Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 10:03 pm:
I've long wondered if the master plan has always been to use everyone else's oil before exploiting ours. ( I don't think they're that smart, but I could be wrong )
I've also wondered the same thing (with the same caveat). I also wonder it we will hang onto those resources until technological advances make them virtually useless.
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 11:43 pm:
Where is City when we need him Putin has a new Class of Oil and Gas Billionaires. They Bank in Cyprus remember the news over the Cypriot Banking Crises earlier in the year. Every war since ww1 has been over who controls the oil and gas flow from the Mideast. Why was Rommel there The Italians couldn't do the Job Europe has wanted a pipeline from the Mideast and Russia wants one out to sell their gas and beat the Arabs to the market
Where are the peace nik libs now its Obama wants to bomb Syria? Community organizer that fool can't organize soup and a sandwich Read the oil industry news and Aramco etc annual reports its amazing how ill informed the media is
Syria welcomes the Russian proposal out of concern for the lives of the Syrian people, the security of our country and because it believes in the wisdom of the Russian leadership that seeks to avert American aggression against our people hahahahahah
Xdigitalx, an absolute like that, "no war is always good", or "if it's obama, he's wrong", or.... or.... Always are wrong like all Absolutes.
If the President had presented a plan based on the "last straw" pretext, ( as he did ) with a goal, ( as he has not ) that made ANY kind of sense, he could sell it. I can conceive of a plan that would be successful, overthrowing Assad and still having a free Syrian People. ( but, like Obama, won't bother to bore you with it. Unlike Obama I'm willing to discuss it ) But I fear the time for a bold, intelligent plan may be over.
I could be wrong, certainly, and I'm waiting for someone to pitch a rational course of action. I just don't hear it from the Prez, the Sec State, or the "war enthusiastic" in Congress. Anyone?
I don't really want this to just be an Obama bash, even though I provocatively named it, and even since Obama wants to have a "not war" and I doubt his motives, honesty, and abilities.
For an opinion on THAT subject worth some thought, see Hootowl's post from September 09, 2013 - 10:30 am: on the "Obama" thread.
This is bigger than that.
IF Putin has got Assad to toss out the Chemical weapons as a move to keeping power, it's brilliant. Putin gets to win one over Obama, diplomatically, come out the good guy, make Obama look like a warmonger hot head, and a fool. It's a win win for Putin, and much as I hate to say it, may be the best move for the Syrian People. Short term.
Kenm123t, Glenn Beck was talking about the pipeline you mentioned.
There should have read: "But..., as long as there is a solution... and no war (for usa)...it is a good thing".
I don't think the USA should do anything without the UN. Nothing at all. The UN "SHOULD" do and act exactly like Kerry & Co. wants the USA to act. Whatever plan they see fit. If it doesn't work... go to plan B and so on. Find out who really blew up the chems and get rid of the remaining asap. Nobody wants to man up. (France does?)
Haven't they (UN) done this before with Saddam... Assad seems like he would comply easier. Seems like he just doesn't want the USA involved.
If it is true that Assad is willing to give up ALL of his chemical weapons to the UN, then this is the best possible outcome.
Assuming that he agreed to this, how would it ever be verified that all of them have been turned over. Syria is in the midst of a civil war. Not exactly the kind of thing that you simply stroll into and start verifying munitions stock piles. And I don't think that anybody outside of Syria has a clue how many weapons we are talking about.
Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 12:37 pm:
Hey! The anti-war protestors have been found. They are still protesting against GWB! I have some doubts that they really give a rat's behind about protesting war. I'm guessing it's just an excuse to blindly follow an ideology that they have been indoctrinated with by their professors.
So we are not "officially" arming the Syrian rebels now. I find this interesting in that BO has been saying that we need to take action, not to change the balance of power, or to promote regime change, but to send a message that chemical weapons are a red line that can not be crossed.
I think we may have strayed from the idea of punishing Assad for the use of WMDs (assuming he really did, likely, but not proven) and gone straight to picking sides in a civil war that has absolutely zero to do with out national security. To me it seems that we have come full circle right back to where we were when BO first wanted to attack Syria, before it wasn't about picking sides. I'm pretty sure at this point he just sides with radical Islamist. It's not the first time he has picked the side of radical Islamists. In my mind, this is now a trend.
Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 01:09 am:
Define Treason
the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
sending weapons to alqueda who attacked us 12 years ago
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III,
the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States,
such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.
If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. thwarting the investigation of Benghasi, and possibly arming alqueda with whom we are in conflict with.
If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.
As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason.
Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand.
By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup.
Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]).
On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution.
Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile.
A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.
Leaks, maybe approved by Obama, maybe not, say no proof Assad himself ordered gas attacks. ( most likely may be his Brother, who has been badly hurt and may be a little more around the bend than is usual in the region )
No one except those who have problems with Obama bother to point out the 100,000 that Assad DID have direct input into killing.
Assad throws in the obligatory "Israel's fault" line, but basically, if Obama keeps arming AQ & affiliates, he can go pound sand on the whole "I give up my Chemical Weapons" play.
This is a logical progression of the usual business of blaming everything on someone else. You don't "attack the enemy to steal his stuff", you "retaliate for the horrible things the enemy has done". Sorta like Obama.
At this point I'm almost in favor of slaughtering a bunch of the rebels, freeing the Syrian People from the AQ, and cooperating with Russia and Syria to do so. We at least know where Assad lives, so after some measure of peace is restored, we can always blow up his palace.
I'll have to examine this idea further to see if there are any morals I didn't break, so don't take it as a final recommendation. ( not that it's an action we would ever take. )
It rocks to have a smart decisive President who can forge peace from war, raise your country's status in the world, face down wannabe 3rd world dictators, speak truth to power, and support your allies with strength and resolve.
Congrats, Russia.
Too bad he's a ruthless dictator with no qualms about slaughtering or imprisoning his own people.
We got one of them too. ( the bad part, not the good part, darn it )
As in "gee, that Destroyer must have hit an old WW2 mine, because we sure didn't torpedo it knowing your government is too cowardly to fight someone who can fight back"?????
Or should we expect speedboats with Divine Wind Jihadi like the Cole?
OH CRAP!!!! Syria may miss a deadline to provide paperwork! Obviously a much more important thing than artillery attacks.
"We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing," Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow "no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance."
"suck up to me now, or I will do what I'm going to do anyway and I'll blame it on you, like I was going to no matter what" Pretty much sums this one up.
Skipping the domestic politics, the idea that we are funding and supplying arms to AQ affiliates in Syria and the region is, insane. True, but insane.
The President has decided we are close buddies of folk who eat human flesh on youtube.
No, not habitual cannibals, it was a publicity stunt to chop out the heart & other organs from a freshly killed Syrian and eat them raw. On camera.
"I swear to God, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs -- we will eat your heart and livers! Takbir! God is Great! Oh my heroes of Baba Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat them!"
That bypasses the genocide our "new allies" are doing as we speak, or the appearance that this Administration wants to fight the Cold War all over again. ( proxy armies supported by the Russians vs, ours )
Don't get too distracted by the ACA argument. This is real too.
