.......for good men to do nothing.

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
desol said:
I think you're all paranoid. I think Obama should bomb those son's of b****'s. The international community needs to set a precedent that they won't stand for that degree and ease of brutality against civlilians (no matter any other statistics) ...kids, especially.
It is interesting to reflect on the change in tone between Young senator Obama, and President Obama... Not to mention the new John Kerry as compared to his last 3 decades in congress.  But that's the kind of change that happens after you end up responsible for actual outcomes, and can't just hurl criticism at the responsible leaders from the safety of a back bench. 

It is kind of late to nip this stuff in the bud.. Where is the outrage over the Taliban's abuse of young girls who's only sin is they want an education? How many millions have been killed for no good reason in the region over the last century ( yes last 100 years)

After 100,000 Syrians have been murdered now we are upset?
You're all paranoid and you think too much.
Thinking is good IMO, but thought must be followed by action when appropriate.
Stand for your belief's...
Yes freedom and liberty are important. US soldiers routinely give their lives fighting for other nation's liberty. (Of course not just US soldiers fight and die in distant lands)  Oppressive authoritarian governments who cling to power using violence are abhorrent but IMO it is an odd distinction to say 100k killed with conventional weapons are OK and 1000 or 1500 killed with poison gas crossed some line.  Dead is dead... 
actions speak louder than words, unlike the rest of the global community; we support you, but we're willing to do nothing about it. ie: $$$. Cowards...

The international community seems to be a little reluctant about this. I believe far more want us to intervene than are willing to go on record. BO is now asking for congress to pre-approve, which would be the first thing they agreed on in years if they manage to come together over this.  A cynic might suggest that BO is looking for an excuse to not prosecute Assad, like Cameron got from his legislature, since BO pretty much ignored the war powers act in the past and didn't bother with congress before bombing Libya...  So BO has come full circle back to the 2007 BO who now believes in congressional "war powers" authority (again).

========

I have mixed feelings about this,,, I think the gas attack is a bit of a straw man... However the conflict in Syria is not just about Syria, and the larger problem in the region that Syria represents is very important so needs to be resolved.

JR
 
It could just as easy as, 1000 kids got gassed and napalm poured on them by the regime.

It could be that Barrack simply feels he can't watch it happen. There's no use in bring up past events cause, this is what's happening now.

It is what it is...the proof is there. No use in standing by...
 
Why Syria? It's not what you think and it's not what you've been told.

Sun Tzu said that "All war is deception." Syria like Iraq and Afghanistan before it is no different. Let us look at the real reason why the globalist corporations and banking interests are fixated on this nation. A fixation that started over a decade ago. A fixation that has the potential to lead to a major global war as key world powers are now involved.

If one remembers in the late 90's the ruling party in Afghanistan was the Taliban. They have rested most of the control of the nation from their Northern Alliance adversaries and were enjoying favor from Washington. Then it was discovered that this mountainous grave yard of empires can serve a purpose in running a gas as well as an oil pipeline dubbed the famous Caspian Pipeline. Ring a bell?

The objective of the pipeline was to run a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Azerbaijan, through Georgia and into to Turkey onto the destined Euro-Mediterranean markets. All the while bypassing Russia and allowing at that time the European Economic Community to be free of Russian Natural Gas and Gazprom.

In Early 2000 there was a meeting between leaders of the Taliban and Assistant Secretary of State, Political Crony and Known Leaker of the Valerie Plame CIA agent scandel, Richard Armitage. Armitage gave them an offer that they could not refuse. Run a secondary pipeline through Afghanistan as well and into Pakistan, out to the Arabian Sea. All facilitated by Unocal and their now famous or infamous,depends how you look at it employee Hamid Karzai. Unfortunately for the Taliban they refused. Armitage it was reported stated to the visiting Taliban delegation, "You can take the offer either with a carpet of Gold or a Carpet of Bombs."

Fast Forward one year and Afghanistan is invaded, the Taliban overthrown and Unocal employee Hamid Karzai is put in power as president. The shocking thing is this, If one takes the time to look at the Afghanistan map, large US military bases are on the very path of the purposed pipeline. This as well that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find it's way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.

So what does this have to do with Syria. Syria is the final chess piece of a move to cut Russia's lucrative lock in Natural Gas and Oil that it supplies to Europe. If this connection is cut in any way it will bring severe consequences to the Russian economy as well as Russia's natural gas company Gazprom. This is a move that the US stands to gain from.

The trouble for Syria began with two things. First the discovery of natural gas in the Mediterranean right off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Read that list again, especially LEBANON and SYRIA, is the picture becoming clearer? This discovery took place about a decade ago, the thing is though there already exists within the middle east a Liquid Natural Gas Producing power house. That my friends is the tiny nation of Qatar.

Now here is where you need to put your thinking caps on. Qatar is floating in LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) It has over 77 Billion Tonnes in Reserve and that is with a moratorium in place. The problem is that Qatar would love to sell it's LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is their regional big brother Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. So what is the oil rich micro mite to do? Simple cut a deal with the biggest bully in the neighborhood, you guessed it, the US.

As recently as May of this year deals have been put in place by Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International, a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets.. So little Qatar is anxious, power hungry and dangerous, the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why Natural Gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long.

Enter Nabucco signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009 it was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Is it not interesting that the main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now, the ones so spoken of in the news are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. Coincidentally folks those happen to be the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising having spent over $3 billion so far in conflict. The other side of the story is that Saudi Arabia also financiers anti-Assad groups in Syria. You see the Saudis do not want to be marginalized by their ambitious little brother, thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Hence this is the reason why you have two somewhat opposing factions in Syria. On one side you have the Qatari backed Muslim Brotherhood and it's subsidiaries who have very close ties with the Emir of Qatar. On the other side you have the Saudi backed Wahhabi AL-Queda and it's subsidiaries. Hence you have various levels of atrocities from the cannibalism of the Wahabis to the Christian slaughter of the "Brotherhood". These all have Qatari and Saudi fingerprints all over them.

In the background of this den of Jackals is the chief Hyena the US ready to spread Love and Democracy not by war but "Kinetic Action". You see as the economy in the US crumbles, Pax Americana is in it's final death rattles, it desires to see it's age old rival Russia knocked off it's energy pedestal in the highly lucrative Euro market. It also is anxious to get a piece of the Natural Gas Pie. Folks you have to understand that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are proxy puppet states to the Anglo-American powers. The US will stand to gain immensely no matter which faction topples Assad. In fact deals have been cut since 2009. Again the problem is Russia stands in the way.

The recent Cyprus bail in was not something that was just a simple bank failures, which was inevitable but it was primarily designed to go after the wealth of the Russian Oligarchs who coincidentally have strong ties with the Russian energy sector. Lucky for them they were warned in advanced by a Cypriot banker and they were able to liquidate before they lost everything. This has not gone unnoticed by Putin. Why do you think that immediately after the Cyprus fiasco Russian warships docked there the following week. This was Putin sending a very strong message to the Western Banksters that Russian interests will not be messed with.

Russia is now forced to draw the line, a very hard line in the sand. Syria is much more than losing a strategic port in the Natural Gas rich middle east. It is about losing the entire European region to Middle Eastern and Caspian Energy interests. Russia cannot allow that, this is why they are moving their military assets in place, This is also why resource hungry China cannot have it's natural gas flow interrupted as well and have sided with the Russians when it comes to Syria.

Folks this is the real reason for Benghazi it is much more than giving arms to Al-Queda, and theories about shooting down Western Airliners. It about arming a large rag tag mercenary army that will help engage the Russians on the ground when the time comes. That is what Benghazi is all about is another Bear trap just like Afghanistan was for the Russians. Facing Guerrilla tactics in the desert by religious zealots is a situation that Russia is trying to avoid. So the answer to ending all of these problems for Russia is to engage the Americans directly. We are leaving them no choice. This is the reason for Benghazi.

Why Syria? It is THE way to break Russia.

a lot of total excrement on the site but this piece has its resonances it seems
http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=598&d=17

and see Cyprus aided by Russia and thwarting bases

another view, different emphasises ,same Natural Gas

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1377892800.php

 
COPYRIGHT THE GUERRILLA ECONOMIST MAY BE REPOSTED PROVIDED LINKS ARE INCLUDED TO THIS LINK

You were supposed to provided links when you cut and pasted that article. While google found it reposted a few times in the last several days.
=====

I've read Sun Tzu (The art of War)  two or three times..(It's a little hard to grok from a single read through).  I try not to be easily deceived, but IMO  Sun Tzu's major point it that it is far better to deceive the enemy into surrender than killing them and/or wasting blood and treasure on direct warfare. While he has strategies about how to actually fight effectively too.

I prefer to read forum members own observations.  There are multiple things I would respond to about that article apparently written by a Paul Martin?  but not tonight, life is short,  maybe tomorrow. 

JR



 
"Debate doesn’t really change things. It gets you bogged in deeper. If you can address or reopen the subject with something new, something from a different angle, then there is some hope.... That’s something poetry can do for you, it can entrance you for a moment above the pool of your own consciousness and your own possibilities."

—Seamus Heaney
While in the past I have often enjoyed political discourse, discussion and dissent I am finding as I age I enjoy it less and less...actually I'm not sure I enjoy politics at all. I understand the need as a social animal for the constraints and constructs of a political arena, but our history seems to point to a trajectory of lose-lose in most of the arena.

What can be done for the human animal that bares his teeth and claws his neighbor until the sun sinks blood red behind a darkening sky? Cain the very first person in the Bible to build a city is also the very first murderer...coincidence or inevitable outcome? And yet the God of the biblical narrative refuses to kill the murdering sibling and even goes so far as to offer him protection in the form of a curse on anyone who seeks his life...and yet this God narrative seems lost on the care-takers of the book as is the case with all care-takers of religion, we have a bloody beginning and it will lead to a bloody conclusion if we don't discover who we really are...at least the God in Genesis did not see Cain as someone worthy of destruction...perhaps the "image and likeness" of the Creator has merit after all.

All I know is we cannot change these outcomes using the political machines that got us into these same messes anyone who thinks we can is simply not paying attention...I don't care how smart or rich you are or want to be, you cannot go around killing people and expect it to end well.

Im tired of it all.

We need solutions that last longer than our own retirement.

I say... "Put the women all in charge" we men have screwed it up long enough.
 
Well, it seems that killing in the name of one's religious beliefs is something that goes back all the way to the beginning of religious belief. Hasn't mattered if one's "god" is a golden cow, a wooden cross, a dollar bill or a barrel of oil. Surely "god" condoned it, didn't "he"?
I used to think that we'd all be better off if women ran the show. After all, no mother in her right mind would ever send her children off to die, would she?
It seems, however, that most of the female leaders throughout history weren't in their right mind either.
 
There is a classic Greek comedy "Lysistrata" written by  Aristophanes in 411 BCE

In the classic play the women withhold sexual favors from their husbands to stop them fighting the Peloponnesian war...

Women already have the power....  8)

=====

Seriously Margaret Thatcher, Golda Mier, and others have demonstrated their ability lead as well as any man.

I sometimes find it hard to believe that we have not progressed beyond killing each other so casually, but we are actually better than we were, just not finished civilizing the entire world. This stuff makes our petty local complaints seem trivial.

JR
 
Seriously Margaret Thatcher, Golda Mier, and others have demonstrated their ability lead as well as any man.

It depends on what you mean by 'as well as'. I get the impression that the other poster meant differently to the male approach.

I don't know much about Mier, but Thatcher is the perfect example of why women are not guaranteed to be any more empathetic or pragmatic than men when in the same position.
 
Regarding the difference between dying from being gassed and dying in general:

I can see the point that dead is dead, but the key is in the indiscriminate nature of gas.

Street fighting with machine guns gives noncoms a chance to hunker down, shelling is more indiscriminate but is usually just used to dislodge an enemy from a fortified position.  Stray shells may kill whole families, bad enough, but a large scale gas attack is designed to be Genocide of entire areas, noncoms, actors, and first responders and doctors alike.  It is for that reason that gas has been banned since just after WW1.  Not sure if Americans were gassed in that war but the French and British were and we responded in kind as well.  Churchill warned of "perverted science" and that just about sums it up.  I believe the Syrians aquired it as a foil to Israel's nuclear deterent, gas is in the same category, I guess.

Regarding women running the world, you have obviously never met my wife, bless her.  She can go from dead calm to nuclear in a blink of an eye, before I've even begun to realise WTF I've done ;)

DaveP
 
You were supposed to provided links when you cut and pasted that article

The link was underneath and was since I posted the quote.

Along with a companion piece along similiar lines but different portrayal of forces, which I edited in no more than half an hour later.I did not paste that in for I felt it would obstruct the visual flow of the thread too much.
 
DaveP said:
Regarding the difference between dying from being gassed and dying in general:

I can see the point that dead is dead, but the key is in the indiscriminate nature of gas.

Street fighting with machine guns gives noncoms a chance to hunker down, shelling is more indiscriminate but is usually just used to dislodge an enemy from a fortified position.  Stray shells may kill whole families, bad enough, but a large scale gas attack is designed to be Genocide of entire areas, noncoms, actors, and first responders and doctors alike.  It is for that reason that gas has been banned since just after WW1.  Not sure if Americans were gassed in that war but the French and British were and we responded in kind as well.  Churchill warned of "perverted science" and that just about sums it up.  I believe the Syrians aquired it as a foil to Israel's nuclear deterent, gas is in the same category, I guess.

Regarding women running the world, you have obviously never met my wife, bless her.  She can go from dead calm to nuclear in a blink of an eye, before I've even begun to realise WTF I've done ;)

DaveP

Yes good points about the nature of gas, sort of the "poor-mans" temporary nuclear weapon...again the whole thing makes me tired, that people are capable of this is about as much as  can take...we need never fear demons, monsters, aliens or zombies when we are more than capable of worse.

As far as women running things it was meant to explore a gender shift and unfortunately most of the predominant women leaders in the world are just what I would call feminized men doctrines...Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi being card carrying members of the "Alll women mans club"...

I do not believe we have ever seen truly feminine leadership...as the father of four daughters and one son I can describe the primary difference as this:

Men are wired to conquer, women are wired to create culture...the towels and soap in the hall bath for the guest is not about decoration, it is an attempt to create an environment...which seems to be the natural expression of MOST women...they decorate with conversation, relationships, candles and atmosphere, cooking is a big part of it because eating together is an experience not a reload.

This distinction (purely hypothetical on my part) could be the barrier we need to evolve to the next thing...an environment of peace is what we need, a culture of non-war..."beat our spears into plow share" so we can "cultivate"...(to borrow a phrase from another place)...

Again though...it is dislodging a male/patriarchal culture that seems dominant in the world, conquering our conquest nature that seems to be the issue...
 
rob_gould said:
Seriously Margaret Thatcher, Golda Mier, and others have demonstrated their ability lead as well as any man.

It depends on what you mean by 'as well as'. I get the impression that the other poster meant differently to the male approach.

I don't know much about Mier, but Thatcher is the perfect example of why women are not guaranteed to be any more empathetic or pragmatic than men when in the same position.

Leadership is not just about being empathic or pragmatic. it's about doing what you know is right when it isn't popular. Of course there will always be large fractions of any population that disagree about what is "right" which will influence our judgement about quality of leadership in individual leaders. 

I must concede Obama is showing some leadership at the moment, time will tell if he is right or wrong, and how willing he is to take responsibility for acting alone. It looks like he wants congress to share with him...  I kind of prefer that approach. Presidents can act unilaterally in cases of national emergency when there is some kind of imminent threat. Syria has been a slow moving train wreck so congressional involvement seems more than reasonable, no matter the personal motivations for involving them (which I can not know).  I suspect the lack of support from UK and other major allies has something to do with that.

JR
 
Piedwagtail said:
You were supposed to provided links when you cut and pasted that article

The link was underneath and was since I posted the quote.

Along with a companion piece along similiar lines but different portrayal of forces, which I edited in no more than half an hour later.I did not paste that in for I felt it would obstruct the visual flow of the thread too much.

I guess I was looking for the copyright notice and credit to the original author.

I have pasted short quotes but never full articles. within the code you can type [quote=  xyz said this...

A link to the article with perhaps a short paraphrase would suffice IMO but it's a free internet. It seems like a waste of bandwidth to cut and paste articles. 

=====
There are some interesting angles in that article but several unsupported conclusions that I find hard to swallow.  if I have the time I may respond specifically but i am not inclined to right now.

JR

 
Regarding the lack of support from the UK.

This is not a solid thing it is a result of several foul ups in the archaic UK system.

1. Cameron knew how long it was going to take (Obama probably gave an early strike date) so he ordered MP's back from their holidays to open Parliament early, this pissed off a lot of them and they didn't turn up for the vote. 

2.  Because the Iraq dossier was discredited, the joint intelligence commitee report was deliberately  short on facts, this failed to convince waverers and was probably counter-productive.

3. If Parliament had been recalled normally for this monday, all the MP's would have been there and they would have had the benefit of Kerry's Intel as well.

4.  Cameron was mislead by Milliband who at first offered his support but then withdrew it at the last moment when he saw he had an opportunity to defeat the government.  This has never been done before on a defence issue and he has been accused of destroying British credibility; deserved IMO.

5.  If the timing of all these events had panned out differently the vote would have carried, as it was only lost by 13 votes.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
Regarding the difference between dying from being gassed and dying in general:

I can see the point that dead is dead, but the key is in the indiscriminate nature of gas.

Street fighting with machine guns gives noncoms a chance to hunker down, shelling is more indiscriminate but is usually just used to dislodge an enemy from a fortified position.  Stray shells may kill whole families, bad enough, but a large scale gas attack is designed to be Genocide of entire areas, noncoms, actors, and first responders and doctors alike.  It is for that reason that gas has been banned since just after WW1.  Not sure if Americans were gassed in that war but the French and British were and we responded in kind as well.  Churchill warned of "perverted science" and that just about sums it up.  I believe the Syrians aquired it as a foil to Israel's nuclear deterent, gas is in the same category, I guess.
The use of gas in WWI (the war to end all wars) was pretty ugly, thus the international rules against it.

That said as long as there has been war, those in power have wanted to make it more "orderly", no doubt hoping to make it more linear or deterministic. In an orderly world, the major powers could just unzip, compare how long their meat swords are and the short straw would surrender.

I am in no way suggesting that poison gas be ignored or considered acceptable, I find all killing obscene, innocent civilians more so.

WRT Syrians acquiring gas as some form of deterrent against Israel, the history of the region reveals gas used by Iraq agains Iran so more likely a deterrent against their immediate neighbor who used it before against his other immediate neighbor.

Regarding Israel ,,,  no I won't open that can of worms,,, too long and complex but yes, they are a factor in middle east tension... 
Regarding women running the world, you have obviously never met my wife, bless her.  She can go from dead calm to nuclear in a blink of an eye, before I've even begun to realise WTF I've done ;)

DaveP

I expect subtle differences between males and females in leadership roles, while the larger difference is how we perceive them. A man and woman doing the same things are viewed differently through our cultural stereotypes.  I've had a female boss before and i didn't find her very empathetic or pragmatic... A different word comes to mind, but i won't speak ill of the dead..RIP

JR

 
Back
Top