasion sponsors
GPSWMspo.jpg
 
Poverty equals terrorist breeding ground. No two ways about that. Terrorists prey on the poor because the poor have nowhere else to turn. That is why we have continually poured money into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, etc because we think the better the population lives, the less likely they are to accept the quick money terrorists offer.
Military intervention solves nothing. We are not trained to do that crap. We are trained to kill people, take objectives, etc. Not negotiate public works contracts, status of forces agreements, etc. It is the equivalent of putting an assembly line worker on an IT project. Thats why you see guys peeing on people and throwing Qurans out. We get tired of helping people out that decide to blow us up the next time we come around to check on how that new well we put in for them is working. Those people are like that slut girlfriend you can't get enough of. She gives up what you want so you will buy her more crap. Then, she does the same thing for some other guy. But for some reason, even though you know that, you still keep going back. Unfortunately, in our case, we are made to keep going back instead of choosing to.
That fundamentalist crusader you speak of fought on OUR side during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Complete with American funding. We screwed him over when we cut off funding we had promised to him. Further, we shoved he and his freedom fighters out of the way so that we could fight the Iraqi's during Desert Storm. A fight we should have left to him seeing as he is Saudi himself. That's what intervention gets you. We make "friends" with the Saudi's but gain thousands of enemies.

Democracy cannot be forced my friend. No matter how bad we want it to spread, people have to want it. That is why our country has been so successful and others have not. We wanted what we have. Afghani people could care less about a central gov't, fire/police services, or voting. They just want to be left alone to farm. Iraqi people don't want it. They could care less. They just want the economy of a free nation. Their politicians want it because they get rich. Further, you base your entire theory of "advantageous geostrategic situations, and the chance for greater permanent stability" off of the US engaging in further intervention operations. I submit they we should pull back more and not be so quick to invade another country simply because we don't like what they do. What if China didn't like what we do? What if they didn't like that we allow people to have children at their whim? What if they invaded us so that they could erradicate "useless" children to lower the global population? That may seem right to them. Not to us.

If they did care, we'd be there already. We'd have been there a long time ago. In addition, if you think a lot of people care about Syria or it's people, take a look at this poll I started awhile back.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/124231-should-america-deploy-troops-syria.html

1. Terrorism is an extremely complex thing, and reducing it to poverty is a simplification. For example the bulk of those who join international terrorist groups tend to be middle class or wealthy, while those who join indigenous ones are more diverse in their socioeconomic background. Even amongst those groups however, suicide bombers tend to come from decently educated and wealthy backgrounds, while fighters and gunmen tend to be poorer. Moving beyond that point of course military intervention can solve things, and it has solved numerous things in the past. We were successful in Bosnia, Libya, and Kosovo just to name a few recent examples. We have the potential to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan if we choose to. Furthermore you are wrong when you say Bin Laden was on 'our' side or that we funded him. We had no contact with Bin Laden, most of his funds came from Arab donors not ISI conduits, and he did not lash out because his funding was caught off. More to the point **** Bin Laden, I don't give a damn if he thinks it was terrible that he wasn't given the opportunity to fight Saddam on his own, it was delusional and would have meant that more than 1/4th of the worlds crude and gas production would have been brought under Saddam's heel.

2. Which is why I disagree with your premise. I do not believe we are forcing democracy, we are enabling those who desire democracy to have it. Despite the violence in Iraq for example massive majorities support their new democracy and abhor a return to the old method of governance. Likewise in Afghanistan strong majorities oppose the Taliban and support democratic rule. I don't care if autocrats or a strong minority oppose it, we aren't fighting for them, I also reject moral relativism. I'm sure China could imagine that it doesn't like some aspect of our policy. I believe my approach is superior and more moral, if they want to fight about that (and they do) we can have that fight. It does nothing to diminish my perspective. Moreover the geo-strategic importance of the Caucuses, Central Asia, the Middle East, etc is undeniable, and our activities will better support our aspirations in the future.

3. I don't really care what an internet forum poll says. Aside from being completely unscientific, with certain demographics massively over-represented, it doesn't come close to addressing the point I made.
 
Is it another sign that freedom in America has disappeared and Big Brother controls all the mass communications channels, the only shows you can dial up is extreme crazy or banality?

Or is it just my disillusion?

Somethings wrong when all the news/politics shows are swamped with disinformation, mudslinging bombast and journalism becomes a lost art form.
 
1. Terrorism is an extremely complex thing, and reducing it to poverty is a simplification. For example the bulk of those who join international terrorist groups tend to be middle class or wealthy, while those who join indigenous ones are more diverse in their socioeconomic background. Even amongst those groups however, suicide bombers tend to come from decently educated and wealthy backgrounds, while fighters and gunmen tend to be poorer.
Who do you think makes up the majority of terrorist groups? The wealthy may lead them, but they do not make up the majority of them. Further, there are much more "fighters and gunmen" than there are suicide bombers. I would love to see where you pull these beliefs from. Despite popular belief, ideology only goes so far. You are not going to get a lot of rich guys to blow themselves up simply because they believe in something. They have something to live for. If you are speaking of an international, intricate plan like 9/11, sure those guys are middle class and educated. A poor imbecile couldn't pull that off. But how many of those attacks occur? Not many. If we are speaking of the local attacks on troops, in the Phillipines, or in Iraq now they are almost always poor.
Moving beyond that point of course military intervention can solve things, and it has solved numerous things in the past. We were successful in Bosnia, Libya, and Kosovo just to name a few recent examples.
And we did not nation build in any of those countries, Bosnia and Kosovo are still terrorist havens, and Libya is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood and local militias.
We have the potential to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan if we choose to.
These are very different theaters than the ones you name above. In fact, polar opposite theaters. Further, we never put hundreds of thousands of troops in the above 3 countries for years on end. Afghanistan is a lost cause. It's not happening. No country has ever been able to turn them away from their ways and we won't either. Iraq could be good, but they will choose not to be.
Furthermore you are wrong when you say Bin Laden was on 'our' side or that we funded him. We had no contact with Bin Laden, most of his funds came from Arab donors not ISI conduits, and he did not lash out because his funding was caught off.
Bin Laden was anything if thankful for us funding fellow mujahideen groups. Then, we decided we were done with those people and left them hanging on empty promises. He may not have gotten a lot of funding from us, but it didn't matter because we cut it off to everyone fighting with him effectively ending his campaign.
More to the point **** Bin Laden, I don't give a damn if he thinks it was terrible that he wasn't given the opportunity to fight Saddam on his own, it was delusional and would have meant that more than 1/4th of the worlds crude and gas production would have been brought under Saddam's heel.
And we still could have bought it. So what? No major oil provider, to include the US hating Iranians or Venezuelans, is going to cut off their best customer just because they don't like them. Money talks louder than ideology.
2. Which is why I disagree with your premise. I do not believe we are forcing democracy, we are enabling those who desire democracy to have it.
They don't desire it! If they did, they would fight for it like we did. That's the point. Your belief is the equivalent to me walking up to someone who has never had ice cream and making them eat ice cream. I know it's good but they don't because they've never had it. As good as it is, they will still never like it because all they see is me holding them down on the floor and shoving ice cream down their throat. Afghani's just want to be left alone and so do Iraqi's. You can fall for the picture of the woman with ink on her fingers all you want. Iraqi's want money, technology, and western culture and they will give up freedom to get those things.
Despite the violence in Iraq for example massive majorities support their new democracy and abhor a return to the old method of governance.
And yet they have the old method. As soon as we left the country Al-Maliki started rounding up all of politicians who opposed him and putting them in jail. Sounds familiar. No uproar over that.
Likewise in Afghanistan strong majorities oppose the Taliban and support democratic rule.
LOL! What strong majority? Where is this mystical strong majority you speak of? Iraq had a majority that wanted Al Qaeda out. I saw that firsthand. Afghanistan? They side with whoever they think will win that day.
I'm sure China could imagine that it doesn't like some aspect of our policy. I believe my approach is superior and more moral, if they want to fight about that (and they do) we can have that fight. It does nothing to diminish my perspective.
You believe your approach is superior and more moral? Who are you that you think that not only is your approach superior and more moral, but that you also have the right to shove down anyone else's throat you see fit?
Moreover the geo-strategic importance of the Caucuses, Central Asia, the Middle East, etc is undeniable, and our activities will better support our aspirations in the future.
Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.
3. I don't really care what an internet forum poll says. Aside from being completely unscientific, with certain demographics massively over-represented, it doesn't come close to addressing the point I made.
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.
 
Please if you could, don't segment your responses into so many little sections, it makes it hard to reference back.

1. Again as I said there is a major distinction between international terror groups and domestic ones, and two there is a distinction between people who fight as gunmen and rank and file fighters and those who become suicide bombers. I'm happy to cite links that are relevant. Understanding the economic dimension to terrorism - Mar. 13, 2007, What Makes a Terrorist — The American Magazine, NPR: Profile: Look at the Mind of a Suicide Bomber. This reflects the fact that it is rarely difficult to recruit a suicide bomber, and those who become bombers generally do so for ideological reasons, not out of a sense of anti-oppressive vengeance. I can pull a few journal articles if you are interested.

2. Bosnia and Kosovo have terrorist havens? How so? And the US and our European allies certainly conducted national building in both locations, and we are assisting the Libyan government in its civil reconstruction as we speak.

3. Many countries have subdued or defeated 'Afghanistan' this is a myth. Furthermore we absolutely can be successful in Afghanistan, and the majority of Afghani's would like to see us succeed, they are simply tired of war and not part of the fighting. They are the silent majority of civilians who have in poll after poll ranked the Taliban as the greatest threat facing Afghanistan. Afghanistan: ABC News National Survey Poll Show Support - ABC News

4. Bin Laden did not get any funding from the US and he had no relationship with the US. Furthermore US funding which continued after the fall of Najbullah was part of the problem, not the lack of it! Nor did a lack of US funding end Bin Laden's campaign, his campaign ended when Najbullah fell and he established a position for himself as a player in Afghanistan by allying with the Taliban and elements of Hizb-e-Islami to fight Massoud. It was at this time, and a little before, that he began to seriously internationalize his operations.

5. We could have bought crude from who, Saddam? Because we were in the midst of such a spending glut before? The issue was that we didn't want a psychotic dictator with ambitions to regional hegemony using the oil spigot to try and dominate world and regional affairs while he went on a rampage. That tends to be a bad thing.

6. Barely 1/3 of Americans actively supported the Patriots, and even less actually bore arms, and they did so against an enemy that was positively genteel by modern standards. Let's not smear the tens of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqi's who have died defending the newfound futures of their country. They support their new democracies and the new systems of government by overwhelming margins, and the majority in each have proven their devotion with ample pounds of flesh. Poll after poll, and funeral after funeral is evidence of this.

7. Iraq has problems, that have been partially exacerbated by the premature US departure, and yet it is still on a better road than it was.

8. I do think it is superior and moral, and I'm a rational individual using my arguments and my pulpit as an American citizen to advocate it. Yes I'm willing to spread it by force and topple regimes that oppose it.

9. It is important for any country that acknowledges that it is global concerns and that it cannot withdraw from world affairs and hope to simply trade. That things like resources, open trade routes, and domestic security rely upon an aggressive global foreign policy.

10. I don't care if its not in the top ten concerns of most Americans.

5.
 
Who do you think makes up the majority of terrorist groups? The wealthy may lead them, but they do not make up the majority of them. Further, there are much more "fighters and gunmen" than there are suicide bombers. I would love to see where you pull these beliefs from. Despite popular belief, ideology only goes so far. You are not going to get a lot of rich guys to blow themselves up simply because they believe in something. They have something to live for. If you are speaking of an international, intricate plan like 9/11, sure those guys are middle class and educated. A poor imbecile couldn't pull that off. But how many of those attacks occur? Not many. If we are speaking of the local attacks on troops, in the Phillipines, or in Iraq now they are almost always poor.

And we did not nation build in any of those countries, Bosnia and Kosovo are still terrorist havens, and Libya is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood and local militias.

These are very different theaters than the ones you name above. In fact, polar opposite theaters. Further, we never put hundreds of thousands of troops in the above 3 countries for years on end. Afghanistan is a lost cause. It's not happening. No country has ever been able to turn them away from their ways and we won't either. Iraq could be good, but they will choose not to be.

Bin Laden was anything if thankful for us funding fellow mujahideen groups. Then, we decided we were done with those people and left them hanging on empty promises. He may not have gotten a lot of funding from us, but it didn't matter because we cut it off to everyone fighting with him effectively ending his campaign.

And we still could have bought it. So what? No major oil provider, to include the US hating Iranians or Venezuelans, is going to cut off their best customer just because they don't like them. Money talks louder than ideology.

They don't desire it! If they did, they would fight for it like we did. That's the point. Your belief is the equivalent to me walking up to someone who has never had ice cream and making them eat ice cream. I know it's good but they don't because they've never had it. As good as it is, they will still never like it because all they see is me holding them down on the floor and shoving ice cream down their throat. Afghani's just want to be left alone and so do Iraqi's. You can fall for the picture of the woman with ink on her fingers all you want. Iraqi's want money, technology, and western culture and they will give up freedom to get those things.

And yet they have the old method. As soon as we left the country Al-Maliki started rounding up all of politicians who opposed him and putting them in jail. Sounds familiar. No uproar over that.

LOL! What strong majority? Where is this mystical strong majority you speak of? Iraq had a majority that wanted Al Qaeda out. I saw that firsthand. Afghanistan? They side with whoever they think will win that day.

You believe your approach is superior and more moral? Who are you that you think that not only is your approach superior and more moral, but that you also have the right to shove down anyone else's throat you see fit?

Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.

People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.

Outstanding reply, imo.
 
8. I do think it is superior and moral, and I'm a rational individual using my arguments and my pulpit as an American citizen to advocate it. Yes I'm willing to spread it by force and topple regimes that oppose it.

At what price?

How many innocent Syrian civilians are you willing to kill in collateral damage to topple Assad? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice?

And if you are willing to have Americans die to spread your moral superiority - are you willing to give your life to topple Assad?
 
Last edited:
Geo-strategic importance only applies if you are attempting to colonize the world or set up an empire. If you are speaking of a global oil market, see my comment above about us being the #1 customer.

People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.

You could not be more wrong about the wars. Your friend Sherman is way off as well.
 
At what price?

How many innocent Syrian civilians are you willing to kill in collateral damage to topple Assad? How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice?

And if you are willing to have Americans die to spread your moral superiority - are you willing to give your life to topple Assad?

Obama said if Syria (Assad) uses chemical weapons he would pay the price. Is that OK with you if Obama then go in and takes out the Assad regime?
 
People don't care what happens in Syria. You might. Most don't. It doesn't even make a top 10 concerns of Americans list other than for the fact that they are worried we might put troops in there.


Rather than saying people don't care, we know Obama don't care, there is no oil in Syria. Obama did go into Libya only because of oil.
 
Obama said if Syria (Assad) uses chemical weapons he would pay the price. Is that OK with you if Obama then go in and takes out the Assad regime?

Iran is fixing to dump Syria because the writing is on the wall... Assad is on his way out.. and the issue has been largely a joint effort of Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I am glad Obama didn't jump in... It has to be MORE important to the players than it is to the US.

Meanwhile, the Secular Liberals in Libya beat out the Muslim Brotherhood in July elections.
 
Rather than saying people don't care, we know Obama don't care, there is no oil in Syria. Obama did go into Libya only because of oil.

The same oil companies are operating in Libya that were there before Khadafi was deposed.
 
Iran is fixing to dump Syria because the writing is on the wall... Assad is on his way out.. and the issue has been largely a joint effort of Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I am glad Obama didn't jump in... It has to be MORE important to the players than it is to the US.

Meanwhile, the Secular Liberals in Libya beat out the Muslim Brotherhood in July elections.

I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion. The Iranian government has been doing anything but reversing its support of Assad, and has in fact begun to send actual troops and advisers openly for the first time in an effort to beat back the rebels. I'd also seriously contest that the Gulf States or their Turkish interlocutors have done all that much (as yet) for the FSA, and that it centers around US unwillingness.
 
I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion. The Iranian government has been doing anything but reversing its support of Assad, and has in fact begun to send actual troops and advisers openly for the first time in an effort to beat back the rebels. I'd also seriously contest that the Gulf States or their Turkish interlocutors have done all that much (as yet) for the FSA, and that it centers around US unwillingness.

In the ME, the power brokers rarely talk.. but as of today Iran is looking for a way to disengage from Syria because Assad is a lost cause.

In the past 3 weeks Adahminejah visited with King Abdullaah in Arabia and the Deputy Foreign Minister from Arabia is in Iran as we speak.

Lots of phone calls and I have NO doubt they are talking with Obama.
 
I think I can explain Marine and Shermans confusion on the wars and major issues ...

a few quotations -

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."
--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number."
--Jim Hougan, Spooks

"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."
--former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month to the day after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition
 
Rather than saying people don't care, we know Obama don't care, there is no oil in Syria. Obama did go into Libya only because of oil.


Not only that, but it was also to set up a base of operations to counter China's growing influence in the African continent.
 
In the ME, the power brokers rarely talk.. but as of today Iran is looking for a way to disengage from Syria because Assad is a lost cause.

In the past 3 weeks Adahminejah visited with King Abdullaah in Arabia and the Deputy Foreign Minister from Arabia is in Iran as we speak.

Lots of phone calls and I have NO doubt they are talking with Obama.

I'm familiar, but it would be wrong to say this was positive for Iran. In fact most analysis has been that this was utterly disastrous. First you had the embarrassment at the NAM meeting in Tehran where Mursi openly declared his support for the Syrian opposition and castigated Iran, all while Saudi and Qatari delegates watch with glee and proceeded to issue a joint statement. The Iranian diplomatic ventures have not been an attempt to engage Washington, they have been an attempt to try and show the West that Iran is not diplomatically isolated. The invitation to Ahmadinejad may be a final effort in the highly personal sphere of Saudi internal politics to convince them to withdraw their support for Assad and relent on their nuclear program---I highly doubt it. It is more likely an effort of public conciliation, before the deluge of the coming fall campaigns in Syria which will require more support from the Gulf states and hopefully the US. After the November elections in America, they will be looking aggressively to deliver some heavy blows. Bringing Iranian envoys to Riyadh now makes a bit of sense.
 
I'm familiar, but it would be wrong to say this was positive for Iran. In fact most analysis has been that this was utterly disastrous. First you had the embarrassment at the NAM meeting in Tehran where Mursi openly declared his support for the Syrian opposition and castigated Iran, all while Saudi and Qatari delegates watch with glee and proceeded to issue a joint statement. The Iranian diplomatic ventures have not been an attempt to engage Washington, they have been an attempt to try and show the West that Iran is not diplomatically isolated.

The invitation to Ahmadinejad may be a final effort in the highly personal sphere of Saudi internal politics to convince them to withdraw their support for Assad and relent on their nuclear program---I highly doubt it. It is more likely an effort of public conciliation, before the deluge of the coming fall campaigns in Syria which will require more support from the Gulf states and hopefully the US. After the November elections in America, they will be looking aggressively to deliver some heavy blows. Bringing Iranian envoys to Riyadh now makes a bit of sense.

Saudi Arabia is not supporting Assad.. and the last thing the SAG wants is to build nuclear weapons.. They are basically being forced into that position by Iran.

The GCC have been opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah for five years or so because they are obstacles to peace.
 
Obama said if Syria (Assad) uses chemical weapons he would pay the price. Is that OK with you if Obama then go in and takes out the Assad regime?

No, it's not; unless unbiased, factual proof that chemical weapon attacks against civilians took place OR there is systematic genocide...not before.

Otherwise, Syria's civil war is (theoretically) no one's business but Syria's.

Just as the U.S. civil war was (theoretically) no one's business but America's.


How many American troops and innocent foreign civilians have to die before neo-cons stop trying to rule the world?
 
Last edited:
No, it's not.

Syria's civil war is no one's business but Syria's.

Just as the U.S. civil war was no one's business but America's.

I would say that Obama posture has empowered the GCC, Turkey and Egypt to take ownership of the problems with Syria and Iran.
 
You could not be more wrong about the wars. Your friend Sherman is way off as well.
Hey, solid point Kane. Great substance to your counterpoint.
 
Back
Top Bottom