Syria

[SNKorSWM]

Except that US military vehicles weren't equipped to handle the sand when they tried to storm Tehran years ago. Ya gotta remember who builds those stuff.

 

[Lagduf]

Except that US military vehicles weren't equipped to handle the sand when they tried to storm Tehran years ago. Ya gotta remember who builds those stuff.

There wont be a point to storm a city that is wiped off the map.

 

[famicommander]

I think you grossly underestimate the might of the US military.

If the full weight of Assad's military assets were thrown against the US then Assad would have no military. He would lose everything and suffering a humiliating defeat. It'd be Desert Storm 2.0

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants and no one is going to stop us because no one can stop us.

Wake me up when F-22s are flying in to downtown Tehran and dropping bombs on the Ayatollah.

Nobody has to stop the US. They just have to wait until it destroys itself. And given the fact that the US currently spends more money on the military than every other nation in the world combined, coupled with the fact that its unfunded liabilities* currently amount to roughly 230 trillion dollars (more than 18X the officially acknowledged debt), it shouldn't really be too much longer in the grand scheme of things. A decade? Three? Six? Who knows, but common sense says you can't owe more money than what you produce by a factor of nearly 20 and keep accumulating debt too much longer. Eventually the US dollar will deteriorate so much that nobody will take it anymore, at which point funding constant imperialism is pretty fucking difficult.

Unfunded liabilities include the currently projected cost of future payments already promised in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal pensions, and other such mandatory expenditures.

 

[SNKorSWM]

There wont be a point to storm a city that is wiped off the map.

Then the easiest way is to schedule a space shuttle reentry over that city in question.

 

[Eric]

I'm a huge fan of isolationism, fuck being the world police.

This is why we shouldn't have become so dependent on global trade. We used to be self-sufficient and have enough manufacturing to support ourselves, now we have to worry about what China thinks because not only do we import most of our goods from them, we are in debt to them. Fuck that. We should create new manufacturing jobs, pay off our obligations and give China a big "FUCK YOU!" It would kill two birds with one stone too, by killing China's economy too. Of course, our economy might be destroyed in the process too unless we could really get manufacturing costs under control, but fuck it. Some people just want to watch the world burn.

As a percentage of GDP the US has some of the lowest imports in the world. Source (Import less % of GDP than China, for example) So the US is already one of the more self sufficient nations in the world but it's not exactly advantageous to stop all trade.

And if my math is right, trade with China takes up about...3.5% of our national GDP?

Besides that, the US shouldn't want China's crappy manufacturing jobs. Putting together Nikes and iPhones are not the greatest opportunities in the world.

 

[ki_atsushi]

As a percentage of GDP the US has some of the lowest imports in the world. Source (Import less % of GDP than China, for example) So the US is already one of the more self sufficient nations in the world but it's not exactly advantageous to stop all trade.

And if my math is right, trade with China takes up about...3.5% of our national GDP?

Besides that, the US shouldn't want China's crappy manufacturing jobs. Putting together Nikes and iPhones are not the greatest opportunities in the world.

How much our imports are marked up on the American side throws all those numbers out of whack.

The whole reason we do business with China is because we can ship parts there, and they can be assembled and shipped back cheaper than it would cost us to hire workers here to do the complete manufacturing. Or alternatively, have them manufacture and send the parts here for final assembly.

Either way, on the American side there is a huge profit margin that bloats our GDP, effectively making the cost of imports against out GDP tiny. GDP does not take volume into account, only currency, so it is a flawed way to look at our trade.

 

[famicommander]

GDP is flawed inherently because it considers government spending productive. In a voluntary exchange both parties stand to benefit, otherwise the exchange would not take place; thus it is productive. In an involuntary exchange one person uses force to violate the rights of another, and thus is inherently only productive to one party. Government is in essence a series of involuntary exchanges. Every dollar the government spends had to be redirected from a productive use by force, and then trickled through multiple layers of government corruption, ineptitude, and bureaucracy before it even has a chance at satisfying the wants of a consumer. To say, as GDP does, that government spending is the same as private production and exchange is inherently a logical contradiction.

 

[StevenK]

The US can do whatever the fuck it wants and no one is going to stop us because no one can stop us.

I was just considering the likely scenario if the US did for some reason turn mental and start trying to obliterate the rest of the world. I guess the biggest rivals would be a joint effort by the European Union, but fuck, we'd all be dead before we'd even gathered together all the translators, it takes an hour for us to transmit the Eurovision song contest result.

Would make a pretty epic film though.

 

[norton9478]

GDP is flawed inherently because it considers government spending productive. .

Such an argument shouldn't be limited to just government.

 

[famicommander]

Such an argument shouldn't be limited to just government.

Yes it should... any voluntary trade is inherently productive. Only coerced trade is unproductive.

 

[Xavier]

I think the Us could've easily bribed Assad a made him a puppet up until early in the Obama presidency. He's western educated speaks English and his government is secular. For whatever reason the west isolated him and backed him into a wall turning him into his father.

I see Obamas refer it to congress like getting in somebodies face at the bar telling them your going to whoop their ass if your buddy wasn't holding you back, except congress is the opposite of his buddy.

How much outreach has Pelosi done since Obama became President?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html
Pelosi said, "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...8/30/pelosi-urges-military-response-to-syria/
“It is clear that the American people are weary of war,” Pelosi said. “However, [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime.”

Pelosi added: “What Assad has done is outside the realm of basic human rights. On this evening’s call, I expressed my appreciation for the measured, targeted and limited approach the President may be considering.”

 

[Lagduf]

lol

The extra-judicial execution of an American citizen and his minor child wasn't outside the realm of basic human rights either?

I hate this congress and this administration.

 

[mainman]

How much outreach has Pelosi done since Obama became President?

Look up the The Amash Amendment. The bitch literally voted against reinstating the 4th amendment. The defeat of this bill has been the only bipartisan effort witness from both sides of the isle since this latest congress came into session.

It was kind of odd to see the Democratic Party Leadership vote to spy on Americans given the party’s alleged commitment to civil liberties. Now it is reported that not only did the Democratic Leadership vote against the bill but that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was the driving force behind saving the NSA spying program.

 

[SNKorSWM]

China makes those Zhu Zhu pets for pennies apiece.
Walmart marks those up to 9 bucks each.
Resellers during Christmas of 09' gouge those to 40 or 50 bucks.

Who were the ones raking in most of the moolah?

 

[bokmeow]

Oh snap.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after war began

1 Sep 2013 07:21
FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January — 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

REUTERS/Nour Fourat

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January — 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.

He said: “At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons.

“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.

“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?

“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”

The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, said: “I will be raising this in Parliament as soon as possible to find out what examination the UK Government made of where these chemicals were going and what they were to be used for.

“Approving the sale of chemicals which can be converted into lethal weapons during a civil war is a very serious issue.

“We need to know who these chemicals were sold to, why they were sold, and whether the UK Government were aware that the chemicals could potentially be used for chemical weapons.

“The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria makes a full explanation around these shady deals even more important.”

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (Scotland) said: “The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different.

“The Government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it’s granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria.

“We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with arms companies to promote business.”

Some details emerged in July of the UK’s sale of the chemicals to Syria but the crucial dates of the exports were withheld.

The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures such as window frames.

Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: “They have a variety of industrial uses.

“But when you’re making a nerve agent, you attach a fluoride element and that’s what gives it its toxic properties.

“Fluoride is key to making these munitions.

“Whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world.

“An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoke or prolong conflict within a country, be used aggressively against another country or risk our national security.

“When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can —and do— revoke licences where the proposed export is no longer consistent with the criteria.”

Assad’s regime have denied blame for the nerve gas attack, saying the accusations are “full of lies”. They have pointed the finger at rebels.

UN weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity left Damascus just before dawn yesterday and crossed into Lebanon after gathering evidence for four days.

They are now travelling to the Dutch HQ of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons.

It could take up to two weeks for the results of tests on samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel, to be revealed.

On Thursday night, Cameron referred to a Joint Intelligence Committee report on Assad’s use of chemical weapons as he tried in vain to persuade MPs to back military action. The report said the regime had used chemical weapons at least 14 times since last year.

Russian president Vladimir Putin yesterday attacked America’s stance and urged Obama to show evidence to the UN that Assad’s regime was guilty.

Russia and Iran are Syria’s staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war which has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Putin said it would be “utter nonsense” for Syria to provoke opponents and spark military
retaliation from the West by using chemical weapons.

But the White House, backed by the French government, remain convinced of Assad’s guilt, and Obama proposes “limited, narrow” military action to punish the regime.

He has the power to order a strike, but last night said he would seek approval from Congress.

Obama called the chemical attack “an assault on human dignity” and said: “We are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”

He added: “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive. It will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.

“And I’m prepared to give that order.”

Some fear an attack on Syria will spark retaliation against US allies in the region, such as Jordan, Turkey and Israel.

General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, described the Commons vote as a “victory for common sense and democracy”.

He added that the “drumbeat for war” had dwindled among the British public in recent days.

 

[Lagduf]

Oh Britain...

So Obama says he is going to get congressional approval, eh? I'm sure that means he already has enough votes.

 

[SNKorSWM]

The doodoo has hit the fan.

 

[bokmeow]

NY Times tries a bit of old fashioned redaction on the debate surrounding Syria.
But in the age of the internet, such attempts is akin to showing your tail to the world:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176001/nyt-cuts-references-aipac-syria-debate#axzz2dr22ZaRz

'NYT' Cuts References to AIPAC in Syria Debate
Greg Mitchell on September 3, 2013 - 10:39 AM ET

It was startling though not exactly surprising. Web detectives spotted it fairly easily. I saw it first from M.J. Rosenberg but perhaps someone else had earlier. The Daily Beast and others referred to the grafs before they were cut. The Boston Globe published it earlier in picking up The New York Times story, for example, and they still have it online.

This was cut from the Times' top story of the day, on their site and in print:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

Updates: All of the many changes in the story tracked here. Goldberg talks to Politico about it. As he notes, very "strange"--original article was accurate and no space issues on the Web....Some dialogue with the Times' Robert Mackey on Twitter, in which he claims "transparency." And now: See NYT explanation for cut here ("gorilla" quote had appeared the day before).

Rosenberg comments:

Obviously the White House and/or AIPAC did not want to be caught saying that the reason we are attacking Syria is to show AIPAC, the “800 pound gorilla,” that we are serious about the war the lobby really craves: Iran.

But there it is. Or was.

AIPAC censorship even applies to the Times. Only in America (not Israel, where AIPAC’s power does not extend to Haaretz).

Jeffrey Goldberg in tweet to me just now: "I noted, on Twitter, the AIPAC cut early this morning. Trying to get an answer about why it was cut."

Brent Sasley at The Daily Beast had commented when he read original story;

One might, then, expect it to take a public position on the biggest issue of the day, U.S. strikes against the regime’s military assets. And after President Obama announced he was going to Congress for authorization for the attack, observers began wondering—with some claiming more confidently—that AIPAC would become much more active. Apparently White House officials even fear what AIPAC will do. If Obama is seen as not enforcing his red line over Syria, how, one hinted, would this “800-pound gorilla in the room” view the Administration’s Iran policy.

 

[ki_atsushi]

I heard that the rebels were the ones responsible for the nerve gas... a misfire killing their own people. Dumbasses.

 

[Tripredacus]

I heard that the rebels were the ones responsible for the nerve gas... a misfire killing their own people. Dumbasses.

There are 4 "theories" right now. I put it in quotes because us guys in the US get lied to so much we don't know what's what anymore. Anyways they are:

1. Syria used the chemical weapons
2. Rebels used the chemical weapons
3. Syria attacked a rebel installation that contained chemical weapons stored
4. US staged the event

Obviously #1 is the story the White House is telling. #2 is the story Syria is saying. #3 has been mentioned as a possibility based on some local reports. #4 came to light just recently after someone hacked Pentagon emails and there was one email where a US soldier was congratulated on their work and another where he told his wife it was staged.

 

[CaseyTappy]

I heard that the rebels were the ones responsible for the nerve gas... a misfire killing their own people. Dumbasses.

So you have been talking to Vladimir, who to believe though ?

 

[ki_atsushi]

So you have been talking to Vladimir, who to believe though ?

Here ya go.

 

[SNKorSWM]

Everybody pointing fingers at everybody else...unlike Al Qaeda. If they did it, they'd admit it.

 

[neobuyer]

I have to admit, the left's claims of Dick Cheney and Halliburton and war profiteering were absolutely correct. On the other hand, this has been the case for a very long time, it's the 'modern' way of looking out for national interests ...which is more or less a half truth.

On the other hand, the Arab states have long since used the Palestinian people as a weapon against the West. Since the Palestinians are people, at least the women and children should not be involved in this masculine struggle as old as Adam's petrified left nut*. Those of us capable of feeling empathy know this.
Bill Clinton (at least publically) missed a golden opportunity to broker peace in the 90s (at least in part) to Arafat's unwillingness to compromise at the time. I said then that the courageous, leaderly thing to have done was to force both sides to agree to that deal.
Now it's become painfully obvious to us that Afghanistan was a national grab for (I presume) lithium, and Iraq was about oil ...for China and India. The worst crime I think my nation committed against itself was not even spending the $ to armor the bottoms of military vehicles against IED's.
If we are going to kill the god of war, we are going to have to man up and recognize it for what it is- it's us.

(*The human race (the male half) is driven to do this, it's in our DNA. It's how psycho mom mother nature gets us to do her/it's bidding. Those of us who think the human race is basically good are living in 'The Matrix'. Religion is (and always has been) a social technology intended to get people to follow the rule of law required to live together in large groups. It is also there to fill in our mental gaps- the horrible unknown and fear of death and suffering.)

 

[famicommander]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/

That pretty much speaks for itself. This isn't about humanitarianism and anyone who believes it is is downright fucking stupid.