American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[Punter 127]

Did I stutter?

What are you trying to say?

Allow me to be simplistic. I oppose US military involvement in Syria.

So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.

Are you saying there's no difference between Bush and Obama? Or are you just sidestepping the issue to keep from telling us where you stand on military involvement?

We're a broke world power, and I would be more incline to say it's the Saudi's that don't like what's going on, and they want Obama to use our military to clean things up.

Here's some other things I've seen that I suspect are in play in this situation;.

"In the last year, a giant Persian Gulf gas discovery was made in a joint Iran-Qatar project." I've also read reports that say Syria is to be the end port for a Gas Pipeline. If true it will begin in Iran pass through Iraq and end at the Mediterranean seaport in Syria, that's a straight shot. Even though Qatar is fighting against the Assad now, the plan calls for Qatari natural gas to be directed into the same pipeline. And who has a seaport in Syria, you guessed it the Russians have a naval port in Tartus.
While we've had our thumb up our asses arguing and fighting over fracking and blocking pipelines, "Russia has been building crude oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines from the Mother Russian lands to points in Europe and China and the Former Soviet Republics. They have been constructing modern LNG gas port facilities." What effect will all this have on Saudi crude oil? Will the world move from oil to gas? Also remember crude oil sales are in USD, if the pipelines are completed those sales will probably not be in USD, and what effect would that have on the dollar? Syria stands at the door to the emergence of the Eastern Alliance, the new dominant energy pipelines, and for these reasons and not chemical weapons, I believe the United States will find a way to get involved.

[Rev BS]

I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.

There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.

In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

Sound familiar?

Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?

"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.

[WorldTravel69]

This the same now as then.

Greedy does not stop.

It started when America was born.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper

http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper/vid...town-bullshit/

[Punter 127]

Well, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM.

Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).

Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.

I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.

Actually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.

There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.

In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

Sound familiar?

Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.

Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?

"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

[Gandolf50]

Sad times for the ladies.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...mp-4778302.php

They were way overpriced to begin with.

[WorldTravel69]

Sad times for the ladies.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...mp-4778302.php

[Chezz]

I didn't see the speech

Well, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM.

However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.

Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).

We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.

Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.

In 2007 Obama said "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interest

Actually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.

Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?

Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.

And history repeats itself, over and over. Until:

What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?

It used to be that Mutual Assured Destruction (you know, that thing during the cold war that kept Russia and the US from blowing the fuck out of each other) was enough to keep the peace. But nukes in the hands of crazy Muslim jihadists, well, that's a reason to worry.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a plane to EZE to catch. I'm cooking dinner Tuesday or Wednesday at the house. To those of you that know me, stop on by.

[Punter 127]

Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.

I didn't see the speech but Obama has always been better at speeches than actions. However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.

So, all of you Obama haters, what was opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he get's the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?

I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?

We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.

In 2007 Obama said "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interest, I don't see that threat. I also think this limited strike talk is BS, what would we do if they use chemical weapons again after we strike them, perhaps another limited strike and another and another? You don't play games with these people you either take them out or leave them alone.

And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.

As for the U.N. We should have cut funding and told them to fuck off years ago. I agree with you about Putin and I think he has and is playing Obama for a sucker.

Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?

What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?

[Chezz]

Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.

So, all of you Obama haters, what was your opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he gets the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?

I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?

And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.

[Flexible Horn]

The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US.

Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.

France has closer ties with Syria than the UK, having occupied Syria from 1920 to 1946. Its about time the French actually did something...and we know the world police will lead the way.

[WorldTravel69]

I do have a life. I don't always have time to read the bullshit some of you throw out.

All countries need to go slow and carefully about Syria. I wonder if Syria's rockets could reach our shores with chemical weapons.

It is bad enough that Monsanto puts the shit in our food, we don't need it in our air.

Syria?

If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.

Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?

[Esten]

I am not struggling with my position on this.

We must confirm Assad used chemical weapons, with convincing evidence. Assuming this is the case, we must do something. What that is, I'll leave to the experts, and it obviously needs to be thought through carefully.

I see several reasons. Chemical weapons are sickening and to stand by while a dictator uses them on his own people, is unacceptable for someone who can do something about it (like the US or UK). The UK decision is going to cause a lot of division in that country, and don't be surprised if it gets revisited (the vote was close, 272 to 285). If you are able to act and do not, you have basically said "I'm OK with mass murder by chemical weapons". The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US. A secondary reason is Obama's statement about the red line. US credibility will be diminished if we do not act, and the Assad and other regimes may take this as license to expand use of chemical weapons.

Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.

[Jackson]

Also good was at the beginning of the administration there was a rescue of Americans being held by pirates, snipers took the pirates out by sniper fire...Great job!

The Navy Seals did that, not Obama.

[Punter 127]

Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.

No "crowing" here. And you're right as Jackson and Silver Star have pointed out even Obama has been right a few times. I just find it very strange that nobody on the left has voiced an opinion on the very serious Syria situation, why do you suppose that is?

Have a safe flight.

[Rev BS]

Syria?

If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.

Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?

Been on the island of Gili Asahan, no tv, no wifi, no bullshit. Just white powder sand, clear waters, some goats and cows. Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.