Don't google " Christian Syrian Girl "
Obama is so not want he said. Like, duh.
Obama is so not want he said. Like, duh.
Come on Dilbert what kind of simplistic bullshit is that?
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
When we started running guns into Syria 2.5 years ago and telling people to go a head and overthrow the government we became responsible for every horror there, and it's that simple.
yes, yes, RT. russian propaganda news site, kremlin funded blah blah blah. the video still raises a good point about the lack of faith servicemen have in their government. what do you former/current military vets think about a war in syria wether it is "limited strikes" or "boots on the ground?"
Someone will have to secure the WMD's if Assad falls...
what? again?CC-Marley wrote:
WMD's
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Ok, let's see if this sorry 'discussion' can be dragged out of dumbfuck territory.
So the question is: why exactly does Syria warrant so much attention from various parties (mainly the U.S. and Russia)? Look at this in the wider context of conflicts in the Middle East (among other things).
yupJay wrote:
If it wasn't important, the government wouldn't spend so many millions of dollars getting public opinion on their side every time they decide to go to war.
The existence of a clear and obvious threat isn't necessary in the equation that leads a country to consider involvement in a conflict (and there are many cases in which you could say: thank goodness for that). As you stated, if it weren't important your government wouldn't spend so much to sway public opinion. Same goes for Russia which is opposing action in Syria.Jay wrote:
There's absolutely no reason for us to be involved in Syria at all. They aren't a threat to us.
So the question is: why exactly does Syria warrant so much attention from various parties (mainly the U.S. and Russia)? Look at this in the wider context of conflicts in the Middle East (among other things).
inane little opines
Yeah because it's not like Syria has the third largest chemical stockpile in the world anyway...Shahter wrote:
what? again?CC-Marley wrote:
WMD's
Natural gas pipeline from Qatar. All this bullshit is about Gazproms death grip on European gas.Shocking wrote:
Ok, let's see if this sorry 'discussion' can be dragged out of dumbfuck territory.yupJay wrote:
If it wasn't important, the government wouldn't spend so many millions of dollars getting public opinion on their side every time they decide to go to war.The existence of a clear and obvious threat isn't necessary in the equation that leads a country to consider involvement in a conflict (and there are many cases in which you could say: thank goodness for that). As you stated, if it weren't important your government wouldn't spend so much to sway public opinion. Same goes for Russia which is opposing action in Syria.Jay wrote:
There's absolutely no reason for us to be involved in Syria at all. They aren't a threat to us.
So the question is: why exactly does Syria warrant so much attention from various parties (mainly the U.S. and Russia)? Look at this in the wider context of conflicts in the Middle East (among other things).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not yet built, though economic factors are, in many cases, part of the reason why countries would get involved in conflicts. So, granted. I absolutely loathe the 'greed' argument though as it's a total dead end in all cases that rests on little more than pessimistic assumptions.Jay wrote:
Natural gas pipeline from Qatar. All this bullshit is about Gazproms death grip on European gas.
Still, the pipeline argument doesn't explain why the US would be so vocal on Syria - or why Iran/Israel/Iraq would be and only explains part of the reason why Turkey is. As for Russia, while they may oppose the construction of said pipeline that is hardly the only reason why it would be involved in the Syrian civil war.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-09-08 09:27:19)
inane little opines
No, Russia has a naval base in Syria as well. Europe wants gas access from the middle east via pipeline through Turkey. They can either go through Iraq or Syria. Syria being Sunni is a more attractive option to the Saudis and Qatar. The US is there because our allies in Europe and the Middle East want us to be, and I'm sure Halliburton stands to make a lot of money building the pipeline.Shocking wrote:
Not yet built, though economic factors are, in many cases, part of the reason why countries would get involved in conflicts. So, granted. I absolutely loathe the 'greed' argument though as it's a total dead end in all cases that rests on little more than pessimistic assumptions.Jay wrote:
Natural gas pipeline from Qatar. All this bullshit is about Gazproms death grip on European gas.
Still, the pipeline argument doesn't explain why the US would be so vocal on Syria - or why Iran/Israel/Iraq would be and only explains part of the reason why Turkey is. As for Russia, while they may oppose the construction of said pipeline that is hardly the only reason why it would be involved in the Syrian civil war.
I'm not suggesting a 'greed' angle here. It makes perfect sense for Europe to seek a non-Russian source of natural gas. Competition leads to lower prices in the end.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Didn't we invade Afghanistan to prevent the Chinese building a pipe to Iran?
Fuck Israel
There's little/no support for intervention and/or bombing of Syria from Europe. If the gas market was an issue you'd expect Germany and perhaps some Eastern European states (the largest customers of Russian gas) to push for action, instead they've been relatively quiet. The US has unique interests in the country for several reasons; its position wrt Iran and its position wrt Israel (which we all know has a very substantial lobby back in the US - also, Iranian weapons travel through Syria towards Lebanon/Israel), and probably some other issues, like the alleged use of chemical weapons and UN pressure to do something about it. Perhaps also an effort to diminish Russian influence in the region.Jay wrote:
No, Russia has a naval base in Syria as well. Europe wants gas access from the middle east via pipeline through Turkey. They can either go through Iraq or Syria. Syria being Sunni is a more attractive option to the Saudis and Qatar. The US is there because our allies in Europe and the Middle East want us to be, and I'm sure Halliburton stands to make a lot of money building the pipeline.Shocking wrote:
Not yet built, though economic factors are, in many cases, part of the reason why countries would get involved in conflicts. So, granted. I absolutely loathe the 'greed' argument though as it's a total dead end in all cases that rests on little more than pessimistic assumptions.Jay wrote:
Natural gas pipeline from Qatar. All this bullshit is about Gazproms death grip on European gas.
Still, the pipeline argument doesn't explain why the US would be so vocal on Syria - or why Iran/Israel/Iraq would be and only explains part of the reason why Turkey is. As for Russia, while they may oppose the construction of said pipeline that is hardly the only reason why it would be involved in the Syrian civil war.
I'm not suggesting a 'greed' angle here. It makes perfect sense for Europe to seek a non-Russian source of natural gas. Competition leads to lower prices in the end.
Whatever the case it seems like Russia has 'outplayed' the US by forcing Assad to negotiate on the chemical weapons issue.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-09-10 09:04:12)
inane little opines
The US could be looking out for their EU allies, doing what the EU can't (due to gas control).Shocking wrote:
Still, the pipeline argument doesn't explain why the US would be so vocal on Syria
Doesn't work that way, the 'grip' Russia has on EU gas supply is hugely overstated. Russia only has influence left in former Soviet-states and most aren't too keen on Russia and very vocal about it (see: the drama on Poland's missile defense shield). They only really control gas supply to Ukraine and can pressure the country through threats. This wouldn't work on western European states, actually, it would destroy Russian relations with everyone west of Poland.
inane little opines