gaaboard.com

had to go to the barbers today (it didnt take long ::)) but while i was there several old codgers were in for thier daily gossip and read of the papers. all are predicting a war. i asked them who was gonna fight who they didnt go into specifics but they are convinced a major conflict isnt far away. my mother whos slightly over 21 as well agrees. whats going on have i missed something.. or is this just the way old people get on?

Quote from: lawnseed on August 09, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
had to go to the barbers today (it didnt take long ::)) but while i was there several old codgers were in for thier daily gossip and read of the papers. all are predicting a war. i asked them who was gonna fight who they didnt go into specifics but they are convinced a major conflict isnt far away. my mother whos slightly over 21 as well agrees. whats going on have i missed something.. or is this just the way old people get on?

Sure they probably think its 1938.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 09, 2011, 06:19:20 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on August 09, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
had to go to the barbers today (it didnt take long ::)) but while i was there several old codgers were in for thier daily gossip and read of the papers. all are predicting a war. i asked them who was gonna fight who they didnt go into specifics but they are convinced a major conflict isnt far away. my mother whos slightly over 21 as well agrees. whats going on have i missed something.. or is this just the way old people get on?

Sure they probably think its 1938.

thats my mother your talking about :D

Quote from: lawnseed on August 09, 2011, 06:20:34 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 09, 2011, 06:19:20 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on August 09, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
had to go to the barbers today (it didnt take long ::)) but while i was there several old codgers were in for thier daily gossip and read of the papers. all are predicting a war. i asked them who was gonna fight who they didnt go into specifics but they are convinced a major conflict isnt far away. my mother whos slightly over 21 as well agrees. whats going on have i missed something.. or is this just the way old people get on?

Ooooppps  :-[
Sure they probably think its 1938.

thats my mother your talking about :D

If it blew a gale up at home my granny thought it was the end of the world. WWIII was never too far away. It must be an age/generational thing.

Gerald Celente has been predicting a major war within the next few years.  he's never that far off the mark.

There is a lot of tension between the USA and China at the moment and a lot of  tactical military maneuvers going on between them in the East and South China Sea that you don't see reported but it is on going.

The economic relations with China and the USA are causing a lot of the tension but the Seas around China are crucial for it to import oil and gas and the USA essentially control those waters.

The USA is up to its eyes in debt to china.  Chinese loans have kept the seppos afloat for a number of years now.

Thats usually why the US start a war, when someone else is getting too big for their boots or they have something they want.  Its like in the Soprano's, when you owe someone loads of money, its the easy option jus to make them dissapear  :D

Good luck to them making the reds disappear!

In seriousness US is completely reliant on the Chinese and needs to develop industrial ties not start a war. Also the Chinese are paying over the odds for a lot of African oil fields, again the Americans will need them for those.

As far as I m aware we are in a war. It s nearly ten years now since 9/11 which was a flashpoint in a struggle that has been going on for over 1000 years. Tactics and technology have changed but it is the same war. A lot of people have died in Iraq ( and there were no weapons of mass destruction - and more people have died horribly there since than under the despot Saddan H), Afgan. Madrid, and London etc since, as part of the same war.
The thing is that some people think a war is like Clontarf, Hastings or Boyne where things are resolved in hours and the winners are home for their tea. Or maybe the Battle of Britain, dogfights and stuff, Stiff upper lip and all that. Which was a very different war than had been fought before. WWI was unique as well where there was a savage clash of old tactics v new technology. It s a bit ironic that 9/11 is labelled 'terrorism' when civilians were targeted in towns/cities in Spain, China, Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Japan, Plillipines, Poland etc 60-70 yrs ago. Terror and targeting civilians was a tactic then and had been for ever really but not on such a planned and industrial scale as was seen in Manchuria and Spain in the 30's and since. Don t for a minute doubt that Japanese Kamaikaze pilots would have baulked flying into the Empire State if they had the range to do so. Suicide bombing is just another tactic and as legit as any other. The first rule of war since chivalry is that there are no rules. So 9/11 was as legit as Hiroshima London, or Dresden or Guernica.
There are some serious local wars ongoing and that has been normal. Over 100m people died in conflicts in the 20th C. The 2 big wars maybe accounted for over half of that but there was a lot of killing besides. And that does not include massive loss of life as a result of famine/disease as a result of war, or some tyrants warped vision of his country s future. Think Pot or Mao, whose latter's Cultural Revolution/ Great Leap Forward probably caused as many deaths of his own people as WWII did.

Anyway the events of the last few days in London/Manchester etc have shown that you dont have too look to far to get a war.  We don t need to concern ourselves with US v China. At best, in Ireland as well, the police and the courts, just about keep a lid on things. The 'success' of these riots will only encourage more of the same. There is no way that those massive numbers of police can be deployed on the streets long term. A lot of people with f**k all to lose have discovered a little sweet shop for themselves. I m surprised there hasn t been a few copycat incidents over here. Of course our underbelly do better social welfare so why bother? Then of course as well if you riot over here, even in Summer, you can get wet with all the rain, so its not worth it. But it could get interesting yet when the cuts start to bite harder and the unthinkable might happen, and welfare might be cut.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14470882)

Don't forget, the Obama Administration is siding with Argentina over the Falklands (buoyed, of course, by the discovery of Oil in British Sea Territory).

Zionism will continue to set the Christian and Islamic Worlds apart by;

1. Overhyping Islamic Militancy.

2. Allowing Mass Immigration from Islamic Countries into Western Europe.

3. Convincing US Christians that this is a 'Holy War' and that Israel is a 'Kingdom of God'.

Moysider its not often I'd say it but excellent post

Quote from: ExcellentDriver on August 10, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
the Obama Administration is siding with Argentina over the Falklands (buoyed, of course, by the discovery of Oil in British Sea Territory).

Is that sarcasm or do you have a source?

I'm sorry Moysider, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this struggle that we have been fighting for over a 1000 years is between who and over what? Is it the ruling class against their subjects or are you saying perpetual war is just a human condition?

Quote from: thejuice on August 09, 2011, 07:26:30 PM
Gerald Celente has been predicting a major war within the next few years.  he's never that far off the mark.

There is a lot of tension between the USA and China at the moment and a lot of  tactical military maneuvers going on between them in the East and South China Sea that you don't see reported but it is on going.

The economic relations with China and the USA are causing a lot of the tension but the Seas around China are crucial for it to import oil and gas and the USA essentially control those waters.

Heard Gearald Celente there this evening on The Last word - very interesting.

http://audiostore.todayfm.com/player/wednesday.html
(Go to part 3 of the programme)

http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/

Quote from: thejuice on August 09, 2011, 07:26:30 PM
Gerald Celente has been predicting a major war within the next few years.  he's never that far off the mark.

Neither is anyone who ever made that prediction.

I predict that there will be hurricanes, typhoons, and food shortages in one place after another in the next few years. Mark my words.

That Ricky Wilson is some sage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hamKl-su8PE

sorry, I should qualify that, Gerald while I don't totally subscribe to everything he predicts he was predicting the next "big" war on the scale of the big 2 we saw in the last century. Gerald and his company predicted market crashes among other things and told people to buy gold years ago.

All I'm saying he's in the business of making predictions and he's predicting a big war soon. I don't subscribe to him myself and he shows up in the kookier corners of the internet but he gets it fairly right.

My hunch, and its nothing more, is that any future wars will be a lot different to those of the last century. You cant depend on people to fight as we saw before. It might be unmanned war, fought economically, digitally but the civilian casualties will still pile up.

Just my hunch though.

dont like the way the riots in england are being steered toward an anti muslim angle in the meejah. watch out for the BNP doing their best to raise tensions. the english could have the 'crusades' at home this time around

FAO Eamonca (My old buddy from another Forum ;) ):

http://url.ie/ctrf

Quote from: lawnseed on August 10, 2011, 11:44:11 PM
dont like the way the riots in england are being steered toward an anti muslim angle in the meejah. watch out for the BNP doing their best to raise tensions. the english could have the 'crusades' at home this time around

You sure???

Quote from: haranguerer on August 11, 2011, 01:00:51 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on August 10, 2011, 11:44:11 PM
dont like the way the riots in england are being steered toward an anti muslim angle in the meejah. watch out for the BNP doing their best to raise tensions. the english could have the 'crusades' at home this time around

You sure???

I know in the local news last night there was nothing but praise for the way Tariq Jahan (father of one of the lads mown down) handled himself and appealed for calm. The point was made more generally about avoiding it turning into a race thing. Anyway, all quiet today, hopefully thats the end of it but there is the weekend to come.

Quote from: lawnseed on August 09, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
had to go to the barbers today (it didnt take long ::)) but while i was there several old codgers were in for thier daily gossip and read of the papers. all are predicting a war. i asked them who was gonna fight who they didnt go into specifics but they are convinced a major conflict isnt far away. my mother whos slightly over 21 as well agrees. whats going on have i missed something.. or is this just the way old people get on?

FFS would you not bring her to a hairdresser?

Quote from: haranguerer on August 11, 2011, 01:00:51 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on August 10, 2011, 11:44:11 PM
dont like the way the riots in england are being steered toward an anti muslim angle in the meejah. watch out for the BNP doing their best to raise tensions. the english could have the 'crusades' at home this time around

You sure???

its just a hint at the moment but its there imo

Any updates on this war?:

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0)

No sign of the gaaboard army anywhere of late. Unless everyone is undercover.

(http://welol.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/crazy_military_parades_01-300x300.jpg)

Quote from: Nally Stand on August 11, 2011, 10:13:51 PM
Any updates on this war?:

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0)

No sign of the gaaboard army anywhere of late. Unless everyone is undercover.

(http://welol.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/crazy_military_parades_01-300x300.jpg)

AK47s.

The GaaBoard Militia led by Grand Marshall Tea R Owens Owen would never use inferior non-US made weaponry.

Would they hire wookies?

Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 10:45:46 PM

Quote from: Nally Stand on August 11, 2011, 10:13:51 PM
Any updates on this war?:

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16021.0)

No sign of the gaaboard army anywhere of late. Unless everyone is undercover.

(http://welol.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/crazy_military_parades_01-300x300.jpg)

AK47s.

The GaaBoard Militia led by Grand Marshall Tea R Owens Owen would never use inferior non-US made weaponry.

He'd use whatever President Obama (who is just fantastic) tells him to use

Wookies/Tea Party troopers - who can tell the difference?

 :D Pretty comedic for terminally stupid ideologues   ;D

Yay! Now I'm looking forward to being called a top midfielder by Darragh Ó Sé.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 01:39:23 AM
:D Pretty comedic for terminally stupid ideologues   ;D

(http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pics/homer/homerdance.jpg)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 01:39:23 AM
:D Pretty comedic for terminally stupid ideologues   ;D

From the man who defends religion  :D

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 01:39:23 AM
:D Pretty comedic for terminally stupid ideologues   ;D

From the man who defends religion  :D

Boy that signature has hit a raw nerve here it would seem
Just the reaction I was looking for....idiots! ;D

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 03:40:46 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 01:39:23 AM
:D Pretty comedic for terminally stupid ideologues   ;D

From the man who defends religion  :D

Boy that signature has hit a raw nerve here it would seem
Just the reaction I was looking for....idiots! ;D

Well TO, I would take that as a compliment from a G.W.B., Sarah Palin, God Lover.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:52:16 PM
Well TO, I would take that as a compliment from a G.W.B., Sarah Palin, God Lover, Creationist, Tea Partier.

Fixed that for you!  :D

Yes and its says something when I'd happily dawn any one of those caps
verses a hope and change Obummer one... :P
Stop the hating lads FFS, just because I was right all along
and ye gombeens got it oh.... so wrong, there's no need for insults  :-*

That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[
Speaking of geniuses, how about latching on to Paul Krugman and the attack of the aliens to stimulate the US economy or something  :D
And to think that this is where HB wants be to go for my education on
economics!
Proof positive as to why I believe liberalism is a mental disorder  ::)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[
Speaking of geniuses, how about latching on to Paul Krugman and the attack of the aliens Mexicans (have provided cheap labour for the U.S. economy for decades) to stimulate the US economy or something  :D
And to think that this is where HB wants be to go for my education on
economics!
Proof positive as to why I believe liberalism is a mental disorder  ::)

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 15, 2011, 05:26:15 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[
Speaking of geniuses, how about latching on to Paul Krugman and the attack of the aliens Mexicans (have provided cheap labour for the U.S. economy for decades) to stimulate the US economy or something  :D
And to think that this is where HB wants be to go for my education on
economics!
Proof positive as to why I believe liberalism is a mental disorder  ::)

:D No, No...Aliens from outer space, the much heralded economist here actually meant an attack from Aliens  :o

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[

On the contrary TO, I just cannot understand how someone (anyone) can be so impervious and oblivious to such overwhelming scientific proof! And you expect to be taken seriously on your prescriptions and proscriptions on the current economic and political difficulties in the US?  :D

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/video-uschina-aircraft-carrier-face-off-2338411.html

I can't hear the audio but perhaps the US are hoping to sell some carriers to China like the Russians did when their union collapsed. The south China sea being a sort of military catwalk.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[

On the contrary TO, I just cannot understand how someone (anyone) can be so impervious and oblivious to such overwhelming scientific proof! And you expect to be taken seriously on your prescriptions and proscriptions on the current economic and political difficulties in the US?  :D

Throw up the quote there and remind me where I
said the earth was 6000 years old....

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 04:58:33 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[

On the contrary TO, I just cannot understand how someone (anyone) can be so impervious and oblivious to such overwhelming scientific proof! And you expect to be taken seriously on your prescriptions and proscriptions on the current economic and political difficulties in the US?  :D

Throw up the quote there and remind me where I
said the earth was 6000 years old....

Did you not tell us in Genesis?

Quote from: muppet on August 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 04:58:33 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 15, 2011, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 15, 2011, 11:05:07 AM
That's right TO, you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, despite the vast amount of scientific evidence to the contrary! What a genius!  :D

Seriously Fear...you need to find some new material here,  :-[

On the contrary TO, I just cannot understand how someone (anyone) can be so impervious and oblivious to such overwhelming scientific proof! And you expect to be taken seriously on your prescriptions and proscriptions on the current economic and political difficulties in the US?  :D

Throw up the quote there and remind me where I
said the earth was 6000 years old....

Did you not tell us in Genesis?

Nope..that wasn't it!

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 04:58:33 PM
Throw up the quote there and remind me where I said the earth was 6000 years old....

-->

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 12, 2011, 04:03:17 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:52:16 PM
Well TO, I would take that as a compliment from a G.W.B., Sarah Palin, God Lover, Creationist,Tea Partier.

Fixed that for you!  :D

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 09:51:57 PM
Yes and its says something when I'd happily dawn any one of those caps...

'Creationism' being "one of those caps", and they don't believe in evolution!  :P

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 16, 2011, 05:19:15 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 04:58:33 PM
Throw up the quote there and remind me where I said the earth was 6000 years old....

-->

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 12, 2011, 04:03:17 PM

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:52:16 PM
Well TO, I would take that as a compliment from a G.W.B., Sarah Palin, God Lover, Creationist,Tea Partier.

Fixed that for you!  :D

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 12, 2011, 09:51:57 PM
Yes and its says something when I'd happily dawn any one of those caps...

'Creationism' being "one of those caps", and they don't believe in evolution!  :P

::) In response to the embarassment that has accompanied this idiot in chief's
administration...
The simple fact is, you have been jarring at me for a couple of years now about creationism and all you can offer is the above pitiful example of how I believe the world to be 6000 years old, hammer away sure...it does't make you look and sound like an empty vessel or anything...honest :D

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 06:56:29 PM
The simple fact is, you have been jarring at me for a couple of years now about creationism and all you can offer is the above pitiful example of how I believe the world to be 6000 years old, hammer away sure...it does't make you look and sound like an empty vessel or anything...honest :D

If you have a straight and simple answer to a straight and simple question, that doesn't defy reason, and I'll not mention it again, promise: do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 16, 2011, 07:06:18 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 06:56:29 PM
The simple fact is, you have been jarring at me for a couple of years now about creationism and all you can offer is the above pitiful example of how I believe the world to be 6000 years old, hammer away sure...it does't make you look and sound like an empty vessel or anything...honest :D

If you have a straight and simple answer to a straight and simple question, that doesn't defy reason, and I'll not mention it again, promise: do you believe in Intelligent Design?

* shakes head in bewilderment...why do you even care?
I think you should consider finding a straight and simple life
for yourself!
Is your sad excuse for a life that meaningless that you have to
stalk me day in day out with these pie in the sky fantasies you
continue to dream up?
A very sad individual indeed  :'(

'Stalking'!  :D No stalking required!

Anyway, I'll take that as a 'Yes' to my question, in defiance of science... and you have a signature decrying others as 'stupid' (by proxy)!  :D

Grow up FFS  ::)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 09:29:49 PM
Grow up FFS  ::)

What, and get a 'grown-up' signature like this:

Terminally stupid ideologues= Tea party haters :)
- Joe Scarborough (MSNBC)

It's a quote from MSNBC...I didn't make it up but I did
get the desired result,  dummies out all over the place :D
How old are you again?

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 11:08:28 PM
It's a quote from MSNBC...I didn't make it up but I did
get the desired result,  dummies out all over the place :D
How old are you again?

No shit Sherlock, you didn't make it up eh... MSNBC really? Joe Scarborough by any chance?... Well, I never.

Desired result: you use some rabid right-winger's paranoid opinion of those who might dare to criticise the lunatic-fringe of the GOP because you couldn't think of one of your own? Correct?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 16, 2011, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 16, 2011, 11:08:28 PM
It's a quote from MSNBC...I didn't make it up but I did
get the desired result,  dummies out all over the place :D
How old are you again?

No shit Sherlock, you didn't make it up eh... MSNBC really? Joe Scarborough by any chance?... Well, I never.

Desired result: you use some rabid right-winger's paranoid opinion of those who might dare to criticise the lunatic-fringe of the GOP because you couldn't think of one of your own? Correct?

See what I mean...lip on and another one out of the pram,
Let me get that for you.  :-[

This thread has went to the dogs

Were has all the flours went

(Thought we needed an anti-war song, in case it is coming).

Quote from: Hardy on August 17, 2011, 01:05:49 PM
Were has all the flours went

(Thought we needed an anti-war song, in case it is coming).

There will be no war until the rabid dogs get Obama out of office. See above thread to see how motived they are on this.

Quote from: muppet on August 17, 2011, 01:44:59 PM

Quote from: Hardy on August 17, 2011, 01:05:49 PM
Were has all the flours went

(Thought we needed an anti-war song, in case it is coming).

There will be no war until the rabid dogs get Obama out of office. See above thread to see how motived they are on this.

The rabid dogs don't want any more deficit spending. They can't afford a war.
I wonder if TO prays for rain like the fruitcake Texas governor who doesn't believe in climate change.
Does TO pray for jobs like the Republicans who won't allow a jobs programme to be financed? 

Quote from: Hardy on August 17, 2011, 01:05:49 PM
Were has all the flours went

(Thought we needed an anti-war song, in case it is coming).

But more importantly which side are we on?

Or are we still neutral?

I'd defend our neutrality to the death so I would!

50 Examples of Government Waste. By Brian Riedl
October 6, 2009...yes 2009 and it has only gotten worse!

Soaring government spending and trillion-dollar budget deficits  have brought
fiscal responsibility -- and reducing government waste --  back onto the
national agenda. President Obama recently identified 0.004  of 1 percent of the
federal budget as wasteful and proposed eliminating  this $140 million from his
$3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget request. Aiming higher, the President
recently proposed partially  offsetting a costly new government health
entitlement by reducing $622  billion in Medicare and Medicaid "waste and
inefficiencies" over the  next decade. Taxpayers may wonder why reducing such
waste is now merely a  bargaining chip for new spending rather than an end in
itself.
It is possible to reduce spending and balance the budget. In the  1980s and
1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household  (adjusted for
inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance  the budget by 2012
without any tax hikes. Alternatively, merely  returning to the 2008
(pre-recession) spending level of $25,000 per  household (adjusted for
inflation) would likely balance the budget by  2019 without any tax hikes.
Not Easy, but Necessary
Reducing wasteful spending is not easy. Even the most useless  programs are
passionately supported by the armies of recipients,  administrators, and
lobbyists that benefit from their existence.  Identifying inefficiencies and
abuses is much easier than devising a  system to fix them. Many lawmakers focus
more on bringing home earmarks  than on performing the less exciting task of
government oversight.  Exasperated taxpayers see the cost of government rise
with no end in  sight.
Of course, eliminating waste cannot balance the budget. Lawmakers  must also
rein in spending by reforming Social Security and Medicare  and by eliminating
government activities that are no longer affordable.  Yet government waste is
the low-hanging fruit that lawmakers must clean  up in order to build
credibility with the public for larger reforms.
Congress has allowed government employees to spend tax dollars on  iPods,
jewelry, gambling, exotic dance clubs, and $13,500 steak  dinners. If lawmakers
cannot even reduce this kind of waste, fraud, and  abuse, taxpayers will be less
likely to trust them to reform Social  Security and Medicare.
Six Categories of Waste
The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:
    1. Programs that should be devolved to state and local governments;
    2. Programs that could be better performed by the private sector;
    3. Mistargeted programs whose recipients should not be entitled to government
benefits;

    4. Outdated and unnecessary programs;
    5. Duplicative programs; and
    6. Inefficiency, mismanagement, and fraud.
The first four categories are generally subjective, and  reasonable people can
disagree on whether a given federal program falls  under their purview. Yet the
final two categories -- duplication and  inefficiency, mismanagement, and fraud
-- are comparatively easy to  identify and oppose. Thus, they are heavily
represented in the examples  of government waste below:
    1. The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in
2008.[1]

    2. Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus
$71 billion on homeland security.[2]

    3. Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal
properties.[3]

    4. Government auditors spent the past five years examining all  federal
programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a  total of $123
billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they
serve.[4]

    5. The Congressional Budget Office published a "Budget Options" series
identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts.[5]

    6. Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of
wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs
serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood
development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and
training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]

    7. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink
more responsibly on the job.[7]

    8. A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on  government credit
cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples  of taxpayer-funded
purchases include gambling, mortgage payments,  liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes,
jewelry, Internet dating services, and  Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary
example, the Postal Service  spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris
Steakhouse,  including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol,
including  more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and
brand-name  liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The
81  guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.[8]

    9. Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel
charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[9]

    10. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks
and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.[10]

    11. The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from
South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South
Carolina to Florida.[11]

    12. Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report
average household incomes of $200,000.[12]

    13. Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion
annually.[13]

    14. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined
$295 billion in cost overruns.[14]

    15. The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146
million annually in flight upgrades.[15]

    16. Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance  the Kennedy family
legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John  Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20
million from the 2010 defense budget to  subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy
Institute.[16]

    17. Federal investigators have launched more than 20 criminal fraud
investigations related to the TARP financial bailout.[17]

    18. Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included
$200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for
the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally
Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.[18]

    19. The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.[19]
    20. The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR
driver David Gilliland.[20]

    21. Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of  taxpayer dollars
supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma  televisions, DVD
equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and  signature machines -- plus
$24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on personalized
calendars.[21]

    22. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen.
Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.[22]

    23. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion.
In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay  for
Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls  Gone Wild"
videos, and at least one sex change operation.[23]

    24. Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million  recipients of
emergency Katrina assistance provided false names,  addresses, or Social
Security numbers or submitted multiple  applications.[24]

    25. Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon
on a Boeing 737.[25]

    26. The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for
direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of  Congressman
Hal Rogers (R-KY) -- but only on Monday mornings and Friday  evenings, when
lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists usually fly. Rogers is a  member of the
Appropriations Committee, which writes the Transportation  Department's
budget.[26]

    27. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand
washes back into the ocean.[27]

    28. A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion
in "stimulus" funding for broadband Internet will be wasted.[28]

    29. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and
never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.[29]

    30. Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in
front of national landmarks.[30]

    31. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used
government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to
entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling, $69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on
exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[31]

    32. Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase their
franked mailings for the 2010 election year.[32]

    33. Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of
Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.[33]

    34. Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a
cost of up to $50,000 apiece.[34]

    35. The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in
order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional
federal funds.[35]

    36. Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their
backyards -- subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not
want. [36]

    37. Congress appropriated $20 million for "commemoration of success"
celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.[37]

    38. Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and
$230 for a beer brewing kit.[38]

    39. Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act resulted in a $2
billion taxpayer cost.[39]

    40. North Ridgeville, Ohio, received $800,000 in "stimulus" funds for a project
that its mayor described as "a long way from the top priority."[40]

    41. The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a
lab that it cannot use.[41]

    42. Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon
insists it does not need and will not use.[42]

    43. Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina  relief spending to
build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of  Engineers -- the agency partially
responsible for the failed levees that  flooded New Orleans.[43]

    44. Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to
230,000 Medicare recipients.[44]

    45. Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security
contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.[45]

    46. Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course
in Atlanta, Georgia.[46]

    47. The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing
private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500
companies.[47]

    48. Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student
loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of
Education.[48]

    49. The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to
farm their land.[49]

    50. The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many
containing Americans' personal data.[50]
Pick the Low-Hanging Fruit
Because many of these examples of waste overlap, it is not  possible to
determine their exact total cost. Yet it is evident that  Washington loses
hundreds of billions of dollars annually on spending  that most Americans would
certainly consider wasteful. Lawmakers seeking  to rein in spending and budget
deficits should begin by eliminating  this least justifiable spending while also
addressing long-term  entitlement costs.

And Revenue is the problem in Washington  ::)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 17, 2011, 03:52:26 AM
See what I mean...lip on and another one out of the pram, Let me get that for you.  :-[

What, a dummy?...

(http://mummila.net/varasto/arkisto/villiminkki/kuvat/GWB.jpg)

 :D

Apparently you're a huge fan of W's Fear
so especially for you;
www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:

The war on terror
Homeland security
Israel's $3bn
Guantanamo
627 overseas bases
The Bush tax cuts

   

ready for another haircut... ::)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 17, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Apparently you're a huge fan of W's Fear
so especially for you;
www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Well your poster boys surname is just another word for C**T.

Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 17, 2011, 09:04:08 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 17, 2011, 06:48:51 PM
Apparently you're a huge fan of W's Fear
so especially for you;
www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Well your poster boys surname is just another word for C**T.

Could the both of you actually be anymore childish if ye closed your
eyes and tried really really hard?
This is a great example and highlights perfectly how brainwashed
the Bush haters have been for years now from the drive by media
... throw enough shite for long enough and some of it will stick ::)
When all else fails you are now reduced to insulting his name :-[

Fact is, he's no poster child of mine, never was but the out right lies and indoctrination from the left toward some esteemed intellects  ::) here on the board always boggled the mind!
What's wrong haters...cat got your tongues  :-X

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 07:11:52 PM
Could the both of you actually be anymore childish if ye closed your
eyes and tried really really hard?
This is a great example and highlights perfectly how brainwashed
the Bush haters have been for years now from the drive by media
... throw enough shite for long enough and some of it will stick ::)
When all else fails you are now reduced to insulting his name :-[

Fact is, he's no poster child of mine, never was but the out right lies and indoctrination from the left toward some esteemed intellects  ::) here on the board always boggled the mind!
What's wrong haters...cat got your tongues  :-X

Excellent stuff, especially the bit in bold.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 07:11:52 PM
Could the both of you actually be anymore childish if ye closed your eyes and tried really really hard?

Childish? From the individual whose board signature is invariably the latest US far-right bumper sticker.
Childish? From the individual who won't (can't) address direct questions, instead has to accuse the questioner of being a hater, brainwashed, blah, blah, blah. Anything, but actually address the question.
Childish? From the individual who can't post, it seems, without mandatory emoticons!
Childish? From the individual who thinks that Fox News is actually a news service.
Childish? From the individual who believes in the bogey (Obama) man.

Check the mirror out Tea-Party* boy!

* The Tea-Party, so evocative of the old (southern) US... with the slavery, and segregation.

QuoteChildish? From the individual whose board signature is invariably the latest US far-right bumper sticker.

Interesting you only got as far as the first sentence.
And no its not the latest...it's been around 2 1/2 yrs ;)

Quoteinstead has to accuse the questioner of being a hater

As opposed to being a racist...right ::)

QuoteChildish? From the individual who can't post, it seems, without mandatory emoticons!

Just to piss you off...working pretty good don't you think?

QuoteChildish? From the individual who thinks that Fox News is actually a news service.

#1 for ten years and counting...  :P

QuoteChildish? From the individual who believes in the bogey (Obama) man.

Yep, saw through him from the very start...an inept community organizer/agitator up to his eyes in Chicago style cronyism, unlike yourself who is still so full of hate for Bush that you can't bring yourself to admit that you got it oh so wrong
with this blamer in chief  :-X

QuoteThe Tea-Party, so evocative of the old (southern) US... with the slavery, and segregation.

Is this actually based on any facts that you can produce or is it simply more
evidence of brainwashing from the mid-stream media services you subscribe to?
And on non answered questions, have you no comment on the time line video of Bush trying to warn of the dangers of the housing market only to be shot down by the Democrats :o

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
And no its not the latest...it's been around 2 1/2 yrs ;)

Whatever. How about trying to think for yourself, eh?

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
As opposed to being a racist...right ::)

As not opposed to anything, just answer the questions (like I'm doing right here).

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Just to piss you off...working pretty good don't you think?

Yeah, how did you guess. Please, please stop!

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
#1 for ten years and counting...  :P

#1 and?...

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Yep, saw through him from the very start...an inept community organizer/agitator up to his eyes in Chicago style cronyism, unlike yourself who is still so full of hate for Bush that you can't bring yourself to admit that you got it oh so wrong with this blamer in chief  :-X

As opposed to a draft-dodging, failed oilman (in a state where it was virtually impossible to be a failed oilman), with big family connections to those with their grubby hands on the US levers of power? And it isn't over till it's over.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Is this actually based on any facts that you can produce or is it simply more evidence of brainwashing from the mid-stream media services you subscribe to?

Well, there you go again (as another hero of yours might memorably have uttered once). Just because we all don't see things through an extreme right prism doesn't mean that we've been mind-altered in any way, unbelievably. As for the Tea-Party - 1773 preceded the abolition of quite a lot of US supremacist relics.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
And on non answered questions, have you no comment on the time line video of Bush trying to warn of the dangers of the housing market only to be shot down by the Democrats :o

Oh right, I see. So, so strong were his convictions that he pushed legislation through Congress, despite the opposition of the Democrats, to avert the impending disaster? How prescient!

QuoteWhatever. How about trying to think for yourself, eh?

:D :D Now that's funny!

QuoteAs not opposed to anything, just answer the questions (like I'm doing right here).

I'm a racist for not liking Obama by your reckoning am I not?

QuoteYeah, how did you guess. Please, please stop!

;D

Quote#1 and?...

# 1 speaks for itself in any form but you're deciding to play stupid..oh wait..... :-X

QuoteAs opposed to a draft-dodging, failed oilman (in a state where it was virtually impossible to be a failed oilman), with big family connections to those with their grubby hands on the US levers of power? And it isn't over till it's over.

Shock Horror...the son of a then Congress man being given preferential treatment so that he wouldn't go over seas, Wow...is the sky still up there at all :o
By the way, at least he was in the Guard..What military background has Obummer the anointed one  :-X

QuoteQuote from: Tyrones own on Today at 03:13:17 PM

    Is this actually based on any facts that you can produce or is it simply more evidence of brainwashing from the mid-stream media services you subscribe to?

Well, there you go again (as another hero of yours might memorably have uttered once). Just because we all don't see things through an extreme right prism doesn't mean that we've been mind-altered in any way, unbelievably. As for the Tea-Party - 1773 preceded the abolition of quite a lot of US supremacist relics.

That's what I thought...absolutely void of any morsel of fact to substantiate the spin the left has leveled at the Tea party  ::)
Marginalize, discredit, mock, degrade, slander, lie... your typical progressive attack strategy to deflect the true message of that which they fear!

How dare the Tea Party bring about efforts to pressure politicians on both sides of the isle to reign in spending, cut Government intervention and
strangulation of job producing business', deficit reduction and a balanced budget, yep the acts of a Anti-American terrorist group alright ::)

QuoteOh right, I see. So, so strong were his convictions that he pushed legislation through Congress, despite the opposition of the Democrats, to avert the impending disaster? How prescient!

Whatever he did or didn't do... at least the unemployment rate was nowhere near 9.1% and we had a AAA credit rating!
How does this factor with what Obummer is running around in his tax payer funded Campaign bus trip saying;
That the Republicans have been holding the Country to ransom, the party of No bla bla bla... had his convictions been so strong,
shouldn't he have rammed his hair brained ideas through Congress like he did with Obummercare when he had carte blanche
of all three legislative branches of Government  :-\ No because the fact is, he had no ideas..completely fecking clueless!

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
:D :D Now that's funny!

Seriously, can't you think up anything for yourself for your signature, or does it always have to be a bumper-sticker (however old or otherwise it may be)?

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
I'm a racist for not liking Obama by your reckoning am I not?

Huh? Show me where I've even intimated such.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM

QuoteYeah, how did you guess. Please, please stop!

;D

Note to self: TO doesn't do irony.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
By the way, at least he was in the Guard..What military background has Obummer the anointed one  :-X

At least you concede he (GWB) was a draft-dodger.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
That's what I thought...absolutely void of any morsel of fact to substantiate the spin the left has leveled at the Tea party  ::)
Marginalize, discredit, mock, degrade, slander, lie... your typical progressive attack strategy to deflect the true message of that which they fear!

Do you exist in a bubble? See: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/150027/sarah_palin_and_michele_bachmann_would_call_18th-century_philadelphia_freedom_fighters_%27un-american%27/

An excerpt:

At a recent speech in Iowa, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann induced widespread cringing with her claim that Americans of the founding period, no matter who they were, enjoyed exceptional freedom to pursue their hopes for betterment. Slavery and the U.S. Constitution's three-fifths clause don't qualify as little-known facts, and Bachmann seemed ignorant, too, of women's original exclusion from rights secured by the representative government established in the Constitution. Who knows how she'd evaluate the native population's historic situation.

So, they're either totally ignorant of their own history, or they're embracing it all; they can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
How dare the Tea Party bring about efforts to pressure politicians on both sides of the isle to reign in spending, cut Government intervention and strangulation of job producing business', deficit reduction and a balanced budget, yep the acts of a Anti-American terrorist group alright ::)

If only that's all it were about. The US legislature has been reduced to a laughing stock in the free world as a result of the Tea-Party's pathetic antics.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 19, 2011, 02:00:58 AM
Whatever he did or didn't do... at least the unemployment rate was nowhere near 9.1% and we had a AAA credit rating!
How does this factor with what Obummer is running around in his tax payer funded Campaign bus trip saying; That the Republicans have been holding the Country to ransom, the party of No bla bla bla... had his convictions been so strong, shouldn't he have rammed his hair brained ideas through Congress like he did with Obummercare when he had carte blanche of all three legislative branches of Government  :-\ No because the fact is, he had no ideas..completely fecking clueless!

He wasn't just handed a poisoned chalice by the previous incumbent, it was on fire too. I've not, and never have, said that Obama has been exemplary in office, but neither has he been anything like as bad as your lot make him out to be, and he would have done a whole lot better I'd say but for the frustrating and filibustering of the far-right.

The future if the Tea Party have any influence over it will be brutal. Here is tea party thinking in Israel.


Welfare states and socialism are about as dead as Elvis

08/16/2011 21:16 By EMMANUEL NAVON
Israel will find itself in even more turmoil if the protest movement is hijacked by pompous "mavens" bent on implementing obsolete economic models.
Photo by: Channel 10
August 16th marks the anniversary of Elvis Presley's death. Yet some of his fans still claim that the King of Rock and Roll simply went into hiding and never actually died. The average person rightly scoffs at this sci-fi theory. But how can you ridicule those who believe that Elvis is still alive and at the same time continue to believe in socialism or in the Middle East peace process?
RELATED:
May 1968 and August 2011
In Israel, academics and journalists who claim that both socialism and the Oslo accords can be salvaged consider themselves to be at the forefront of sophistication and rationality. In truth, however, they are no less irrational than Elvis Presley's most wacky fans.

With Israel's social protest movement now in its fourth week, the government has established a professional committee made up of 15 ministers (dubbed the Trachtenberg Commission) to examine the social justice protest leaders' demands and to suggest ways of making life more affordable for the middle-class. High-ranking academics have volunteered to help the protesters formulate their demands.

Among the self-appointed consultants is Yossi Yonah, a professor of philosophy at Ben-Gurion University. But how exactly is Prof. Yonah qualified to engage in a discourse on macroeconomics with the Trachtenberg Commission? True, the same question can be asked about Yuval Steinitz, himself a philosophy professor turned Minister of Finance. But the issue is not whether philosophers are adequately equipped to grasp the economics of the situation—after all, Karl Marx held a Ph.D. in philosophy—but rather what the real agenda is of some of the movement's leaders.

Yossi Yonah has written extensively on the subject of "multiculturalism," and in a 2005 interview published in Haaretz, Yonah summarized his vision for Israel's future thus: "Besides the naturalization of the migrant workers, [the next steps for Israel] will include the annulment of the Law of Return; the cancellation of the arrangement of automatic naturalization for Jewish immigrants; and provision of a worthy solution for the Palestinian refugee problem, based on the Geneva Convention."

So you see, for people like Yonah, it's not only about economics.

The Trachtenberg Commission also includes several experts on the economy including Prof. Avia Spivak from Ben-Gurion University. Spivak recommends raising taxes - especially corporate taxes - which will supposedly fill public coffers. This is despite the fact that companies might thus be encouraged to simply pack it in, and also despite the fact that economic theory and practice have both demonstrated that government revenues actually decrease when taxes are too high.

Then there is Shas' brilliant idea for lowering real-estate prices: Rent control. This would mean the government, and not individual landlords, would decide on how much to charge for rent. In the past, whenever such policies were implemented, they invariably triggered the adverse result of increasing the price of real estate. The reason for this is simple: when real-estate investors cannot charge the rent that would make their investment profitable, they stop investing in real-estate. And when investments in real-estate decline, the housing supply naturally follows suit. With supplies decreasing, prices then increase correlatively.These days, the pervasive discourse in Israel's media is that the high cost of living and the hardships of the middle-class are the result of "ultra-liberalism" and that Israel must become a "welfare state." But in fact, the very opposite is true. Israel is not a liberal economy; rather it is dominated by oligopolies that strangle consumers and by monopolies (such as the National Land Authority) that control supply.

If the Israeli economy is strong and productive, it is partly due to the economic liberalization undertaken by then-prime minister Shimon Peres in 1985 and again by then-minister of finance Binyamin Netanyahu in 2003.
What Israel's economy needs is more, not less, freedom and competition.

As for the second suggestion of creating a welfare state, our know-it-all pundits are conveniently forgetting that this model is a central factor in causing European economies to crumble. If Greece, Spain and Italy are broke, it is partly because their welfare states were born at a time when the population was young and the economy was not exposed to foreign competition. With an aging population and the constraints of a globalized economy, the European welfare system has simply become unsustainable and too expensive. Europe's financial markets are suffering as the debts that welfare governments incur continue to rise.

Israel's provincial public discourse does not end there. The violence in Britain, we are told, is to be blamed on Thatcherism. The fact that the Labor party, and not the Tories, was in power between 1997 and 2010 is irrelevant. The truth, of course, is that former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher verily saved the British economy, and that were it not for her reforms, Britain's fate today would look similar to Greece's.
If the current social protest movement in Israel finally provides the opportunity to lower the cost of living by breaking up monopolies and cartels and by lowering taxes, it will be remembered as one of the best things that ever happened to the country. But if the movement is hijacked by armchair ideologues to implement policies that have been proven over and over to be counterproductive, then Israel is in trouble.

But I'm not being fair. The Israeli hard Left should be given a chance to put their multifarious economic theories into practice, but only once they tell us where Elvis is hiding.
The writer is an International Relations Lecturer at Tel Aviv University and the founding partner of the Navon-Levy Group Ltd., an international business consultancy. He is also the author of numerous books on Israel's foreign policy, including most recently, From Israel, With Hope: Why and How Israel will Continue to Thrive.

It is amazing how little difference there is between the ideology of the extreme left and the extreme right.

Both govern ruthlessly.
Both have a super-powerful ruling class, little or no middle class and a serfdom.
Both have one law for themselves and one for the rest.
Both cling to power as viciously as possible to the bitter end.
Both eventually fail under the weight of the ruling classes gluttony.

Come to think of it certain religions match some of that too.

Interesting piece in today's Guardian (that some far-right wouldn't wipe their arses with, apparently):

US voters are not mad. Our stereotype of them is patronising and wrong

Martin Kettle

We shouldn't get carried away by media coverage of the Tea Party. Many Americans are put off by the Christian right

America is a country of mad people governed by buffoons. That's the way a lot of Europeans are content to see it, no matter how much they love the US in other ways. A country of mad people because they are so religious, violent, overweight and in denial about things that look obvious from here but which the flag-wavers over there refuse to get. Governed by buffoons because, for the past half-century, from Lyndon Johnson to George W Bush, no US president was truly respected in much of this continent. Not even Reagan on the right or Clinton on the left. All of them, in various ways, were laughable.

That changed in 2008. With one mighty bound, the nation of mad people became a nation of visionaries, electing not a buffoon but an incredibly cool, incredibly smart, incredibly articulate leader who was so progressive and sensitive that, guess what, he might almost have been one of us. Except that, inconveniently, he wasn't. But that didn't matter. We gave him the Nobel peace prize when he'd only been in office for five minutes and drooled whenever he looked in our direction.

Now, with 15 months to go before the next US presidential election, a spectre is haunting Europe. The spectre is the possibility Barack Obama might not be re-elected. In fact it's more than that. It's the sense, among a lot of Europeans and a lot of progressives – US ones too – that Obama wasn't as great as he seemed and that, as a result, he has allowed the mad people to get their act together again and prepare to elect another buffoon next November. Prejudices confirmed. Comfort zone resumed.

That's the not-so-subtle subtext of a lot of the European reporting on US politics this summer. It's what underpins the still-not-quite-played-out European fascination with Sarah Palin, a politician who made a giant contribution to the Republican defeat in 2008 and who, if her party were foolish enough to nominate her again, would repeat the gift, even more generously, in 2012. And it's what gives so much of the discussion of the Tea Party such a hefty dose of transatlantic schadenfreude. The message to Europe from Iowa at the weekend scarcely needed spelling out. It permeated every report from the cornfields: they're so awful – and they're going to win!

Sorry to spoil the party, but almost everything about this stereotypical view of the US is both patronising and, perhaps worse, wrong. Let's put some serious caveats out there. Let's admit that the Republican right is often very dynamic and effective, admit that Obama has often failed to leverage his power as effectively as he could have, admit that Americans have become increasingly sceptical of big government and worried about deficits, and admit that, in the light of the midterm elections and with the economy sliding, only a fool would dismiss the possibility of a Republican win in 2012. Look at the polls. Seven out of 10 Americans are currently unhappy with Obama's handling of the economy. His job approval ratings have just slumped to 40%. It has to improve if he is to win.

But let's also look at a few stubborn realities that stand in the way of the self-fulfilling Republican prophesy. Let's start with the fact the Ames straw poll, last week's Iowa fundraising event, is no guide to anything except itself. It's a stunt for conservative Republicans. And it has duly conferred its blessing on one of their number, Michele Bachmann. But that's like Labour holding Barnsley.

Take note, too, of the limitations of the Tea Party. It's easy to get carried away – as Tea Party fans themselves certainly do – with the belief that they are a new force breaking the mould of American politics. But the public is becoming increasingly negative towards the Tea Party, while a new analysis published in the New York Times this week suggests the campaign is largely made up of the same old white, Christian, conservative Republican voters who did the business for Newt Gingrich in 1994 and for Bush a decade later. "The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government," conclude political scientists David Campbell and Robert Putnam, "but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God into government."

This matters because, out there in the real US, real voters are not so much enthused as turned off by the overmingling of religion and politics. Yet that's what Bachmann, who holds prayer sessions on the campaign trail, offers. And it's also what Texas governor Rick Perry, the latest Republican contender to be written up in grand guignol terms, offers too. Perry may pull in supporters on the campaign trail but when he holds large prayer rallies, when he calls the head of the Federal Reserve treasonous and threatens him with a "pretty ugly" reception in Texas, and describes Obama as "the greatest threat to our country", both of which he did this week, he cuts himself off from many more voters than he speaks for.

Beware, too, of mistaking the voices of midterm US voters with those who vote in presidential years. You get a different kind of American at the ballot box in presidential years – more young voters, more black ones, often more female, certainly more liberal and more independent. You also get many more of them – one in every three Americans who voted in 2008 sat out the midterms two years later. None of this means that they will all be voting for Obama in November 2012, but if they do, the outcome will look much less Republican than it did nine months ago, when there were much higher numbers of angry white guys.

In the end, a presidential contest is about a choice between two candidates and their messages. With Republican candidates attacking each other and paying court to the party's core conservative vote, the chance that they may nominate someone unelectable would obviously help Obama. But much will also depend on his ability to re-energise the coalition, and particularly the independents, that swept him to victory on such a relatively high – by US standards – turnout in 2008. In a recession, with high unemployment and a crippling deficit, and after suffering a capricious but humiliating economic downgrade on his watch, that will not be easy. There are lots of sensible people in the US as well as mad ones. But Obama still has to win their votes.

thank God i was born an reared in ireland.

Well looks the war has started sooner than we thought

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14585625

:o

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 19, 2011, 09:00:22 PM
Interesting piece in today's Guardian (that some far-right wouldn't wipe their arses with, apparently):

US voters are not mad. Our stereotype of them is patronising and wrong

Martin Kettle

We shouldn't get carried away by media coverage of the Tea Party. Many Americans are put off by the Christian right

America is a country of mad people governed by buffoons. That's the way a lot of Europeans are content to see it, no matter how much they love the US in other ways. A country of mad people because they are so religious, violent, overweight and in denial about things that look obvious from here but which the flag-wavers over there refuse to get. Governed by buffoons because, for the past half-century, from Lyndon Johnson to George W Bush, no US president was truly respected in much of this continent. Not even Reagan on the right or Clinton on the left. All of them, in various ways, were laughable.

That changed in 2008. With one mighty bound, the nation of mad people became a nation of visionaries, electing not a buffoon but an incredibly cool, incredibly smart, incredibly articulate leader who was so progressive and sensitive that, guess what, he might almost have been one of us. Except that, inconveniently, he wasn't. But that didn't matter. We gave him the Nobel peace prize when he'd only been in office for five minutes and drooled whenever he looked in our direction.

Now, with 15 months to go before the next US presidential election, a spectre is haunting Europe. The spectre is the possibility Barack Obama might not be re-elected. In fact it's more than that. It's the sense, among a lot of Europeans and a lot of progressives – US ones too – that Obama wasn't as great as he seemed and that, as a result, he has allowed the mad people to get their act together again and prepare to elect another buffoon next November. Prejudices confirmed. Comfort zone resumed.

That's the not-so-subtle subtext of a lot of the European reporting on US politics this summer. It's what underpins the still-not-quite-played-out European fascination with Sarah Palin, a politician who made a giant contribution to the Republican defeat in 2008 and who, if her party were foolish enough to nominate her again, would repeat the gift, even more generously, in 2012. And it's what gives so much of the discussion of the Tea Party such a hefty dose of transatlantic schadenfreude. The message to Europe from Iowa at the weekend scarcely needed spelling out. It permeated every report from the cornfields: they're so awful – and they're going to win!

Sorry to spoil the party, but almost everything about this stereotypical view of the US is both patronising and, perhaps worse, wrong. Let's put some serious caveats out there. Let's admit that the Republican right is often very dynamic and effective, admit that Obama has often failed to leverage his power as effectively as he could have, admit that Americans have become increasingly sceptical of big government and worried about deficits, and admit that, in the light of the midterm elections and with the economy sliding, only a fool would dismiss the possibility of a Republican win in 2012. Look at the polls. Seven out of 10 Americans are currently unhappy with Obama's handling of the economy. His job approval ratings have just slumped to 40%. It has to improve if he is to win.

But let's also look at a few stubborn realities that stand in the way of the self-fulfilling Republican prophesy. Let's start with the fact the Ames straw poll, last week's Iowa fundraising event, is no guide to anything except itself. It's a stunt for conservative Republicans. And it has duly conferred its blessing on one of their number, Michele Bachmann. But that's like Labour holding Barnsley.

Take note, too, of the limitations of the Tea Party. It's easy to get carried away – as Tea Party fans themselves certainly do – with the belief that they are a new force breaking the mould of American politics. But the public is becoming increasingly negative towards the Tea Party, while a new analysis published in the New York Times this week suggests the campaign is largely made up of the same old white, Christian, conservative Republican voters who did the business for Newt Gingrich in 1994 and for Bush a decade later. "The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government," conclude political scientists David Campbell and Robert Putnam, "but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God into government."

This matters because, out there in the real US, real voters are not so much enthused as turned off by the overmingling of religion and politics. Yet that's what Bachmann, who holds prayer sessions on the campaign trail, offers. And it's also what Texas governor Rick Perry, the latest Republican contender to be written up in grand guignol terms, offers too. Perry may pull in supporters on the campaign trail but when he holds large prayer rallies, when he calls the head of the Federal Reserve treasonous and threatens him with a "pretty ugly" reception in Texas, and describes Obama as "the greatest threat to our country", both of which he did this week, he cuts himself off from many more voters than he speaks for.

Beware, too, of mistaking the voices of midterm US voters with those who vote in presidential years. You get a different kind of American at the ballot box in presidential years – more young voters, more black ones, often more female, certainly more liberal and more independent. You also get many more of them – one in every three Americans who voted in 2008 sat out the midterms two years later. None of this means that they will all be voting for Obama in November 2012, but if they do, the outcome will look much less Republican than it did nine months ago, when there were much higher numbers of angry white guys.

In the end, a presidential contest is about a choice between two candidates and their messages. With Republican candidates attacking each other and paying court to the party's core conservative vote, the chance that they may nominate someone unelectable would obviously help Obama. But much will also depend on his ability to re-energise the coalition, and particularly the independents, that swept him to victory on such a relatively high – by US standards – turnout in 2008. In a recession, with high unemployment and a crippling deficit, and after suffering a capricious but humiliating economic downgrade on his watch, that will not be easy. There are lots of sensible people in the US as well as mad ones. But Obama still has to win their votes.

Could someone/anyone explain the ridiculously blatant double standard here where by I'm constantly accused of being indoctrinated by Fox news even though I rarely turn it on, rarely ever post a link to an article of interest to the topic, the one exception of course will always be that no other media source are carrying it,
Yet you lads can post article after article after article from the most left of left leaning outlets, columnists and commentators and somehow think no one notices!
Amazing really!

Quote from: mannix on August 19, 2011, 11:16:27 PM
thank God i was born an reared in ireland.

Don't you live in New York ?

The US has its faults, thats for sure, but there is nothing worse than gobshites like you who live in the states yet are constantly having a go at the country. Why don't you f**k off back to Ireland if you find the place and/or the people are so bad.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 20, 2011, 03:19:50 AM
Could someone/anyone explain the ridiculously blatant double standard here where by I'm constantly accused of being indoctrinated by Fox news even though I rarely turn it on, rarely ever post a link to an article of interest to the topic, the one exception of course will always be that no other media source are carrying it, Yet you lads can post article after article after article from the most left of left leaning outlets, columnists and commentators and somehow think no one notices!
Amazing really!

"The most left of left leaning outlets...", sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If I'd posted something from 'Socialist Worker', or 'Marxist News' you might have been justified in such an outlandish claim. That demonstrates  just how far to the right your personal political perspective is actually fixed.

Did you even read the piece, or are you just engaging in instinctive knee-jerk reactionary denunciation? That would be the same knee-jerk reactionary mode that sees you routinely defend Fox News, for example.

China give Uncle Sam a bit of a spanking in the first skirmish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14585625 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14585625)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 20, 2011, 12:59:02 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 20, 2011, 03:19:50 AM
Could someone/anyone explain the ridiculously blatant double standard here where by I'm constantly accused of being indoctrinated by Fox news even though I rarely turn it on, rarely ever post a link to an article of interest to the topic, the one exception of course will always be that no other media source are carrying it, Yet you lads can post article after article after article from the most left of left leaning outlets, columnists and commentators and somehow think no one notices!
Amazing really!

"The most left of left leaning outlets...", sorry, but that's just ridiculous. If I'd posted something from 'Socialist Worker', or 'Marxist News' you might have been justified in such an outlandish claim. That demonstrates  just how far to the right your personal political perspective is actually fixed.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martin James Kettle (born 7 September 1949) is a British journalist and author. The son of two prominent communist activists ::) Arnold Kettle (best remembered as a literary critic, 1916–86)[1] and Margot Kettle (née Gale) (1916–95), Martin Kettle was educated at Leeds Modern School and Balliol College, Oxford University.

Kettle worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties as a research officer from 1973. He then began his career in journalism as home affairs correspondent for New Society (1977–81) and moved to The Sunday Times in 1981, working as a political correspondent for three years. He has been with The Guardian since 1984 and also wrote regularly for Marxism Today ::) in its later years. He writes a column on classical music in Prospect magazine.

Kettle is best known as a columnist for The Guardian, where he is assistant editor, having worked as the newspaper's Washington D.C. bureau chief 1997-2001. He was formerly a leader writer (1993–97) and chief leader writer 2001 onwards. Martin Kettle has often defended New Labour and Tony Blair (a personal friend) - though not over the Iraq war. However, he thinks the David Cameron-led coalition has had a positive effect on the country.[2] He has been dismissed by John Pilger as Blair's "most devoted promoter".[3][/b]  :D don't ye just love it when they turn on each other!

QuoteDid you even read the piece, or are you just engaging in instinctive knee-jerk reactionary denunciation?

Would that be the same type knee jerk reaction you're first out of the gate with each and every time George W's name comes up
Did you even watch that YouTube clip I posted for you that clearly shows Barney Frank and the Democrats were squarely to
blame for the Housing Crisis that spear headed this economic collapse.
But you see by reading the Guardian and watching Jon Stewart etc it's not your fault that you are so ignorant to the facts..the liberal left
Media machine doesn't deal in facts...just what works for them! ::)

Quote from: seafoid on August 17, 2011, 07:38:07 PM
The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:

The war on terror
Homeland security
Israel's $3bn
Guantanamo
627 overseas bases
The Bush tax cuts

   

Yes I remember it well... all that hope that the above would change after the 2008 election  ::)

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 21, 2011, 04:17:21 AM
Would that be the same type knee jerk reaction you're first out of the gate with each and every time George W's name comes up

I didn't need anyone to act as a news conduit for me where he (GWB) was concerned. All I had to do was to look at and listen to the man, and when he used words that I couldn't understand (not because I was unfamiliar with the words, but because they weren't actually words) the man made is own measure in my eye, with no help from any news intermediaries.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 21, 2011, 04:17:21 AM
Did you even watch that YouTube clip I posted for you that clearly shows Barney Frank and the Democrats were squarely to blame for the Housing Crisis that spear headed this economic collapse.

A gross-oversimplification, and yes, I watched it.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 21, 2011, 04:17:21 AM
But you see by reading the Guardian and watching Jon Stewart etc it's not your fault that you are so ignorant to the facts..the liberal left Media machine doesn't deal in facts...just what works for them! ::)

So Kettle once wrote for a far-left organ, and in your eyes that means he can't ever be more moderate (your claim that The Guardian itself is extreme left is still ridiculous). And Ronald Reagan began political life as a Democrat - go figure.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 18, 2011, 11:46:25 PM

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
And no its not the latest...it's been around 2 1/2 yrs ;)

Whatever. How about trying to think for yourself, eh?

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
As opposed to being a racist...right ::)

As not opposed to anything, just answer the questions (like I'm doing right here).

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Just to piss you off...working pretty good don't you think?

Yeah, how did you guess. Please, please stop!

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
#1 for ten years and counting...  :P

#1 and?...

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Yep, saw through him from the very start...an inept community organizer/agitator up to his eyes in Chicago style cronyism, unlike yourself who is still so full of hate for Bush that you can't bring yourself to admit that you got it oh so wrong with this blamer in chief  :-X

As opposed to a draft-dodging, failed oilman (in a state where it was virtually impossible to be a failed oilman), with big family connections to those with their grubby hands on the US levers of power? And it isn't over till it's over.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Is this actually based on any facts that you can produce or is it simply more evidence of brainwashing from the mid-stream media services you subscribe to?

Well, there you go again (as another hero of yours might memorably have uttered once). Just because we all don't see things through an extreme right prism doesn't mean that we've been mind-altered in any way, unbelievably. As for the Tea-Party - 1773 preceded the abolition of quite a lot of US supremacist relics.

Quote from: Tyrones own on August 18, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
And on non answered questions, have you no comment on the time line video of Bush trying to warn of the dangers of the housing market only to be shot down by the Democrats :o

Oh right, I see. So, so strong were his convictions that he pushed legislation through Congress, despite the opposition of the Democrats, to avert the impending disaster? How prescient!

Faer Strabane,

The Tea Party started off as a reaction against BUSH'S Policies. They just happened to gain momentum when Obama became President.

Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman are just two more Neo-Con Flakes who will continue keeping America in Debt.

Ron Paul for President!

Quote from: muppet on August 19, 2011, 11:48:00 AM
It is amazing how little difference there is between the ideology of the extreme left and the extreme right.

Both govern ruthlessly.
Both have a super-powerful ruling class, little or no middle class and a serfdom.
Both have one law for themselves and one for the rest.
Both cling to power as viciously as possible to the bitter end.
Both eventually fail under the weight of the ruling classes gluttony.

Come to think of it certain religions match some of that too.

The problem is not Religion, per se, but the Elites that control them. Jesus, Mohammed or Moses didn't instruct their followers to support a Bailout of the Banks. The problem here is Power and Greed (not to mention the warmongering Faux-Christians).

However, you are right on both the Extremes within the Matrix. As Chairman Mao famously said, "In troubled times the naive are always drawn to the charismatic radical!"

QuoteThe Tea Party started off as a reaction against BUSH'S Policies. They just happened to gain momentum when Obama became President.

Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.... The Racist  ::) Tea Party only came in to being the minute Obummer was elected, No ?

QuoteRick Perry and Michelle Bachman are just two more Neo-Con Flakes who will continue keeping America in Debt.

In your humble opinion right or do you have evidence to support such a claim ?

the war with iran.. 'they' seem to have iran back in the crosshairs. iran is being potrayed as scurrying around busy trying to develop a nuclear weapon under the guise of a nuclear power program which isnt very credible seeing that the country is floating on oil. i'd say its more of a nuclear deterant as they obviously know that 'they' are ready to attack.
what to expect:- hard to know what way 'they' will approach this one. most likely 'they' will crank up tensions in gaza then have an 'attack' on the jewish state blame it on iran followed by reprisals from 'them' and abduls your uncle. war

Quote from: Mike Sheehy on August 20, 2011, 08:12:28 AM

Quote from: mannix on August 19, 2011, 11:16:27 PM
thank God i was born an reared in ireland.

Don't you live in New York ?

The US has its faults, thats for sure, but there is nothing worse than gobshites like you who live in the states yet are constantly having a go at the country. Why don't you f**k off back to Ireland if you find
the place and/or the people are so bad.

Well maybe some day when I have some more dollars ready to bring with me I will go back, until then I reserve the right to have an opinion, regardless of any kerry lad telling me different.

i'm reading that four south american countries have banned falklands registered ship from docking. they didnt seem to mind the sheep farming but the pumping of oil by the brits is a sheep too far.

QuoteIn 2007, 25 years after the war, Argentina reasserted its claim over the Falkland Islands, asking for the UK to resume talks on sovereignty. In March 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated in a meeting with Argentine President Cristina Fernández that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. As far as the governments of the UK and of the Falkland Islands are concerned, there is no issue to resolve. The Falkland Islanders themselves are almost entirely of British decent and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom.

QuoteA 1995 agreement between the UK and Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including oil reserves as geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the sea bed surrounding the islands. However, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves. Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress

Well, the Argentinians have no real historical claim to the Falklands and I doubt the Argentinians really care about the land but rather what's in the sea bed surrounding it. The first Europeans to arrive their said it was uninhabited; but then they said that about Australia too.  Neither their ancestors or the French who also claimed it made any use of it or placed a long standing settlement there. It was later given to the British in a treaty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/FalklandEconomicZone.png

I would imagine Argentina with its rising economy see the current floundering of the UK and Europe as a chance to reassert itself but lessons abound from history. That said, with the French and the UK sharing aircraft carriers you can almost picture a re-enactment of Hot Shots Part Deux going on.

However it would be madness on the part of Argentina to try this.

Pity the poor citizens of north Korea, brainwashed and terrorized and nobody can step in to help for fear of ww3 starting. Seen a documentary on it last night, we don't know how good we have it.worrying about enough money for luxuries.

Quote from: mannix on December 21, 2011, 08:45:41 PM
Pity the poor citizens of north Korea, brainwashed and terrorized and nobody can step in to help for fear of ww3 starting. Seen a documentary on it last night, we don't know how good we have it.worrying about enough money for luxuries.

yip. the irish government would never bully or intimidate or lie to its citizens... ;)

Law seed, of course the government in Ireland are liars, that's politics. What goes on in north Korea is unreal, even the guards watching those prisoners try to escape. Kim Jong was crazy, but seemingly nobody will question his son for fear of their family ending up in the gulag.

Quote from: lawnseed on December 22, 2011, 09:18:17 AM

Quote from: mannix on December 21, 2011, 08:45:41 PM
Pity the poor citizens of north Korea, brainwashed and terrorized and nobody can step in to help for fear of ww3 starting. Seen a documentary on it last night, we don't know how good we have it.worrying about enough money for luxuries.

yip. the irish government would never bully or intimidate or lie to its citizens... ;)

It must be great up there on the high moral ground on that particular issue.

People say North Korea is brainwashed. Maybe we`re the ones who are brainwashed about what North Korea`s abilities really are. I mean like, if it is so secretive, then where does all this information come from that the media get a hold of?

by Tyler Durden



The pieces and policies for potential conflict in the Persian Gulf are seemingly drawing inexorably together.

Since 24 December the Iranian Navy has been holding its ten-day Velayat 90 naval exercises, covering an area in the Arabian Sea stretching from east of the Strait of Hormuz entrance to the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden. The day the maneuvers opened Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told a press conference that the exercises were intended to show "Iran's military prowess and defense capabilities in international waters, convey a message of peace and friendship to regional countries, and test the newest military equipment." The exercise is Iran's first naval training drill since May 2010, when the country held its Velayat 89 naval maneuvers in the same area. Velayat 90 is the largest naval exercise the country has ever held.

The participating Iranian forces have been divided into two groups, blue and orange, with the blue group representing Iranian forces and orange the enemy. Velayat 90 is involving the full panoply of Iranian naval force, with destroyers, missile boats, logistical support ships, hovercraft, aircraft, drones and advanced coastal missiles and torpedoes all being deployed. Tactics include mine-laying exercises and preparations for chemical attack. Iranian naval commandos, marines and divers are also participating.

The exercises have put Iranian warships in close proximity to vessels of the United States Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, which patrols some of the same waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, a 21 mile-wide waterway at its narrowest point. Roughly 40 percent of the world's oil tanker shipments transit the strait daily, carrying 15.5 million barrels of Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Qatari and United Arab Emirates crude oil, leading the United States Energy Information Administration to label the Strait of Hormuz "the world's most important oil chokepoint."

In light of Iran's recent capture of an advanced CIA RQ-170 Sentinel drone earlier this month, Iranian Navy Rear Admiral Seyed Mahmoud Moussavi noted that the Iranian Velayat 90 forces also conducted electronic warfare tests, using modern Iranian-made electronic jamming equipment to disrupt enemy radar and contact systems. Further tweaking Uncle Sam's nose, Moussavi added that Iranian Navy drones involved in Velayat 90 conducted successful patrolling and surveillance operations.

Thousands of miles to the west, adding oil to the fire, President Obama is preparing to sign legislation that, if fully enforced, could impose harsh penalties on all customers for Iranian oil, with the explicit aim of severely impeding Iran's ability to sell it.

How serious are the Iranians about the proposed sanctions and possible attack over its civilian nuclear program and what can they deploy if push comes to shove? According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' The Military Balance 2011, Iran has 23 submarines, 100+ "coastal and combat" patrol craft, 5 mine warfare and anti-mine craft, 13 amphibious landing vessels and 26 "logistics and support" ships. Add to that the fact that Iran has emphasized that it has developed indigenous "asymmetrical warfare" naval doctrines, and it is anything but clear what form Iran's naval response to sanctions or attack could take. The only certainty is that it is unlikely to resemble anything taught at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The proposed Obama administration energy sanctions heighten the risk of confrontation and carry the possibility of immense economic disruption from soaring oil prices, given the unpredictability of the Iranian response. Addressing the possibility of tightened oil sanctions Iran's first vice president Mohammad-Reza Rahimi on 27 December said, "If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz."

Iran has earlier warned that if either the U.S. or Israel attack, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the Strait of Hormuz. On 28 December Iranian Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari observed, "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very easy. It is a capability that has been built from the outset into our naval forces' abilities."

But adding an apparent olive branch Sayyari added, "But today we are not in the Hormuz Strait. We are in the Sea of Oman and we do not need to close the Hormuz Strait. Today we are just dealing with the Sea of Oman. Therefore, we can control it from right here and this is one of our prime abilities for such vital straits and our abilities are far, far more than they think."

There are dim lights at the end of the seemingly darker and darker tunnel. The proposed sanctions legislation allows Obama to waive sanctions if they cause the price of oil to rise or threaten national security.

Furthermore, there is the wild card of Iran's oil customers, the most prominent of which is China, which would hardly be inclined to go along with increased sanctions.

But one thing should be clear in Washington – however odious the U.S. government might find Iran's mullahcracy, it is most unlikely to cave in to either economic or military intimidation that would threaten the nation's existence, and if backed up against the wall with no way out, would just as likely go for broke and use every weapon at its disposal to defend itself. Given their evident cyber abilities in hacking the RQ-170 Sentinel drone and their announcement of an indigenous naval doctrine, a "cakewalk" victory with "mission accomplished" declared within a few short weeks seems anything but assured, particularly as it would extend the military arc of crisis from Iraq through Iran to Afghanistan, a potential shambolic military quagmire beyond Washington's, NATO's and Tel Aviv's resources to quell.

It is worth remembering that chess was played in Sassanid Iran 1,400 years ago, where it was known as "chatrang." What is occurring now off the Persian Gulf is a diplomatic and military game of chess, with global implications.

Washington's concept of squeezing a country's government by interfering with its energy policies has a dolorous history seven decades old.

When Japan invaded Vichy French-ruled southern Indo-China in July 1941 the U.S. demanded Japan withdraw. In addition, on 1 August the U.S., Japan's biggest oil supplier at the time, imposed an oil embargo on the country.

Pearl Harbor occurred less than four months later.

A lot of people on this Board are not going to grow old.
No Euro.
A piece of paper dollar.
Quantitative eased Sterling to no savings/pension - just survival.
A big big war.
Sad really.

Interesting watch;

http://youtu.be/zuAj2F54bdo

Today, millions of Americans say that they believe that the United States is on the verge of a major economic collapse and will soon be entering another Great Depression.  But only a small percentage of those same people are prepared for that to happen.  The sad truth is that the vast majority of Americans would last little more than a month on what they have stored up in their homes.  Most of us are so used to running out to the supermarket or to Wal-Mart for whatever we need that we never even stop to consider what would happen if suddenly we were not able to do that.  Already the U.S. economy is starting to stumble about like a drunken frat boy.  All it would take for the entire U.S. to resemble New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina would be for a major war, a terror attack, a deadly pandemic or a massive natural disaster to strike at just the right time and push the teetering U.S. economy over the edge.  So just how would you survive if you suddenly could not rely on the huge international corporate giants to feed, clothe and supply you and your family?  Do you have a plan?

Unless you already live in a cave or you are a complete and total mindless follower of the establishment media, you should be able to see very clearly that our society is more vulnerable now than it ever has been.  This year there have been an unprecedented number of large earthquakes around the world and volcanoes all over the globe are awakening.  You can just take a look at what has happened in Haiti and in Iceland to see how devastating a natural disaster can be.  Not only that, but we have a world that is full of lunatics in positions of power, and if one of them decides to set off a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon in a major city it could paralyze an entire region.  War could erupt in the Middle East at literally any moment, and if it does the price of oil will double or triple (at least) and there is the possibility that much of the entire world could be drawn into the conflict.  Scientists tell us that a massive high-altitude EMP (electromagnetic pulse) blast could send large portions of the United States back to the stone age in an instant.  In addition, there is the constant threat that the outbreak of a major viral pandemic (such as what happened with the 1918 Spanish Flu) could kill tens of millions of people around the globe and paralyze the economies of the world.

But even without all of that, the truth is that the U.S. economy is going to collapse.  So just think of what will happen if one (or more) of those things does happen on top of all the economic problems that we are having.

Are you prepared? 

The following is a list of 20 things you and your family will need to survive when the economy totally collapses and the next Great Depression begins....

#1) Storable Food

Food is going to instantly become one of the most valuable commodities in existence in the event of an economic collapse.  If you do not have food you are not going to survive.  Most American families could not last much longer than a month on what they have in their house right now.  So what about you?  If disaster struck right now, how long could you survive on what you have?  The truth is that we all need to start storing up food.  If you and your family run out of food, you will suddenly find yourselves competing with the hordes of hungry people who are looting the stores and roaming the streets looking for something to eat.

Of course you can grow your own food, but that is going to take time.  So you need to have enough food stored up until the food that you plant has time to grow.  But if you have not stored up any seeds you might as well forget it.  When the economy totally collapses, the remaining seeds will disappear very quickly.  So if you think that you are going to need seeds, now is the time to get them.

#2) Clean Water

Most people can survive for a number of weeks without food, but without water you will die in just a few days.  So where would you get water if the water suddenly stopped flowing out of your taps?  Do you have a plan?  Is there an abundant supply of clean water near your home? Would you be able to boil water if you need to?

Besides storing water and figuring out how you are going to gather water if society breaks down, another thing to consider is water purification tablets.  The water you are able to gather during a time of crisis may not be suitable for drinking.  So you may find that water purification tablets come in very, very handy.

#3) Shelter

You can't sleep on the streets, can you?  Well, some people will be able to get by living on the streets, but the vast majority of us will need some form of shelter to survive for long.  So what would you do if you and your family lost your home or suddenly were forced from your home?  Where would you go?

The best thing to do is to come up with several plans.  Do you have relatives that you can bunk with in case of emergency?  Do you own a tent and sleeping bags if you had to rough it?  If one day everything hits the fan and you and your family have to "bug out" somewhere, where would that be?  You need to have a plan.

#4) Warm Clothing

If you plan to survive for long in a nightmare economic situation, you are probably going to need some warm, functional clothing.  If you live in a cold climate, this is going to mean storing up plenty of blankets and cold weather clothes.  If you live in an area where it rains a lot, you will need to be sure to store up some rain gear.  If you think you may have to survive outdoors in an emergency situation, make sure that you and your family have something warm to put on your heads.  Someday after the economy has collapsed and people are scrambling to survive, a lot of folks are going to end up freezing to death.  In fact, in the coldest areas it is actually possible to freeze to death in your own home.  Don't let that happen to you.

#5) An Axe

Staying along the theme of staying warm, you may want to consider investing in a good axe.  In the event of a major emergency, gathering firewood will be a priority.  Without a good tool to cut the wood with that will be much more difficult.

#6) Lighters Or Matches

You will also want something to start a fire with.  If you can start a fire, you can cook food, you can boil water and you can stay warm.  So in a true emergency situation, how do you plan to start a fire?  By rubbing sticks together?  Now is the time to put away a supply of lighters or matches so that you will be prepared when you really need them.

In addition, you may want to consider storing up a good supply of candles.  Candles come in quite handy whenever the electricity goes out, and in the event of a long-term economic nightmare we will all see why our forefathers relied on candles so much.

#7) Hiking Boots Or Comfortable Shoes

When you ask most people to list things necessary for survival, this is not the first or the second thing that comes to mind.  But having hiking boots or very comfortable and functional shoes will be absolutely critical.  You may very well find yourself in a situation where you and your family must walk everywhere you want to go.  So how far do you think you will get in high heels?  You will want footwear that you would feel comfortable walking in for hours if necessary.  You will also want footwear that will last a long time, because when the economy truly collapses you may not be able to run out to the shoe store and get what you need at that point.

#8) A Flashlight And/Or Lantern

When the power goes off in your home, what is the first thing that you grab?  Just think about it.  A flashlight or a lantern of course.  In a major emergency, a flashlight or a lantern is going to be a necessity - especially if you need to go anywhere at night.

Solar powered or "crank style" flashlights or lanterns will probably be best during a long-term emergency.  If you have battery-powered units you will want to begin storing up lots and lots of batteries.   

#9) A Radio

If a major crisis does hit the United States, what will you and your family want?  Among other things, you will all want to know what in the world is going on.  A radio can be an invaluable tool for keeping up with the news.

Once again, solar powered or "crank style" radios will probably work best for the long term.  A battery-powered until would work as well - but only for as long as your batteries are able to last.

#10) Communication Equipment

When things really hit the fan you are going to want to communicate with your family and friends.  You will also want to be able to contact an ambulance or law enforcement if necessary.  Having an emergency cell phone is great, but it may or may not work during a time of crisis.  The Internet also may or may not be available.  Be sure to have a plan (whether it be high-tech or low-tech) for staying in communication with others during a major emergency.

#11) A Swiss Army Knife

If you have ever owned a Swiss Army knife you probably already know how incredibly handy they can be.  It can be a very valuable and versatile tool.  In a true survival situation, a Swiss Army knife can literally do dozens of different things for you.  Make sure that you have at least one stored up for emergencies.

#12) Personal Hygiene Items

While these may not be absolute "essentials", the truth is that life will get very unpleasant very quickly without them.  For example, what would you do without toilet paper?  Just think about it.  Imagine that you just finished your last roll of toilet paper and now you can't get any more.  What would you do?

The truth is that soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, shampoo, toilet paper and other hygiene products are things that we completely take for granted in society today.  So what would happen if we could not go out and buy them any longer?

#13) A First Aid Kit And Other Medical Supplies

One  a more serious note, you may not be able to access a hospital or a doctor during a major crisis.  In your survival supplies, be absolutely certain that you have a good first aid kit and any other medical supplies that you think you may need.

#14) Extra Gasoline

There may come a day when gasoline is rationed or is simply not available at all.  If that happens, how will you get around?  Be certain to have some extra gasoline stored away just in case you find yourself really needing to get somewhere someday.

#15) A Sewing Kit

If you were not able to run out and buy new clothes for you and your family, what would you do?  Well, you would want to repair the clothes that you have and make them last as long as possible.  Without a good sewing kit that will be very difficult to do.

#16) Self-Defense Equipment

Whether it is pepper spray to fend off wild animals or something more "robust" to fend off wild humans, millions of Americans will one day be thankful that they have something to defend themselves with.

#17) A Compass

In the event of a major emergency, you and your family may find yourselves having to be on the move.  If you are in a wilderness area, it will be very hard to tell what direction you are heading without a compass.  It is always a good idea to have at least one compass stored up.

#18) A Hiking Backpack

If you and your family suddenly have to "bug out", what will you carry all of your survival supplies in?  Having a good hiking backpack or "survival bag" for everyone in your family is extremely important.  If something happened in the city where you live and you suddenly had to "go", what would you put your most important stuff in?  How would you carry it all if you had to travel by foot?  These are very important things to think about.

#19) A Community

During a long-term crisis, it is those who are willing to work together that will have the best chance of making it.  Whether it is your family, your friends, a church or a local group of people that you know, make sure that you have some people that you can rely on and work together with in the event that everything hits the fan.  Loners are going to have a really hard time of surviving for long.

#20) A Backup Plan

Lastly, it is always, always, always important to have a backup plan for everything.

If someone comes in and steals all the food that you have stored up, what are you going to do?

If travel is restricted and your can't get to your "bug out" location immediately do you have a Plan B?

If you have built your house into an impregnable survival fortress but circumstances force you to leave do you have an alternate plan?

The truth is that crisis situations rarely unfold just as we envision.  It is important to be flexible and to be ready with backup plans when disaster strikes.

You don't want to end up like the folks in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.  You don't want to have to rely on the government to take care of you if something really bad happens.

Right now the U.S. strategic grain reserve contains only enough wheat to make half a loaf of bread for each of the approximately 300 million people in the United States.

How long do you think that is going to last?

Now is the time to get ready.

Now is the time to prepare.

The United States economy is going to collapse and incredibly hard times are coming.

Will you be able to survive when it happens?

Quote from: customsandrevenue on January 06, 2012, 12:17:01 AM
Today, millions of Americans say that they believe that the United States is on the verge of a major economic collapse and will soon be entering another Great Depression.  But only a small percentage of those same people are prepared for that to happen.  The sad truth is that the vast majority of Americans would last little more than a month on what they have stored up in their homes.  Most of us are so used to running out to the supermarket or to Wal-Mart for whatever we need that we never even stop to consider what would happen if suddenly we were not able to do that.  Already the U.S. economy is starting to stumble about like a drunken frat boy.  All it would take for the entire U.S. to resemble New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina would be for a major war, a terror attack, a deadly pandemic or a massive natural disaster to strike at just the right time and push the teetering U.S. economy over the edge.  So just how would you survive if you suddenly could not rely on the huge international corporate giants to feed, clothe and supply you and your family?  Do you have a plan?

Unless you already live in a cave or you are a complete and total mindless follower of the establishment media, you should be able to see very clearly that our society is more vulnerable now than it ever has been.  This year there have been an unprecedented number of large earthquakes around the world and volcanoes all over the globe are awakening.  You can just take a look at what has happened in Haiti and in Iceland to see how devastating a natural disaster can be.  Not only that, but we have a world that is full of lunatics in positions of power, and if one of them decides to set off a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon in a major city it could paralyze an entire region.  War could erupt in the Middle East at literally any moment, and if it does the price of oil will double or triple (at least) and there is the possibility that much of the entire world could be drawn into the conflict.  Scientists tell us that a massive high-altitude EMP (electromagnetic pulse) blast could send large portions of the United States back to the stone age in an instant.  In addition, there is the constant threat that the outbreak of a major viral pandemic (such as what happened with the 1918 Spanish Flu) could kill tens of millions of people around the globe and paralyze the economies of the world.

But even without all of that, the truth is that the U.S. economy is going to collapse.  So just think of what will happen if one (or more) of those things does happen on top of all the economic problems that we are having.

Are you prepared? 

The following is a list of 20 things you and your family will need to survive when the economy totally collapses and the next Great Depression begins....

#1) Storable Food

Food is going to instantly become one of the most valuable commodities in existence in the event of an economic collapse.  If you do not have food you are not going to survive.  Most American families could not last much longer than a month on what they have in their house right now.  So what about you?  If disaster struck right now, how long could you survive on what you have?  The truth is that we all need to start storing up food.  If you and your family run out of food, you will suddenly find yourselves competing with the hordes of hungry people who are looting the stores and roaming the streets looking for something to eat.

Of course you can grow your own food, but that is going to take time.  So you need to have enough food stored up until the food that you plant has time to grow.  But if you have not stored up any seeds you might as well forget it.  When the economy totally collapses, the remaining seeds will disappear very quickly.  So if you think that you are going to need seeds, now is the time to get them.

#2) Clean Water

Most people can survive for a number of weeks without food, but without water you will die in just a few days.  So where would you get water if the water suddenly stopped flowing out of your taps?  Do you have a plan?  Is there an abundant supply of clean water near your home? Would you be able to boil water if you need to?

Besides storing water and figuring out how you are going to gather water if society breaks down, another thing to consider is water purification tablets.  The water you are able to gather during a time of crisis may not be suitable for drinking.  So you may find that water purification tablets come in very, very handy.

#3) Shelter

You can't sleep on the streets, can you?  Well, some people will be able to get by living on the streets, but the vast majority of us will need some form of shelter to survive for long.  So what would you do if you and your family lost your home or suddenly were forced from your home?  Where would you go?

The best thing to do is to come up with several plans.  Do you have relatives that you can bunk with in case of emergency?  Do you own a tent and sleeping bags if you had to rough it?  If one day everything hits the fan and you and your family have to "bug out" somewhere, where would that be?  You need to have a plan.

#4) Warm Clothing

If you plan to survive for long in a nightmare economic situation, you are probably going to need some warm, functional clothing.  If you live in a cold climate, this is going to mean storing up plenty of blankets and cold weather clothes.  If you live in an area where it rains a lot, you will need to be sure to store up some rain gear.  If you think you may have to survive outdoors in an emergency situation, make sure that you and your family have something warm to put on your heads.  Someday after the economy has collapsed and people are scrambling to survive, a lot of folks are going to end up freezing to death.  In fact, in the coldest areas it is actually possible to freeze to death in your own home.  Don't let that happen to you.

#5) An Axe

Staying along the theme of staying warm, you may want to consider investing in a good axe.  In the event of a major emergency, gathering firewood will be a priority.  Without a good tool to cut the wood with that will be much more difficult.

#6) Lighters Or Matches

You will also want something to start a fire with.  If you can start a fire, you can cook food, you can boil water and you can stay warm.  So in a true emergency situation, how do you plan to start a fire?  By rubbing sticks together?  Now is the time to put away a supply of lighters or matches so that you will be prepared when you really need them.

In addition, you may want to consider storing up a good supply of candles.  Candles come in quite handy whenever the electricity goes out, and in the event of a long-term economic nightmare we will all see why our forefathers relied on candles so much.

#7) Hiking Boots Or Comfortable Shoes

When you ask most people to list things necessary for survival, this is not the first or the second thing that comes to mind.  But having hiking boots or very comfortable and functional shoes will be absolutely critical.  You may very well find yourself in a situation where you and your family must walk everywhere you want to go.  So how far do you think you will get in high heels?  You will want footwear that you would feel comfortable walking in for hours if necessary.  You will also want footwear that will last a long time, because when the economy truly collapses you may not be able to run out to the shoe store and get what you need at that point.

#8) A Flashlight And/Or Lantern

When the power goes off in your home, what is the first thing that you grab?  Just think about it.  A flashlight or a lantern of course.  In a major emergency, a flashlight or a lantern is going to be a necessity - especially if you need to go anywhere at night.

Solar powered or "crank style" flashlights or lanterns will probably be best during a long-term emergency.  If you have battery-powered units you will want to begin storing up lots and lots of batteries.   

#9) A Radio

If a major crisis does hit the United States, what will you and your family want?  Among other things, you will all want to know what in the world is going on.  A radio can be an invaluable tool for keeping up with the news.

Once again, solar powered or "crank style" radios will probably work best for the long term.  A battery-powered until would work as well - but only for as long as your batteries are able to last.

#10) Communication Equipment

When things really hit the fan you are going to want to communicate with your family and friends.  You will also want to be able to contact an ambulance or law enforcement if necessary.  Having an emergency cell phone is great, but it may or may not work during a time of crisis.  The Internet also may or may not be available.  Be sure to have a plan (whether it be high-tech or low-tech) for staying in communication with others during a major emergency.

#11) A Swiss Army Knife

If you have ever owned a Swiss Army knife you probably already know how incredibly handy they can be.  It can be a very valuable and versatile tool.  In a true survival situation, a Swiss Army knife can literally do dozens of different things for you.  Make sure that you have at least one stored up for emergencies.

#12) Personal Hygiene Items

While these may not be absolute "essentials", the truth is that life will get very unpleasant very quickly without them.  For example, what would you do without toilet paper?  Just think about it.  Imagine that you just finished your last roll of toilet paper and now you can't get any more.  What would you do?

The truth is that soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, shampoo, toilet paper and other hygiene products are things that we completely take for granted in society today.  So what would happen if we could not go out and buy them any longer?

#13) A First Aid Kit And Other Medical Supplies

One  a more serious note, you may not be able to access a hospital or a doctor during a major crisis.  In your survival supplies, be absolutely certain that you have a good first aid kit and any other medical supplies that you think you may need.

#14) Extra Gasoline

There may come a day when gasoline is rationed or is simply not available at all.  If that happens, how will you get around?  Be certain to have some extra gasoline stored away just in case you find yourself really needing to get somewhere someday.

#15) A Sewing Kit

If you were not able to run out and buy new clothes for you and your family, what would you do?  Well, you would want to repair the clothes that you have and make them last as long as possible.  Without a good sewing kit that will be very difficult to do.

#16) Self-Defense Equipment

Whether it is pepper spray to fend off wild animals or something more "robust" to fend off wild humans, millions of Americans will one day be thankful that they have something to defend themselves with.

#17) A Compass

In the event of a major emergency, you and your family may find yourselves having to be on the move.  If you are in a wilderness area, it will be very hard to tell what direction you are heading without a compass.  It is always a good idea to have at least one compass stored up.

#18) A Hiking Backpack

If you and your family suddenly have to "bug out", what will you carry all of your survival supplies in?  Having a good hiking backpack or "survival bag" for everyone in your family is extremely important.  If something happened in the city where you live and you suddenly had to "go", what would you put your most important stuff in?  How would you carry it all if you had to travel by foot?  These are very important things to think about.

#19) A Community

During a long-term crisis, it is those who are willing to work together that will have the best chance of making it.  Whether it is your family, your friends, a church or a local group of people that you know, make sure that you have some people that you can rely on and work together with in the event that everything hits the fan.  Loners are going to have a really hard time of surviving for long.

#20) A Backup Plan

Lastly, it is always, always, always important to have a backup plan for everything.

If someone comes in and steals all the food that you have stored up, what are you going to do?

If travel is restricted and your can't get to your "bug out" location immediately do you have a Plan B?

If you have built your house into an impregnable survival fortress but circumstances force you to leave do you have an alternate plan?

The truth is that crisis situations rarely unfold just as we envision.  It is important to be flexible and to be ready with backup plans when disaster strikes.

You don't want to end up like the folks in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.  You don't want to have to rely on the government to take care of you if something really bad happens.

Right now the U.S. strategic grain reserve contains only enough wheat to make half a loaf of bread for each of the approximately 300 million people in the United States.

How long do you think that is going to last?

Now is the time to get ready.

Now is the time to prepare.

The United States economy is going to collapse and incredibly hard times are coming.

Will you be able to survive when it happens?

Why would you even post this?

Quote from: DrinkingHarp on January 06, 2012, 02:48:40 AM
Why would you even post this?

Quote from: DrinkingHarp on July 27, 2011, 12:56:51 AM

Quote from: gerry on July 26, 2011, 10:54:25 PM
you missed these sandwiches that we sold last year

(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs411.snc4/47457_445333511360_540826360_5698626_4931581_n.jpg)

shelf life of over a year? hhhmmmmm

Sandwiches just won't last as DrinkingHarp points out.

Less than 0.05 Gy: No visible symptoms.

0.05-0.5 Gy: Temporarily decreased red blood cell count.

0.5-1 Gy: Decreased production of immunity cells; susceptible to infections; nausea, headache, and vomiting may be common. This amount of radiation is usually survivable without any medical treatment-

1.5-3 Gy: 35% percent of exposed die within 30 days. (LD 35/30) Nausea, vomiting, and loss of hair all over the body.

3-4 Gy: Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.

4-6 Gy: Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.

6-10 Gy: Acute radiation poisoning, near 100% fatality after 14 days (LD 100/14). Survival depends on intense medical care. Bone marrow is nearly or completely destroyed, so a bone marrow transplant is required. Gastric and intestinal tissue are severely damaged. Symptoms start 15 to 30 minutes after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. Subsequently, there is a 5 to 10 day latent phase, after which the person dies of infection or internal bleeding. Recovery would take several years and probably never complete. Devair Alves Ferreira received a dose of approximately 7.0 Sv during the Goiânia accident and survived, partially due to his fractionated exposure.

12-20 REM: Death is 100% at this stage; symptoms appear immediately. The gastrointestinal system is completely destroyed. Uncontrollable bleeding from the mouth, under the skin and the kidneys occurs. Fatigue and general illness takes its toll. Symptoms are the same as before with increased intensity. Recovery not possible.

More than 20 REM. The same symptoms set in instantly, with increased intensity, then cease for several days in the "walking ghost" phase. Suddenly, gastrointestinal cells are destroyed, with a loss of water and excessive bleeding. Death begins with delirium and insanity. When the brain can't control bodily functions like breathing or blood-circulation, one dies. No medical therapy can reverse this; medical help is for comfort only.

(The following advice being given would be hard to follow but maybe the person would not feel like eating)
Unfortunately, you have to accept that a person may soon die. Though harsh, don't waste rations or supplies on those dying of radiation sickness. Keep rations for the fit and healthy, should supplies be in demand. Radiation sickness is prevalent among the very young, the old or sick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304)

Wonder how long it will be before Iran reacts. If "they" keep poking at them, its inevitable.

Hit them where it hurts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16526067

An Israeli hacker has published details of hundreds of Saudi credit cards online and is threatening to post more in revenge for acts by Arab hackers.

Last week a hacker, claiming to be from Saudi Arabia, published information about tens of thousands of Israeli credit cards online.

It was one of the worst incidents of data theft in Israel.

Of course nobody will claim responsibility but either the Israelis or the USA were likely responsible. I imagine the Iranians will start working overtime to get the bomb, what a troubled world we live in. Mayo better get a move on with winning that all Ireland.

Can the US and UK governments really sucker their respective nations with another unproven wmd claims

The US is heavily involved in this undercover war against Iran. At the beginning of 2008, President Bush won secret approval from Congress to spend $400m to launch a campaign to destabilise the clerical leadership in Tehran. As well as gathering information on a possible nuclear weapons programme, it was aimed at supporting dissident minorities inside Iran such as Baluchis, Kurds and Arabs in the south-west of the country.

Clandestine operations were carried out inside Iran that included seizing members of al-Quds, a commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Baluchi groups based in Pakistan claimed responsibility for bomb attacks in south-east Iran against Revolutionary Guard targets.

The US has also been accused of supporting Pejak, a Kurdish group based in Iraqi Kurdistan which is connected to the Turkish Kurd PKK and carries out raids across the border into Iran. Although Pejak officials claim contacts with the US, the group is small and has limited influence. Some of its former leaders allege that it is infiltrated by Iranian intelligence.

Despite the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, the US has found no evidence Tehran is trying to make a nuclear bomb, though US politicians often speak as if this was an established fact. The US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, went out of his way last weekend to deny that Iran was trying to build a nuclear device. He said that if it did so this would be a "red line" for the US.

The US National Intelligence Estimates on Iranian nuclear progress, the collective judgement of all the US intelligence organisations, said there was no evidence Iran had been trying to build a bomb since 2003. The Defence Intelligence Agency concluded that Iran's nuclear weapons programme at that time was directed against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and when he was overthrown by the US, it was ended.

QuoteAssassinations of Iranian nuclear engineers.
Previous victims:

11.01.12

Ahmadi Roshan Director of Natanz uranium enrichment facility killed by magnetic car bomb.

23.07.11

Darioush Rezaeinejad Shot dead by men on motorbikes in Tehran last year. He was initially described as a scientist working on Iran's nuclear programme but this was later denied. Analysts blamed the CIA and Mossad for his death.

29.11.10

Majid Shahriyari Killed by a car bomb attached in Tehran. The academic was "in charge of one of the great projects" at a nuclear facility according to Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the nuclear programme.

29.11.10

Fereidoun Abbasi (survived) The attack on Mr Shahriyari was co-ordinated with another on Mr Abbasi, which left the latter wounded. He was appointed head of Iran's atomic agency soon afterwards.

12.01.10

Massoud Ali Mohammadi The particle physicist and opposition politician was killed when a motorcycle strapped with explosives was remotely detonated near his car.

15.01.07

Ardeshir Hosseinpour (unconfirmed) The scientist's death from gas poisoning was reported by Iranian TV a week after it happened, sparking rumours that Mossad might be to blame.

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/

Ireland declares war on Iran? I must have missed the Dáil debate where these sanctions were debated:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/iran-oil-embargo-mean-war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/iran-oil-embargo-mean-war)

Today Gilmore backs sanctions against a country who dont have nuclear weapons, and have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and last week he entertained representatives of a country who havn't signed the treaty and are armed with over 200 nuclear weapons.  Guess that visit last week helped him make his decision.......

Quote from: Ulick on January 23, 2012, 03:58:02 PM
Ireland declares war on Iran? I must have missed the Dáil debate where these sanctions were debated:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/iran-oil-embargo-mean-war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/iran-oil-embargo-mean-war)

Should that not read EU instead of Ireland? 

Lisbon and its consequences how are ya.

Worrying times, if the Americans try to halt to oil going to china we will have a war for sure. Iran is one thing but a war between china and the USA would be catastrophe for us all. And last week Russia said it would defend Iran if anyone attacks it.
Somewhere in all of this somebody is going to lose face.

Quote from: mannix on January 23, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
Worrying times, if the Americans try to halt to oil going to china we will have a war for sure. Iran is one thing but a war between china and the USA would be catastrophe for us all. And last week Russia said it would defend Iran if anyone attacks it.
Somewhere in all of this somebody is going to lose face.

Israel is playing with fire and when the dust settles the region could look very different.   

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/republican-nightmare/?pagination=false

By contrast, the most belligerent Republican on Israel and Iran has turned out to be Santorum: he asserted, in a recorded conversation with a voter on November 21, that "all the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians. There is no 'Palestinian.'" A few days earlier, Santorum had said about the threat of Iran: "A country that is developing a weapon of mass destruction to use it to destroy another country must be stopped in a preemptive strike." And on Meet the Press on January 1 he affirmed his view in different words: Iranian leaders must open their facilities to inspection and begin to dismantle their advanced equipment, or the US will attack.
This statement comes at a moment of enormous tension—heightened by Israel's warmest supporters in Congress. The Iran Threat Reductions Act, proposed by the Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, passed in the House of Representatives on December 14 by a vote of 410–11. This crudely assertive and possibly unconstitutional bill would prohibit all contact between Iranian and American officials without fifteen days' prior notice to Congress. Bill Clinton, in 1996, complained of the "scandalous electioneering" practiced by Benjamin Netanyahu from abroad.

Fifteen years later, ever since his visit to Congress in May, Benjamin Netanyahu has been working to intimidate the president and pull from Republican candidates and from Congress at large professions of loyalty to his project of bombing Iran to reduce its possible nuclear capability.
There has been a change, however, since 1996. Clinton's anger was registered in private. But it was Thomas Friedman, the American opinion-maker most highly regarded in Israel, who wrote in a column of December 13 that Netanyahu's standing ovation in Congress last May "was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." And five days later, there occurred a remarkable exchange on Fareed Zakaria's CNN program Global Public Square. The subject was how the Republicans try to outbid each other in submissive postures of unconditional loyalty to Israel; the immediate pretext was Gingrich's having said on December 9 to an interviewer for the Jewish Channel (a cable station) that the Palestinians are an "invented" people. Zakaria and his guests then passed on to the broader subject of avowals of love for Israel and unquestioning support for Likud policies:
Zakaria: Michele Bachmann trumps them all by saying, "I went to a kibbutz when I was 18 years old."

David Remnick: A socialist experiment, I might remind her. A socialist experiment. You know, as a Jewish American I find it disgusting. And I know what he's going after. He's going after—he's going after a small slice of Jewish Americans who donate to political funds—to campaigns and also to Christian Evangelicals. It's—the signaling is obvious. What they're doing is obvious. But what they're describing in terms of the, say, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It's ignorance combined with cynical politics and irrelevance. It's really awful. It's really awful.

Zakaria: Do you agree?
Peggy Noonan: Yes, I do.
Zakaria: Gillian?

Gillian Tett [of the Financial Times]: I do. And I think that actually given the current moves in Iran at the moment and what's happening elsewhere in the region, that kind of rhetoric is likely to become more and more relevant going forward.
Zakaria: And then the other place where I noticed that there is some traction is Iran. There's this feeling, again, I think somewhat unrealistically that we're going to be tougher on Iran. We're going to be, so that Gingrich says he wouldn't bomb Iran, but he would effect regime change. Good luck, you know?

This was a breakthrough. Remnick's comment is especially notable because it gives up the euphemism "Jewish voters" and refers frankly to Jewish donors. It is millions of dollars and not just a few thousand votes that the pandering Republicans are trawling for. Meanwhile, Israel itself has witnessed a development germane to the Republican pledges in Iowa of implicit support for any action by Israel. The majority of Israel's intelligence establishment has actively argued against or publicly spoken to oppose the adventurist policy of Netanyahu and his description of Iran as an "existential threat." These last words have been discountenanced by the present director of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, and, more sternly, by the retired director Meir Dagan, as well as by the former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate, Amos Yadlin, the former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Gabi Ashkenazi, and the former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin. Opposition within Israel apparently succeeded in thwarting an initiative by Netanyahu to attack Iran in 2010. It remains to be seen whether it can do so again.

Probably none of the Republicans who clocked in at the Iowa debates to back aggressive US support of Israel against Iran was aware of this internal division—easily discoverable in recent stories in Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. Such an uprising from the military and intelligence establishment itself, against an intended military action by an elected government, is exceedingly rare in the history of democracies. So we are at a strange crossroads.
The right-wing coalition government of Israel is trying to secure support, with the help of an American party in an election year, for an act of war that it could not hope to accomplish unassisted; while an American opposition party complies with the demand of support by a foreign power, in an election year, to gain financial backing and popular leverage that it could not acquire unassisted.

From an Israeli newspaper.  'Israel to Give Obama 12 Hours Notice on Attacking Iran'

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151965#.Tx2JPGO2_T

Israeli officials told visiting USS Chief Joint of Staffs Martin Dempsey that it would give President Barack Obama no more than 12 hours notice if and when it attacks Iran, The London Times reported Sunday.

The Netanyahu government also will not coordinate with the United States an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to the report, the latest in a number of suposed scenarios concerning cooperation or lack of it between Jerusalem and Washington.

It is left to speculation whether the rumors are based on facts or are leaked by officials to mask the possibility of secret military coordination.

The London Times said its sources explained that that Israel fears that President Obama would try to torpedo an Israel attack if more notice were given because he is concerned that Iran will respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a rise in the price of oil that could cripple Western economies. If the attack were to occur in the next 10 months, it would put President Obama in a tight spot on the eve of his bid for re-election.

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Dempsey, on his first official visit to Israel, was wined and dined by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gants, who went so far as to arrange an IDF orchestra rendition of song made famous by Frank Sinatra, one of Dempsey's favorite singers.

Dempsey tried to play down the postponement of what was billed as the largest-ever joint military drill between the Israeli and American armies, involving thousands of U.S. Army soldiers.

Published reasons for the delay have ranged from budgetary constraints, logistical problems to a signal from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he distrusts President Obama's commitment to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey maintained that the delay, which was announced by Israel, will give both countries more time to prepare and "achieve a better outcome."

The top American general left Israel on Friday, before the Sabbath began

Biggest importers of Iranian oil in the EU; Spain, Italy, Greece.

Shooting EUrselves in the foot, no?

'war'ming up nicely :o

Quote from: give her dixie on January 23, 2012, 05:22:03 PM
From an Israeli newspaper.  'Israel to Give Obama 12 Hours Notice on Attacking Iran'

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151965#.Tx2JPGO2_T

Israeli officials told visiting USS Chief Joint of Staffs Martin Dempsey that it would give President Barack Obama no more than 12 hours notice if and when it attacks Iran, The London Times reported Sunday.

The Netanyahu government also will not coordinate with the United States an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to the report, the latest in a number of suposed scenarios concerning cooperation or lack of it between Jerusalem and Washington.

It is left to speculation whether the rumors are based on facts or are leaked by officials to mask the possibility of secret military coordination.

The London Times said its sources explained that that Israel fears that President Obama would try to torpedo an Israel attack if more notice were given because he is concerned that Iran will respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a rise in the price of oil that could cripple Western economies. If the attack were to occur in the next 10 months, it would put President Obama in a tight spot on the eve of his bid for re-election.

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Dempsey, on his first official visit to Israel, was wined and dined by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gants, who went so far as to arrange an IDF orchestra rendition of song made famous by Frank Sinatra, one of Dempsey's favorite singers.

Dempsey tried to play down the postponement of what was billed as the largest-ever joint military drill between the Israeli and American armies, involving thousands of U.S. Army soldiers.

Published reasons for the delay have ranged from budgetary constraints, logistical problems to a signal from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he distrusts President Obama's commitment to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey maintained that the delay, which was announced by Israel, will give both countries more time to prepare and "achieve a better outcome."

The top American general left Israel on Friday, before the Sabbath began

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."


Murderous hypocrite. Zionism has been a disaster for the Middle East.

Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2012, 10:39:12 AM
, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Murderous hypocrite. Zionism has been a disaster for the Middle East.

I presume that doen't include Palestinians.

Them Isrealis are worse cnuts than the Nazis

Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2012, 10:58:59 AM

Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2012, 10:39:12 AM
, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Murderous hypocrite. Zionism has been a disaster for the Middle East.

I presume that doen't include Palestinians.

Them Isrealis are worse cnuts than the Nazis

statements like that are a farce to be fair

Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2012, 10:58:59 AM

Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2012, 10:39:12 AM
, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Murderous hypocrite. Zionism has been a disaster for the Middle East.

I presume that doen't include Palestinians.

Them Isrealis are worse cnuts than the Nazis

Israel and Iran both better be very careful. A little conflict is all that's needed to bring the Americans into it, once they start the bombing the Russians and Chinese will both get involved. The championship of 2012could be marred by world war 3. Which would dilute a Mayo win.

Ireland's role in the US occupation and oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan is so shameful, and a disgrace, considering how they like to portray themselves as a "Neutral" country.

No doubt they will play a major role in an attack on Iran by allowing Shannon to be used to the fullest.

http://www.thejournal.ie/over-1100-planes-carrying-arms-landed-at-shannon-airport-last-year-335801-Jan2012/

OVER 1,300 PERMITS were issued for civilian aircraft to fly over or land in Ireland while carrying munitions, it has been revealed.

In total there were 1,393 applications for civilian aircraft carrying munitions to fly over or land in Ireland in 2011 with 1,382 permits granted. Approximately 86 per cent of these flights – or around 1,142 – landed at Shannon airport.

The Transport Minister Leo Varadkar disclosed the details in answer to a parliamentary question by Sinn Féin TD Pádraig Mac Lochlainn. He also said that under 250,000 American soldiers passed through Shannon Airport in 2011.

The government must approve any transport of munitions or dangerous goods on civilian aircraft through Ireland or over Irish airspace.

Varadkar confirmed that the vast majority of requests for these flights came from American civil airlines and involved flights to or from the United States. The main destinations were Kuwait and Kyrgyzstan.

Shannonwatch, the organisation which monitors foreign military use of Shannon airport and campaigns against it, said the figures "make a mockery of the notion of Irish neutrality".

On its website, a spokesperson is quoted as saying: "Like Kuwait and Kyrgyzstan, Ireland and Shannon have now become staging posts for US invasions and occupation.

"The figures make a mockery of the notion of Irish neutrality, and show that successive governments have relinquished all interest in maintaining an independent Irish foreign policy."

Quote from: mannix on January 24, 2012, 01:01:08 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on January 24, 2012, 10:58:59 AM

Quote from: seafoid on January 24, 2012, 10:39:12 AM
, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

President Shimon Peres told Dempsey, "I am sure that in this fight [against Iran] we will emerge victorious. It is a fight that does not belong exclusively to the United States or Israel, but a global struggle to create a safe world for all peoples."

Murderous hypocrite. Zionism has been a disaster for the Middle East.

I presume that doen't include Palestinians.

Them Isrealis are worse cnuts than the Nazis

Israel and Iran both better be very careful. A little conflict is all that's needed to bring the Americans into it, once they start the bombing the Russians and Chinese will both get involved. The championship of 2012could be marred by world war 3. Which would dilute a Mayo win.

I know this is a serious topic but this made me laugh out loud.

Nothing like a good laugh.

Seems India and China are looking to keep trading with Iran for its oil but using gold instead of US$. Thus making the embargo from the EU and US on oil and the freezing of its Central banks assets useless.

IF the EU & US keep this shit up we are going to be in big trouble. This will damage the dollar quite badly if it goes ahead.

Seriously, I'm not going to listen to EU bullshit warning us about how we will end up being poor if we leave the EU and euro when they and their dumbfuck policies are a greater f**king danger to us and all our economies.

Should be a very interesting couple of days.  Surely if the Iranians impose thir blockade oil could still be exported via the Red Sea?

It would be great craic if it could be proven that the US/Israel were behind the murders of the Iranian Scientists.

history tells us that wars are great for ailing economies like the us and the EU. bill still (economist/politician) points to the fact that wars create employment. that's the funny thing about capitolism during the first and 2nd world wars the US economy boomed there was full employment etc.. workers worked around the clock to produce stuff that was inevitably going to be destroyed within days. if we were to follow this model we'd have factories producing stuff and other factories destroying it as quickly as possible each creating work for each other. bill points to the 'alien invasion stimulus' where if the human race knew we were about to be attacked by a hostile alien race we would all be in full employment making ready for the invasion and therein the world would enjoy an economic surge. the yanks need wars they spend 3 trillion dollars on "defence" per year its their biggest industry. now they have the policy where they bomb and kill then charge the host country for the privilege of having its citizens slaughtered. for our part we have a pathetic sycophantic government who lack the balls to say this is wrong and close our airports. the Americans have already said they can quite easily use a British airport but we want to snuggle up to tyranny. the minister in charge varadkar has already stated that ireland would take part in the rapid eu army. so there you have it not only will ireland swell the ranks of the british army but WE will send soldiers over to countries who have no quarrel with us to kill and maim. WE ARE NO BETTER THAN THE BRITS.

Is Assad the next Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Probably not and hopefully not, but with China and Russia's veto on intervention in Syria, a line has been drawn by the eastern powers.

Looking at the situation in Syria in isolation we see a people uprising and protesting against a despotic regime which is stamping down ruthlessly on them. Morally it is obvious which side to be on. The people, of course. No one can argue that Assad, like his father is a ruthless bloodthirsty animal and has to go for the sake of Syria.

Unfortunately things are never as black and white as that, no good guys and bad guys, just a lot of bad-guys and their victims. While Gaddafi and Murbarak had no support, no real allies, Assad does have many. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq & Iran most notably. Then there is Russia whose ships sit in the port of Tartus, whose weapons are being fired by the Syrian government, do not want to lose this ally, customer and strategic post on the med.

Both Russia and China agreed to a "no-fly zone" over Libya and signed up to it, but got regime change instead. They are not going to sign up to anything now and just like in Chechnya they will care little for Syrian peoples suffering. Russia doesn't do the soft-sell, good intentions of the USA.

The other thing to note about Assad and his secular government, like in the other Middle-east nations, the fear that his removal will light a tinderbox of a sectarian power grab.

And another thing to note is that the Arab leagues recent mission noted a number of unknown armed agents that were firing/bombing on both soldiers and civilians. They could not confirm who they were or who was arming them. The Free Syrian Army are, however armed and financed by the Saudi's, which might tell you something about them should they ever gain control.

Washington will huff and puff but the hypocrisy of the USA and EU governments anger at this veto, while not a word uttered about the many vetos the USA held against Palestinian recognition, preventing any real resolution to that particular conflict.

So while the "The West's" warring continues to creep inch by inch closer to Russia and its interests while encircling China in the pacific, the first line in the sand has been drawn.

And unfortunately for the people of Syria and their hopes of democracy might get crushed between these heaving plates of continental power drift.

Didnt notice any UN motions when the Bahrein people were put down while protesting last year ::)
Wonder who their rulers have for allies ?

Quote from: Rossfan on February 07, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
Didnt notice any UN motions when the Bahrein people were put down while protesting last year ::)
Wonder who their rulers have for allies ?

your correct.. but they were bad protesters not like the ones in syria ::)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

I hope it bankrupts the States. I hope Israel gets its ass kicked.

It's looking likely that an attack could take place very soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Obama's stance should be very interesting.

Is this why this has hapened?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9090465/Iran-claims-its-navy-enters-Mediterranean-as-tensions-with-Israel-grow.html

Iran claims its navy enters Mediterranean as tensions with Israel grow
Iran's navy claimed its warships entered the Mediterranean on Saturday to show its 'might' to regional countries, as a high-level American official was due to arrive in Israel.

The problem with attacking Iran is they actually can fight back. And they have the heavyweights backing them, as long as the yanks know that, there will be no attacking Iran. Guaranteed.

I think that Israel will defintely attack, the interesting sceanrio will be what the US does when this happens.

Israel could be on their own if they decide to attack. The USA will not get involved, the American people are getting tired of the constant wars and "nation building" while their own country is falling apart. The 16 trillion dollar national debt does not help neither.

Quote from: mannix on February 19, 2012, 08:14:55 PM
Israel could be on their own if they decide to attack. The USA will not get involved, the American people are getting tired of the constant wars and "nation building" while their own country is falling apart. The 16 trillion dollar national debt does not help neither.

It's debatable whether a presidential candidate could be elected in US if Israel does attack and he doesn't profess support. Opposing the war in Irag is one thing, "abandoning" Israel would be another thing altogether - the lobbyists would be out en masse.

Between the lobbyists and the media, Israel is in full control of what the US decides to do in these circumstances

Obama cannot afford to piss off the Jewish voters.  However, even if he does not support an Israeli strike the Arab world will still believe that the US was in some way involved, Obama is cannot really come out of this looking good either way.

Quote from: southdown on February 19, 2012, 11:44:44 PM
Obama cannot afford to piss off the Jewish voters.  However, even if he does not support an Israeli strike the Arab world will still believe that the US was in some way involved, Obama is cannot really come out of this looking good either way.

The Jewish vote isn't the problem ,its the amount of influence they have in the media which is all important to any American President.

Sure look at the amount of fawning, Blair, Brown and Cameron did with Murdock and the Sun in the UK and the American system is even worse.

The Israelies will stick with their surgical strike policy for the time being.

It no longer seems to be a question of IF Israel will attack, it's now about how/when they will attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

I think an Israeli attack would be the height of stupidity. Very low risk of success , totally illegal under international law and sets a great precedent for future unjustified attacks on Israel. Only one of which needs to work.   

Just now, Israel and most American Jewish organizations are loudly beating the drums of war.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/151984/#ixzz1nbWBaJei

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wikileaks-release-stratfor-emails-isr

As news organizations are sifting through the five million emails released by Wikileaks today, they're posting their findings. (See the interview above with Julian Assange about the spying on Bhopal activists.) Oddly enough, the major news organizations (the same ones pounding the drums for an attack on Iran) are quiet about this interesting tidbit from Stratfor, the intelligence company:

QuoteGrowing concerns over Iran's nuclear facilities may prove to be all for naught. Officials from the global intelligence company Stratfor allegedly discussed that Israel may have already destroyed the Iranian nuclear facility, according to one of the emails released by Wikileaks Monday.

In one of the over five million emails leaked, the conversation centered on Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praising the news of deadly munitions blasts at a base of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

"I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago," one intelligence official wrote in an email dated November 14, 2011. "The current 'let's bomb Iran' campaign was ordered by the EU leaders to divert the public attention from their at home financial problems. It plays also well for the US since Pakistan, Russia and N. Korea are mentioned in the report. "

One other Stratfor official allegedly indicated a similar finding.

"Israeli commandos in collaboration with Kurd forces destroyed few underground facilities mainly used for the Iranian defense and nuclear research projects," he wrote on November 13, 2011. "Even if the Israelis have the capabilities and are ready to attack by air, sea and land, there is no need to attack the nuclear program at this point after the commandos destroyed a significant part of it."

Very interesting comments above.  Is it possible then that attacks may already have taken place?  If so, why has this not been made public?  Seems hard to believe but at the same time i wouldn't be suprised.

I cannot see how this is going to resolve itself in a satisfactory way as I cannot see the Israeli's waiting for the sanctions to kick in.  They keep referring to this "zone of immunity" and stress that time is very much against them.

iran will get their way, whos going to stop them? economic sanctions are not starving the fellas in power in iran.

http://youtu.be/7agK8MIJ3T0 (http://youtu.be/7agK8MIJ3T0)

"Iranians we love you!" A message to Iran from the people of Israel.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ae91248c-87e0-11e1-b1ea-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sEiNfqCk (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ae91248c-87e0-11e1-b1ea-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sEiNfqCk)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-preemptive-strike-over-us-missile-defence-deal-7711650.html

Russia threatens pre-emptive strike over US missile defence deal

QuoteRussia's top military officer has threatened to launch a pre-emptive strike if Nato goes ahead with controversial plans for a missile defence system in Eastern Europe.

President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and Nato on the plans.

Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov went even further today.

"A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens," he said.

Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end".

US missile defence plans in Europe have been one of the touchiest subjects in US-Russian relations for years.

Moscow rejects Washington's claim that the missile defence plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Moscow has proposed running the missile shield jointly with Nato, but the alliance has rejected that proposal.

Makarov's statement does not seem to imply an immediate threat, but aims to put extra pressure on Washington to agree to Russia's demands.

The Obama administration tried to ease tensions with Russia in 2009 by saying it would revamp an earlier Bush-era plan to emphasise shorter-range interceptors. Russia initially welcomed that move, but has more recently suggested the new interceptors could threaten its missiles as the US interceptors are upgraded.

The US-Nato missile defence plans use Aegis radars and interceptors on ships and a more powerful radar based in Turkey in the first phase, followed by radar and interceptor facilities in Romania and Poland.

Russia would not plan any retaliation unless the United States goes through with its plans and take the third and final step and deploy defence elements in Poland, Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov has said. That is estimated to happen no earlier than in 2018.

Russia has just commissioned a radar in Kaliningrad, its western outpost near the Polish border, capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic.

Today, at the start of a two-day conference with representatives from about 50 countries, a top Russian defence official reiterated Moscow's offer to run the missile shield together with Nato.

Russia's Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said such a jointly run European missile defence system "could strengthen security of every single country of the continent" and "would be adequate to possible threats and will not deter strategic security."

Nato's deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference that the US-led missile shield is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles are "too fast and too sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept.

The conference in Moscow is the last major Russia-US meeting about military issues before a Nato summit in Chicago later this month.

Is this Iran's last chance to avoid military action?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18170651

Quote from: southdown on May 23, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
Is this Iran's last chance to avoid military action?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18170651

They may get a small reprieve as the western allies haven't the nails to scratch themselves, but alas they always find the money from somewhere to spread democracy.

Quote from: southdown on May 23, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
Is this Iran's last chance to avoid military action?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18170651

The irony of it all -

James Reynolds

BBC News, Baghdad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These talks mark a strange reunion - for eight years in the 1980s, Iran fought against Iraq. Then, in 2003, America and Britain led the invasion of Iraq.

US soldiers once fought their way to Baghdad because of suspicions of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, US diplomats come back to the same country to talk about the same subject. This time the country in question is Iran, not Iraq.

No-one expects a breakthrough at this round of talks. Nor do they expect a breakdown either

The Israel/Iran scenario has went very quiet over the months.  Maybe common sense will prevail.

The bombing of Mali highlights all the lessons of western intervention

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/mali-france-bombing-intervention-libya


As French war planes bomb Mali, there is one simple statistic that provides the key context: this west African nation of 15 million people is the eighth country in which western powers - over the last four years alone - have bombed and killed Muslims - after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and the Philippines (that does not count the numerous lethal tyrannies propped up by the west in that region). For obvious reasons, the rhetoric that the west is not at war with the Islamic world grows increasingly hollow with each new expansion of this militarism. But within this new massive bombing campaign, one finds most of the vital lessons about western intervention that, typically, are steadfastly ignored.

First, as the New York Times' background account from this morning makes clear, much of the instability in Mali is the direct result of Nato's intervention in Libya. Specifically, "heavily armed, battle-hardened Islamist fighters returned from combat in Libya" and "the big weaponry coming out of Libya and the different, more Islamic fighters who came back" played the precipitating role in the collapse of the US-supported central government. As Owen Jones wrote in an excellent column this morning in the Independent:

"This intervention is itself the consequence of another. The Libyan war is frequently touted as a success story for liberal interventionism. Yet the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship had consequences that Western intelligence services probably never even bothered to imagine. Tuaregs – who traditionally hailed from northern Mali – made up a large portion of his army. When Gaddafi was ejected from power, they returned to their homeland: sometimes forcibly so as black Africans came under attack in post-Gaddafi Libya, an uncomfortable fact largely ignored by the Western media. . . . [T]he Libyan war was seen as a success . . . and here we are now engaging with its catastrophic blowback."

Over and over, western intervention ends up - whether by ineptitude or design - sowing the seeds of further intervention. Given the massive instability still plaguing Libya as well as enduring anger over the Benghazi attack, how long will it be before we hear that bombing and invasions in that country are - once again - necessary to combat the empowered "Islamist" forces there: forces empowered as a result of the Nato overthrow of that country's government?

Second, the overthrow of the Malian government was enabled by US-trained-and-armed soldiers who defected. From the NYT: "commanders of this nation's elite army units, the fruit of years of careful American training, defected when they were needed most — taking troops, guns, trucks and their newfound skills to the enemy in the heat of battle, according to senior Malian military officials." And then: "an American-trained officer overthrew Mali's elected government, setting the stage for more than half of the country to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists."

In other words, the west is once again at war with the very forces that it trained, funded and armed. Nobody is better at creating its own enemies, and thus ensuring a posture of endless war, than the US and its allies. Where the US cannot find enemies to fight against it, it simply empowers them.

Third, western bombing of Muslims in yet another country will obviously provoke even more anti-western sentiment, the fuel of terrorism. Already, as the Guardian reports, French fighter jets in Mali have killed "at least 11 civilians including three children". France's long history of colonialization in Mali only exacerbates the inevitable anger. Back in December, after the UN Security Council authorized the intervention in Mali, Amnesty International's researcher on West Africa, Salvatore Saguès, warned: "An international armed intervention is likely to increase the scale of human rights violations we are already seeing in this conflict."

As always, western governments are well aware of this consequence and yet proceed anyway. The NYT notes that the French bombing campaign was launched "in the face of longstanding American warnings that a Western assault on the Islamist stronghold could rally jihadists around the world and prompt terrorist attacks as far away as Europe." Indeed, at the same time that the French are now killing civilians in Mali, a joint French-US raid in Somalia caused the deaths of "at least eight civilians, including two women and two children".

To believe that the US and its allies can just continue to go around the world, in country after country, and bomb and kill innocent people - Muslims - and not be targeted with "terrorist" attacks is, for obvious reasons, lunacy. As Bradford University professor Paul Rogers told Jones, the bombing of Mali "will be portrayed as 'one more example of an assault on Islam'". Whatever hopes that may exist for an end to the "war on terror" are systematically destroyed by ongoing aggression.

Fourth, for all the self-flattering rhetoric that western democracies love to apply to themselves, it is extraordinary how these wars are waged without any pretense of democratic process. Writing about the participation of the British government in the military assault on Mali, Jones notes that "it is disturbing – to say the least – how Cameron has led Britain into Mali's conflict without even a pretence at consultation." Identically, the Washington Post this morning reports that President Obama has acknowledged after the fact that US fighter jets entered Somali air space as part of the French operation there; the Post called that "a rare public acknowledgment of American combat operations in the Horn of Africa" and described the anti-democratic secrecy that typically surrounds US war actions in the region:


"The US military has based a growing number of armed Predator drones as well as F-15 fighter jets at Camp Lemonnier, which has grown into a key installation for secret counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen. The defense official declined to identify the aircraft used in the rescue attempt but said they were fighter jets, not drones. . . . .

"It was unclear, however, why Obama felt compelled to reveal this particular operation when he has remained silent about other specific US combat missions in Somalia. Spokesmen from the White House and the Pentagon declined to elaborate or answer questions Sunday night."

The Obama administration has, of course, draped its entire drone and global assassination campaign in an impenetrable cloth of secrecy, ensuring it remains beyond the scrutinizing reach of media outlets, courts, and its own citizens. The US and its western allies do not merely wage endless war aimed invariably at Muslims. They do so in virtually complete secrecy, without any transparency or accountability. Meet the western "democracies".

Finally, the propaganda used to justify all of this is depressingly common yet wildly effective. Any western government that wants to bomb Muslims simply slaps the label of "terrorists" on them, and any real debate or critical assessment instantly ends before it can even begin. "The president is totally determined that we must eradicate these terrorists who threaten the security of Mali, our own country and Europe," proclaimed French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

As usual, this simplistic cartoon script distorts reality more than it describes it. There is no doubt that the Malian rebels have engaged in all sorts of heinous atrocities ("amputations, flogging, and stoning to death for those who oppose their interpretation of Islam"), but so, too, have Malian government forces - including, as Amnesty chronicled, "arresting, torturing and killing Tuareg people apparently only on ethnic ground." As Jones aptly warns: "don't fall for a narrative so often pushed by the Western media: a perverse oversimplification of good fighting evil, just as we have seen imposed on Syria's brutal civil war."

The French bombing of Mali, perhaps to include some form of US participation, illustrates every lesson of western intervention. The "war on terror" is a self-perpetuating war precisely because it endlessly engenders its own enemies and provides the fuel to ensure that the fire rages without end. But the sloganeering propaganda used to justify this is so cheap and easy - we must kill the Terrorists! - that it's hard to see what will finally cause this to end. The blinding fear - not just of violence, but of Otherness - that has been successfully implanted in the minds of many western citizens is such that this single, empty word (Terrorists), standing alone, is sufficient to generate unquestioning support for whatever their governments do in its name, no matter how secret or unaccompanied by evidence it may be.

The Saudis are funding the Sunni extremists behind the trashing of Timbuktu.  Mali always had Sufi Islam which is tolerant unlike Saudi Wahhabi Islam which is for the birds.

I think the French are right in this case.

Saudi is a pox on the world. They are peddling the same shit in Pakistan .

Quote from: seafoid on January 15, 2013, 07:43:05 PM
The Saudis are funding the Sunni extremists behind the trashing of Timbuktu.  Mali always had Sufi Islam which is tolerant unlike Saudi Wahhabi Islam which is for the birds.

I think the French are right in this case.

Saudi is a pox on the world. They are peddling the same shit in Pakistan .

Hang on. Do you support French imperial Intent ? How can you say the Fench are "right" in this case ? What is "right" ? Explain your position ?

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east-and-north-africa/2212--john-pilger-how-the-west-is-consigning-africas-history-of-liberation-to-oblivion


John Pilger: "Islamic terrorism" is the invented excuse for theft of Africa's riches

A full-scale invasion of Africa is under way. The United States is deploying troops in 35 African countries, beginning with Libya, Sudan, Algeria and Niger. Reported by Associated Press on Christmas Day, this was missing from most Anglo-American media.

The invasion has almost nothing to do with "Islamism", and almost everything to do with the acquisition of resources, notably minerals, and an accelerating rivalry with China. Unlike China, the US and its allies are prepared to use a degree of violence demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Palestine. As in the cold war, a division of labour requires that western journalism and popular culture provide the cover of a holy war against a "menacing arc" of Islamic extremism, no different from the bogus "red menace" of a worldwide communist conspiracy.

Reminiscent of the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, the US African Command (Africom) has built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for American bribes and armaments.
Last year, Africom staged Operation African Endeavor, with the armed forces of 34 African nations taking part, commanded by the US military. Africom's "soldier to soldier" doctrine embeds US officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.

It is as if Africa's proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, is consigned to oblivion by a new master's black colonial elite whose "historic mission", warned Frantz Fanon half a century ago, is the promotion of "a capitalism rampant though camouflaged".

A striking example is the eastern Congo, a treasure trove of strategic minerals, controlled by an atrocious rebel group known as the M23, which in turn is run by Uganda and Rwanda, the proxies of Washington.

Long planned as a "mission" for Nato, not to mention the ever-zealous French, whose colonial lost causes remain on permanent standby, the war on Africa became urgent in 2011 when the Arab world appeared to be liberating itself from the Mubaraks and other clients of Washington and Europe. The hysteria this caused in imperial capitals cannot be exaggerated. Nato bombers were dispatched not to Tunis or Cairo but Libya, where  Muammar Gaddafi ruled over Africa's largest oil reserves. With the Libyan city of Sirte reduced to rubble, the British SAS directed the "rebel" militias in what has since been exposed as a racist bloodbath.

The indigenous people of the Sahara, the Tuareg, whose Berber fighters Gaddafi had protected, fled home across Algeria to Mali, where the Tuareg have been claiming a separate state since the 1960s. As the ever watchful Patrick Cockburn points out, it is this local dispute, not al-Qaida, that the West fears most in northwest Africa... "poor though the Tuareg may be, they are often living on top of great reserves of oil, gas, uranium and other valuable minerals".

Almost certainly the consequence of a French/US attack on Mali on 13 January, a siege at a gas complex in Algeria ended bloodily, inspiring a 9/11 moment in David Cameron. The former Carlton TV PR man raged about a "global threat" requiring "decades" of western violence. He meant implantation of the west's business plan for Africa, together with the rape of multi-ethnic Syria and the conquest of independent Iran.

Cameron has now ordered British troops to Mali, and sent an RAF drone,  while his verbose military chief, General Sir David Richards, has addressed "a very clear message to jihadists worldwide: don't dangle and tangle with us. We will deal with it robustly" - exactly what jihadists want to hear. The trail of blood of British army terror victims, all Muslims, their "systemic" torture cases currently heading to court, add necessary irony to the general's words. I once experienced Sir David's "robust" ways when I asked him if he had read the courageous Afghan feminist Malalai Joya's description of the barbaric behaviour of westerners and their clients in her country. "You are an apologist for the Taliban" was his reply. (He later apologised).

These bleak comedians are straight out of Evelyn Waugh and allow us to feel the bracing breeze of history and hypocrisy. The "Islamic terrorism" that is their excuse for the enduring theft of Africa's riches was all but invented by them. There is no longer any excuse to swallow the BBC/CNN line and not know the truth. Read Mark Curtis's Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam (Serpent's Tail) or John Cooley's Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (Pluto Press) or The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (HarperCollins) who was midwife to the birth of modern fundamentalist terror. In effect, the mujahedin of al-Qaida and the Taliban were created by the CIA, its Pakistani equivalent, the Inter-Services Intelligence, and Britain's MI6.

Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, describes a secret presidential directive in 1979 that began what became the current "war on terror". For 17 years, the US deliberately cultivated, bank-rolled, armed and brainwashed jihadi extremists that "steeped a generation in violence". Code-named Operation Cyclone, this was the "great game" to bring down the Soviet Union but brought down the Twin Towers.

Since then, the news that intelligent, educated people both dispense and ingest has become a kind of Disney journalism, fortified, as ever, by Hollywood's licence to lie, and lie. There is the coming Dreamworks movie on WikiLeaks, a fabrication inspired by a book of perfidious title-tattle by two enriched Guardian journalists; and there is Zero Dark Thirty, which promotes torture and murder, directed by the Oscar-winning Kathryn Bigelow, the Leni Riefenstahl of our time, promoting her master's voice as did the Fuhrer's pet film-maker. Such is the one-way mirror through which we barely glimpse what power does in our name.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/biden-at-aipac-conference-obama-is-not-bluffing-on-iran-1.507187

Biden at AIPAC conference: Obama is not bluffing on Iran


Vice President Joe Biden told America's biggest pro-Israel lobbying organization on Monday that President Barack Obama is "not bluffing" about the United States' determination to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

"The president of the United States cannot and does not bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing," he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in a speech to its annual policy conference.

"We're not looking for war. We're ready to negotiate peacefully. But all options including military force are on the table," said Biden.

"While that window is closing, we believe there is still time and space (for diplomacy)," he added.

The United States and many of its allies suspect Iran may be using its civil nuclear program as a cover to develop atomic weapons, a possibility that Israel, which is regarded as the Middle East's only nuclear power, sees as a mortal threat.

Biden said that a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands would be an "existential threat" to Israel, poses danger to other U.S. allies in the Middle East and would destabilize the world.

"We have a shared strategic commitment. Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period," he said to loud applause from AIPAC, which has gathered some 13,000 activists in Washington this week.

He further noted that it is "important that the world is with us if we have to act."

Talks involving Iran and world powers in Kazakhstan about its nuclear work ended last week with an agreement to meet again.

But Western officials said Iran had yet to do anything concrete to allay their concerns about its nuclear aspirations, and Israeli leaders have warned that Tehran is using the negotiations to buy time to advance their nuclear program.

The United States, China, France, Russia, Britain and Germany offered modest relief from economic sanctions in return for Iran reining in its most sensitive nuclear activity but made clear that no breakthrough was in the offing quickly.
Obama will visit Israel before the Jewish holiday of Passover, which begins the week of March 25, Biden said.

Following Biden's speech, AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann issued a statement saying: "We are very pleased by the vice president's strong statement that the president is not bluffing in his commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It was a strong and eloquent speech."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not attend the conference, instead opting to deliver a video message shortly after Biden's speech.

Ehud Barak, the outgoing defense minister, addressed the conference in person on Sunday. Barak called on the U.S. to set up a "regional security framework" that would unite Middle East countries around the "joint challenges of radical Islamist terror, border security, missile defense and Iran."

are china and japan squaring up over some miniscul islands in the pacific?

Senator Robert Byrd, 2003-  2 weeks from now will be the 10th anniversary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWfawiufK0

Imagine what he'd say about another pointless  war for Zionism paid with money borrowed from China

Quote from: lawnseed on March 04, 2013, 09:14:34 PM
are china and japan squaring up over some miniscul islands in the pacific?

Thjey have been on and off for over 40 years. Taiwan also claim them.

North Korea are sabre rattling again.
China are telling them to calm down.
The US are telling them they don't have the reach.

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
North Korea are sabre rattling again.
China are telling them to calm down.
The US are telling them they don't have the reach.

it wont be long now some fukr is going to kick off

Quick South Korean strike on their nuclear facilities and airfields and South Korea would smash the North's military and unite Korea.

Unlike super rich West Germany's absorption of poorer yet industrial East Germany. Super rich South Korea may not be able to pay for stone age North Korea.

Quote from: lawnseed on March 09, 2013, 08:15:38 AM

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
North Korea are sabre rattling again.
China are telling them to calm down.
The US are telling them they don't have the reach.

it wont be long now some fukr is going to kick off

North Korea rattles sabres only to control their own long suffering citizens. China and the US are hardly bothered.

Israel's threat to fire on Iran is a bit more serious, but with a democrat in the White House it might be too risky for them. So all is as well as it has been for a long time.

If North Korea had oil, the US and its allies would have invaded long ago

Quote from: muppet on March 09, 2013, 03:35:13 PM

Quote from: lawnseed on March 09, 2013, 08:15:38 AM

Quote from: LeoMc on March 08, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
North Korea are sabre rattling again.
China are telling them to calm down.
The US are telling them they don't have the reach.

it wont be long now some fukr is going to kick off

North Korea rattles sabres only to control their own long suffering citizens.

Nk seems to be ramping up the stakes, i wonder what it would take for regime change here and what will there would be East and West to see it happen ?

Quote from: give her dixie on March 09, 2013, 07:16:13 PM
If North Korea had oil, the US and its allies would have invaded long ago

As George Galloway once said the US went into Iraq using the excuse that they had WMD but knowing full well that they hadn't. However they won't use this excuse to go into NK because they know full well they do have

Are there not annual War games in this area at this time? 

Quote from: Dougal Maguire on March 30, 2013, 10:32:23 AM

Quote from: give her dixie on March 09, 2013, 07:16:13 PM
If North Korea had oil, the US and its allies would have invaded long ago

As George Galloway once said the US went into Iraq using the excuse that they had WMD but knowing full well that they hadn't. However they won't use this excuse to go into NK because they know full well they do have

Or another way of looking at it is that Kim Jong-un is making a cracking job of playing the US bogey man, Obama should find it easier to sell defence spending to the electorate while this loon continues to sound off.

dennis rodman has it under control.

north korea close the joint industrial zone.. simmering away nicely

I suspect Kim-Young-Eel has recently watched Wag the dog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/) and loved it.

Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2013, 10:49:51 PM
I suspect Kim-Young-Eel has recently watched Wag the dog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/) and loved it.

The scummy Chinese govt are the key with N KorEea, they are seriously tied to N Korea and the lunatics that run it.

Personally I hope the people of North Korea say enough is enough and take the fcukers in power, unfortunately the Chinese will help the North Koreans against the people.

Anything but a Yank, Chinese confrontation, I don't think that will happen because the yanks are being kept afloat by the Chinese!

Quote from: stew on April 04, 2013, 02:20:57 AM

Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2013, 10:49:51 PM
I suspect Kim-Young-Eel has recently watched Wag the dog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/) and loved it.

The scummy Chinese govt are the key with N KorEea, they are seriously tied to N Korea and the lunatics that run it.

Personally I hope the people of North Korea say enough is enough and take the fcukers in power, unfortunately the Chinese will help the North Koreans against the people.

Anything but a Yank, Chinese confrontation, I don't think that will happen because the yanks are being kept afloat by the Chinese!

There's a brave few dictators held afloat by the bigger nations with vested interests who arm them to the teeth to keep their own people down, just look at how well democracy has taken in the Arabian peninsula. The Chinese are not the exception here.

Yes, financially the Yanks are kept afloat by the Chinese but an old war wipes the slate clean for the victor!!!

I can't see a great deal happening with NK.  History has shown that they like to raise tensions, only then to receive aid and concessions from the international community, then return to the status quo.

Their people are brainwashed and will never rebel against the state.  The Yanks do not have the stomach for war, especially given that NK actually DO have nukes and they have no natural resources of any value to them.

However, if they test fire this latest missile, any small incident could spark a conflict.  Then the shit would hit the fan.

This might be different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221)

Hard to believe that the Syrian leader, while on the back foot in a war to remove him has been graciously moving serious weapons from Iran to Lebanon, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

Quote from: muppet on May 06, 2013, 07:36:43 PM
This might be different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221)

Hard to believe that the Syrian leader, while on the back foot in a war to remove him has been graciously moving serious weapons from Iran to Lebanon, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

V poor from the BBC. Why not just link to the IDF press release and cut out the middleman?

"these latest air strikes underscore Israel's equal worry about sophisticated conventional weapons being passed to Hezbollah. This includes sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles, anti-shipping missiles, or accurate long-range ground-to-ground missiles. Such concerns are longstanding.

Israeli military analysts are already warning of the danger of war,(Remember Gaza )  as what promises to be a long hot summer fast approaches"Some four years ago, the then Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that it would not tolerate what it called "game-changing" weapons being transferred to Hezbollah"

Olmert was behind white phosphorous bombing in Gaza. Game changing.
Israel needs the freedom to bomb the crap of the neighbours whenever it fancies.

But who is using the Sarin?

Rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22428496

or the army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22418230

This is gonna get messy.

Quote from: Denn Forever on May 06, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
But who is using the Sarin?

Rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22428496

or the army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22418230

This is gonna get messy.

Whatever the Americans say is usually the truth. So if the Americans are saying that Assad is using them, then that's good enough for me.

Quote from: orangeman on May 07, 2013, 02:14:14 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on May 06, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
But who is using the Sarin?

Rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22428496

or the army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22418230

This is gonna get messy.

Whatever the Americans say is usually the truth. So if the Americans are saying that Assad is using them, then that's good enough for me.

Must have found a note under the WMD's in Iraq ::)

Quote from: orangeman on May 07, 2013, 02:14:14 PM

Quote from: Denn Forever on May 06, 2013, 09:40:32 PM
But who is using the Sarin?

Rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22428496

or the army
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22418230

This is gonna get messy.

Whatever the Americans say is usually the truth. So if the Americans are saying that Assad is using them, then that's good enough for me.

I think this post is taking the piss

At least I hope so

Quote from: muppet on May 06, 2013, 07:36:43 PM
This might be different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221)

Hard to believe that the Syrian leader, while on the back foot in a war to remove him has been graciously moving serious weapons from Iran to Lebanon, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

What are your views on Syria ? You seem well disposed toward Assad. Do you see him as a despot or a bulwark against Israeli hegemony ?

Quote from: Mike Sheehy on May 07, 2013, 10:50:02 PM

Quote from: muppet on May 06, 2013, 07:36:43 PM
This might be different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22419221)

Hard to believe that the Syrian leader, while on the back foot in a war to remove him has been graciously moving serious weapons from Iran to Lebanon, but stranger things have happened I suppose.

What are your views on Syria ? You seem well disposed toward Assad. Do you see him as a despot or a bulwark against Israeli hegemony ?

He is a tyrant. I am sure his reign will shortly end, which will be a good thing. However it seems odd that he would be dealing in serious 'game-changing' weapons with another country while his grip on his own country might benefit from such weapons.

What a pity the "democratic freedom loving" Western powers didn't give as much help the the Freedom marchers in Bahrein as they did in Libya and Syria? >:(

Quote from: Rossfan on May 08, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
What a pity the "democratic freedom loving" Western powers didn't give as much help the the Freedom marchers in Bahrein as they did in Libya and Syria? >:(

Cake is mobilising as we speak. Freedom's greatest weapon.

Quote from: Syferus on May 08, 2013, 05:20:43 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on May 08, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
What a pity the "democratic freedom loving" Western powers didn't give as much help the the Freedom marchers in Bahrein as they did in Libya and Syria? >:(

Cake is mobilising as we speak. Freedom's greatest weapon.

Pity Gilmore didn't recruit him when he was going to take on Frankfurt  ;D ;D

Might not be the right thread but here's some stat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23259865

America England v Syria and iran.. that will do for now.. that's a war alright

Quote from: lawnseed on August 30, 2013, 07:17:59 AM
America England v Syria and iran.. that will do for now.. that's a war alright

Looks like Britain won't be joining that war http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Quote from: BennyHarp on August 30, 2013, 07:35:57 AM

Quote from: lawnseed on August 30, 2013, 07:17:59 AM
America England v Syria and iran.. that will do for now.. that's a war alright

Looks like Britain won't be joining that war http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Everyone is dunging their trousers at the prospect of having to fall out in the Middle East. Britain has refused and the American general public are filling them.

If you can't act when a dictator is slaughtering his people en masse for years for daring to oppose him then gasses one of own cities within ear-shot of a UN mission then you might as well give up the rhetoric about being world leaders. How Syria react will probably be in the form of some sort of proxy attack against Israel but you can't simply sit on the sidelines any longer.

As the war machine of the West seems poised to attack yet another country in the Middle East, there are many conflicting viewpoints that fervently seek agreement with their advocacy pro or contra launching a new version of "shock and awe". At the same time, there is an appalling disregard of the Syrian people, whether there is a consensus on what they wish from outsiders, or just a split along the lines of the ongoing civil war.

Most pundits in the West seem to forget that whatever colour lines are used to draw national boundaries, that we are trapped for better or worse in a state-centric world that is living through geopolitical traumas of the post-colonial phase of global history.

Why is this relevant? For two fundamental reasons:




First, the ethos of self-determination, which empowered the anti-colonial movements in the period after World War II, also gave national resistance movements the will, confidence, and stamina to endure, and eventually prevail over foreign intervention. To depart from the respect of self-determination, no matter how distasteful its expression may be, is almost always preferable to unleashing the dogs of war.

This is not a counsel of absolute adherence to the norm of non-intervention, reproduced in the UN Charter in Article 2(7) - which calls upon states, and the UN itself, to refrain unconditionally from intervening "in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states". That is, the social contract between the UN and sovereign states incorporates the norms of self-determination and its complement, non-intervention.

Exceptions should be based on three conditions:
•A substantial spillover beyond sovereign boundaries;
•A clearly delimited authorisation by the UN Security Council, including an assumption of responsibility for operational oversight (not exercised in either the Gulf War of 1991 or Libya 2012);
•Situations where only intervention can prevent or contain a major humanitarian catastrophe, and a Security Council mandate cannot be obtained due to political opposition, where the intervention is "legitimate, although unlawful" as in Kosovo 1999: legitimate because intervention may be feasible at acceptable costs and morally compelling in order to prevent crimes against humanity, genocide or famine.

The second point of relevance to post-colonial trauma is that the capabilities of a country targeted for intervention to nullify the goals of the intervener underscore the imprudence of undertaking a military approach to conflict resolution.

In country after country, the military dominance of the intervening side has been unable to control the political outcome of the conflict.

This should have been a lesson of the great anti-colonial liberation wars, but also the real significance of the Vietnam War, as reinforced by more recent results in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with US military dominance, something beyond superiority - the resistance of nationalist forces, relying on persistence, knowledge of the country and its culture, use of soft power modes of resistance, and selective, symbolic recourse to violence - has in due course led the intervening side to abandon its project, leaving the country to work out its own future, either by the political takeover of the country by "the enemy" (as in Vietnam) or to leave its future bedevilled by chaos and anarchic violence (as in Iraq and Libya).

Is there ever a time to intervene?

Not all interventions fail: arguably the NATO bombardment of Serbian forces in Bosnia ended the bloodshed and produced the diplomatic solution in the form of the Dayton Accords. The Kosovo intervention seems to have averted a repeat of the Srebrenica massacre.



 
Spotlight
In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria


From these perspectives, the case against an armed attack in Syria seems overwhelming, even should it be established that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in a manner that without doubt constitutes a massive crime against humanity. Why? The conditions do not exist in Syria that might justify the claim that this is one of those exceptional cases where intervention although illegal is nevertheless legitimate.

It is true that the conflict has spillover effects of a serious character for Lebanon and Turkey, and that for this reason constitutional restrictions on UN authorisation may be put to one side. Nevertheless, the political opposition by Russia, and maybe others, makes it impossible to obtain Security Council authorisation for a military attack. Beyond these considerations, there is no likelihood that the contemplated military attack will do more than prolong the civil war in Syria or avert a humanitarian catastrophe. There exists neither the political will nor the tactical capabilities to produce "a just peace" in Syria.

Examining the pro-war momentum more closely strengthens further the argument against launching a military attack against Syria. Some allege that the real pressures for intervention derive from rogue sources in the West: making credible the "red lines" drawn by an American president in his role as global proconsul; enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention - although the widely ratified treaty contains no provision calling for enforcement; or the related argument that a decisive military response will deter future use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.

These arguments, at best, relate to world order, not to Syrian sovereign rights, the ethos of self-determination, or even bringing the war to an end. After all they have endured, such reasoning although piously propounded, is indifferent to the likely impacts upon the Syrian people or the region.

Recall that in the Kosovo intervention there seemed to by stronger grounds for thinking that an intervention would be effective and worthwhile: Serbia was occupying Kosovo against the united opposition of 90 percent of the Kosovar population; there was no sustained, ongoing civil war; the European neighbours, with the exception of Greece, supported military action by NATO; and the timing was consistent with avoiding an imminent repetition of the Srebrenica experience.

Keeping the war going

The more cynical interpretations are usually not featured in the mainstream, but occasionally are acknowledged, as in the publication of Edward Luttwak's outrageous prescriptions for keeping the war going as long as possible - because victory for either side would be bad for Washington's interests, and those of Israel.

What Luttwak, a longtime hard power think tank strategist, brazenly urges is a totally immoral policy of helping the rebels as long as they are losing, but if they start winning then to stop the assistance until the regime again gets the upper hand.

With such reasoning an attack now would be sensible, as recent battlefield assessments suggested that the balance was swinging in Assad's favour. Such an orientation is pleasing both for arms dealers and those grand strategists who believe that Western interests are best served by ensuring that the main countries in the Middle East become preoccupied and debilitated by the entropic effects of endless civil strife - a policy that might be associated with "the revenge of defeated imperialists". The European colonial control system have have collapsed, but its bloody sequel would make political independence a worse ordeal than colonial subjugation. Since the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt, I have heard frequent reference to the Arab proverb: "Better a thousand years of tyranny than a single day of chaos."

What is particularly disturbing in the framing of the Syrian debate after the chemical attack of August 21 is the failure to explore diplomatic alternatives in a manner that could produce an end to the war.

The obvious way to do this would be to involve Iran and Russia in the process, possibly widening the scope of a diplomatic process to include the establishment of regional peace in the Middle East. To undertake such an approach with any reasonable prospect of a breakthrough would require an unthinkable posture of strategic detachment, putting on the negotiating table a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and a just solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Because such an orientation accords with decency, justice, and peaceful relations for the region, it is utopian to even mention, and so the taboos on rational discourse blinker debate in such a way as to make the war option seem the only alternative to passive navel-gazing. Would this diplomatic approach succeed? Who knows, but that it is worth trying as opposed to sliding towards widening the Syrian conflict should be obvious to all - except those who refuse the counsel of common sense, that is, the political leaders who preside in Washington, London, and Paris.


 

The ordeal of the Syrian people since early 2011 should be in the foreground of the current debate, but instead it is pushed to the shadowy background. Diplomacy is the most responsible way to respond to this ordeal, but undertaken in such a way as to demonstrate the real commitment of outsiders to the realistic parameters of compromise and accommodation, especially on the part of those responsible for so cruelly colonising and exploiting the region in the past.

At the moment it is precisely certain leaders in Britain and France - which together carved up the region after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, including Syria, in the infamous secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 - that are now most loudly beating the drums of war, with the unforgiveable complicity of the hegemonic regional successor operating out of Washington, DC.

The language of Sykes-Picot should not be forgotten in this period when the colonialists are taking their long-sought revenge for being humbled since at least the aftermath of the Suez War of 1956. After proclaiming their willingness to support the emergence of Arab countries, the text turns to discussing the coloured map of the region in which it was agreed "...that in the blue area France, and in the red area Great Britain, shall be allowed to such direct and indirect administrative control as they desire".

What we are witnessing in this latest phase of this horrific Syrian struggle are the cyclical tensions between a Western militarism of decay and the abortive legacy of empire that leaves societies torn asunder.

Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

I had to work hard to read and (try) to understand that post Count 10, but it's worth it. Very well put if a little complicated.

I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

Quote from: ziggy90 on August 31, 2013, 01:47:20 PM
I had to work hard to read and (try) to understand that post Count 10, but it's worth it. Very well put if a little complicated.

It's from Al Jazeera

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2013830131128734704

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

I don't think regime change is the goal, stopping a madman launching chemical weapons is the goal. After that itscup to Syrians to decide what to do.

Quote from: Itchy on August 31, 2013, 05:55:00 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

I don't think regime change is the goal, stopping a madman launching chemical weapons is the goal. After that itscup to Syrians to decide what to do.

Nice idea. But it is never, ever that simple.

I wont list all of the recent places where chaos followed military intervention, as that argument is too obvious.

War is a failure of everything else and should never be the first option.

What I would like to see happen is along the following lines:

The US and Russia, and any other influence in the region, need to get to the table, in good faith.
They then all need to agree to jointly announce a warning to all factions to end fighting by a very short deadline.
Any violation will be considered an attack on ALL of the countries sitting with the US and Russia.

If this succeeds then force a disarming of all sides, pending internationally chaired talks.

Couch it so that refusing those terms would be obviously disastrous for either side.

What will happen

.......is that a small number of countries will go into Syria will all guns blazing and inevitably, rightly or wrongly, will be accused of furthering their own interests rather than those of the 'liberated'. The vanquished will become the next generation of terrorists and the liberated won't be as grateful as everyone expected. Syria will then enter a decade long cycle of civil chaos along with the likes of Iraq & Egypt.

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

More Libya lite than Iraq. I don't see an end-game with Western boots on the ground unless they're UN peacekeepers.

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 06:14:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

More Libya lite than Iraq. I don't see an end-game with Western boots on the ground unless they're UN peacekeepers.

More influences at play in Syria than Libya.

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 06:17:00 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 06:14:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 05:21:34 PM
I haven't made up my mind yet.

Serious question:

So you go in and remove Assad from power - what is the exit strategy?

More Libya lite than Iraq. I don't see an end-game with Western boots on the ground unless they're UN peacekeepers.

More influences at play in Syria than Libya.

There is very little appetite for that after the past decade. Drones have been the front-line troops in a lot of engagements recently and are quite effective at doing most of what GI Joe can do in terms of waging war.

Russia and China are invested in keeping Assad there so there's no way they're going to agree to ceasefire ultimatums. If they couldn't agree on Libya there isn't much point trying to even attempt to on a key power in the Middle East. Putin is enjoying sticking it to Obama on Syria, think Grimley having a swipe at Brolly after pasting Leitrim.

Putin has asked Obama to put up or shut up...produce the evidence, show to UN Security Council and get full backing. There is no easy solution to this and a few cruise missiles landing in Damascus aint going to solve the problem.

Quote from: Count 10 on August 31, 2013, 06:32:34 PM
Putin has asked Obama to put up or shut up...produce the evidence, show to UN Security Council and get full backing. There is no easy solution to this and a few cruise missiles landing in Damascus aint going to solve the problem.

Has Putin said this? Someone is bluffing if he has.

Remote control warfare is all about not getting your troops killed, and keeping your journalists far away from the action. It has little to do with reducing casualties.

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 06:12:06 PM
What I would like to see happen is along the following lines:

The US and Russia, and any other influence in the region, need to get to the table, in good faith.
They then all need to agree to jointly announce a warning to all factions to end fighting by a very short deadline.
Any violation will be considered an attack on ALL of the countries sitting with the US and Russia.

If this succeeds then force a disarming of all sides, pending internationally chaired talks.

Couch it so that refusing those terms would be obviously disastrous for either side.

"Nice idea. But it is never, ever that simple."

Getting the US and Russia to sit down and work together in the aftermath of the Snowden debacle is as easily dismissed as the way you dismissed Itchy's suggestion. In fact it is even more easily dismissed.

Not challenging Assad's use of chemical weapons pretty much green lights there use, not only in Syria, but in other conflicts the world over. Like it or not the regime must be punished for it's use of sarin gas on civilian populations.

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:09:55 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 06:12:06 PM
What I would like to see happen is along the following lines:

The US and Russia, and any other influence in the region, need to get to the table, in good faith.
They then all need to agree to jointly announce a warning to all factions to end fighting by a very short deadline.
Any violation will be considered an attack on ALL of the countries sitting with the US and Russia.

If this succeeds then force a disarming of all sides, pending internationally chaired talks.

Couch it so that refusing those terms would be obviously disastrous for either side.

"Nice idea. But it is never, ever that simple."

Getting the US and Russia to sit down and work together in the aftermath of the Snowden debacle is as easily dismissed as the way you dismissed Itchy's suggestion. In fact it is even more easily dismissed.

Not challenging Assad's use of chemical weapons pretty much green lights there use, not only in Syria, but in other conflicts the world over. Like it or not the regime must be punished for it's use of sarin gas on civilian populations.

Throw in what happened in Georgia and it is even further away. But we can hope.

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 06:51:31 PM

Quote from: Count 10 on August 31, 2013, 06:32:34 PM
Putin has asked Obama to put up or shut up...produce the evidence, show to UN Security Council and get full backing. There is no easy solution to this and a few cruise missiles landing in Damascus aint going to solve the problem.

Has Putin said this? Someone is bluffing if he has.

Remote control warfare is all about not getting your troops killed, and keeping your journalists far away from the action. It has little to do with reducing casualties.

Putin on ITV today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKHF6VQ0IY

Obama to seek Congressional approval.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166)

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 07:18:59 PM
Obama to seek Congressional approval.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166)

Heard John Kerry claim it's in America's security interest to do something.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bricNl6IKyc
I don't see how attacking Syria makes America any safer....quite the reverse....it will encourage attacks on American personnel, both military and civilian.....begs the question also...if the evidence is so overwhelming then why has it not been produced.

Quote from: Count 10 on August 31, 2013, 07:28:49 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 07:18:59 PM
Obama to seek Congressional approval.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obamas-national-security-team-senators-20126166)

Heard John Kerry claim it's in America's security interest to do something.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bricNl6IKyc
I don't see how attacking Syria makes America any safer....quite the reverse....it will encourage attacks on American personnel, both military and civilian.....begs the question also...if the evidence is so overwhelming then why has it not been produced.

We all know he is not talking about America when he says: 'America's security interest'.

But we are not allowed to mention the blindingly obvious.

I take it there is no oil in Syria otherwise this war would be over by now as happened in Libya

I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore. It's clear the West would like nothing more than not bombing Syria given how slow they've been to respond to what has essentially amounted to continued genocide for over two years so the old reliable of war-mongering Yanks doesn't cut mustard here.

It's a brave decision and if it helps the rebels over-throw Assad the Middle East will be a little better and a little nearer to peace.

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 07:11:26 PM

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:09:55 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 31, 2013, 06:12:06 PM
What I would like to see happen is along the following lines:

The US and Russia, and any other influence in the region, need to get to the table, in good faith.
They then all need to agree to jointly announce a warning to all factions to end fighting by a very short deadline.
Any violation will be considered an attack on ALL of the countries sitting with the US and Russia.

If this succeeds then force a disarming of all sides, pending internationally chaired talks.

Couch it so that refusing those terms would be obviously disastrous for either side.

"Nice idea. But it is never, ever that simple."

Getting the US and Russia to sit down and work together in the aftermath of the Snowden debacle is as easily dismissed as the way you dismissed Itchy's suggestion. In fact it is even more easily dismissed.

Not challenging Assad's use of chemical weapons pretty much green lights there use, not only in Syria, but in other conflicts the world over. Like it or not the regime must be punished for it's use of sarin gas on civilian populations.

Throw in what happened in Georgia and it is even further away. But we can hope.

I choose to hope that airstrikes will stay Assad's hand and stop the gassing of civilians. It will not cease the bloodshed between the armies involved but at least those casualties are mostly men fighting for something they believe in not some kid who hasn't a clue whats going on or a mother who just wants the fighting to stop.

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore. It's clear the West would like nothing more than not bombing Syria given how slow they've been to respond to what has essentially amounted to continued genocide for over two years so the old reliable of war-mongeting Yanks doesn't cut mustard here.

It's a brave decision and of it helps the rebels over-throw Assad the Middle East will be a little better and a little nearer to peace.

Right, just like it worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya....great peace they are enjoying ::)

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

It is the only card ever played.

The reality in Syria is that Assad is a secularist. The West tolerated him along with Hussein and actively supported the likes of Mubarak because it suited them to have secular governments. As always things never quite work out as planned with powerful megalomaniacal  dictators and it is always eventually decided that they must be removed.

The problem with Egypt, Libya and shortly Syria, is what comes next. The West will want some sort of secular government but the likelihood is that if Syria is left to its own devices, it will become another Islamic regime. If that begins to look like happening expect further civl disorder and regime changes a la Egypt. The various vested interests in Syria will keep the proxy war going because whatever comes next will not be acceptable to someone and someone will always fan the flames. And there will be far more deaths down the line.

(https://dub105.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=sIG3GwU%2ftirxDQjCkBw88A5%2boVhHqd0BuCOJPB1%2b6G0%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2flatuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com%2f2013%2f08%2fusa-china-russia-syria-war.gif%3fw%3d560)

150 irish troops heading for the golan heights this week

Quote from: muppet on September 01, 2013, 02:58:28 PM

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

It is the only card ever played.

The reality in Syria is that Assad is a secularist. The West tolerated him along with Hussein and actively supported the likes of Mubarak because it suited them to have secular governments. As always things never quite work out as planned with powerful megalomaniacal  dictators and it is always eventually decided that they must be removed.

The problem with Egypt, Libya and shortly Syria, is what comes next. The West will want some sort of secular government but the likelihood is that if Syria is left to its own devices, it will become another Islamic regime. If that begins to look like happening expect further civl disorder and regime changes a la Egypt. The various vested interests in Syria will keep the proxy war going because whatever comes next will not be acceptable to someone and someone will always fan the flames. And there will be far more deaths down the line.

Ireland didn't get a secular government until sometime in the 1990s.

Quote from: seafoid on September 03, 2013, 02:04:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 01, 2013, 02:58:28 PM

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

It is the only card ever played.

The reality in Syria is that Assad is a secularist. The West tolerated him along with Hussein and actively supported the likes of Mubarak because it suited them to have secular governments. As always things never quite work out as planned with powerful megalomaniacal  dictators and it is always eventually decided that they must be removed.

The problem with Egypt, Libya and shortly Syria, is what comes next. The West will want some sort of secular government but the likelihood is that if Syria is left to its own devices, it will become another Islamic regime. If that begins to look like happening expect further civl disorder and regime changes a la Egypt. The various vested interests in Syria will keep the proxy war going because whatever comes next will not be acceptable to someone and someone will always fan the flames. And there will be far more deaths down the line.

Ireland didn't get a secular government until sometime in the 1990s.

True, but we weren't Islamic Fundamentalists.

We were Shambolic Kleptocracists.

Quote from: muppet on September 03, 2013, 03:42:34 PM

Quote from: seafoid on September 03, 2013, 02:04:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 01, 2013, 02:58:28 PM

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

It is the only card ever played.

The reality in Syria is that Assad is a secularist. The West tolerated him along with Hussein and actively supported the likes of Mubarak because it suited them to have secular governments. As always things never quite work out as planned with powerful megalomaniacal  dictators and it is always eventually decided that they must be removed.

The problem with Egypt, Libya and shortly Syria, is what comes next. The West will want some sort of secular government but the likelihood is that if Syria is left to its own devices, it will become another Islamic regime. If that begins to look like happening expect further civl disorder and regime changes a la Egypt. The various vested interests in Syria will keep the proxy war going because whatever comes next will not be acceptable to someone and someone will always fan the flames. And there will be far more deaths down the line.

Ireland didn't get a secular government until sometime in the 1990s.

True, but we weren't Islamic Fundamentalists.

We were Shambolic Kleptocracists.

Catholic fundamentalism doesn't have much time for women either. And that "purity" of all the fundis is very hard on a lot of people who don't conform.

Quote from: trileacman on August 31, 2013, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 31, 2013, 07:37:36 PM
I don't know if we can just pull a Pilate on this one and wash our hands anymore.

Agreed I'm no war-monger and I distrust the American's hugely but we can't keep sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Does a young Syrian have to die on your doorstep until you say enough is enough?

Action is needed. Diplomacy won't overcome with the Yanks and Russians at loggerheads. Unfortunately military action looks like the only card to play.

Ach sure you can, it is easy to sit in the cheap seats and throw stones, we have sat on our hands for so long and looked down our noses at the yanks for so long we have lost the ability to hold ourselves and the rest of the world accountable, why the fcuk does the UN not go in and sort this shit out, they are toothless thanks to the power of veto and they have a legacy of shame leaving people to die at the hands of gangsters in Africa, not a peep on here about that!

Maybe you trust the Chinese more? or the Russians for that matter, I trust none of the fcukers but if I had to choose one it would be the yanks all day long.

Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Quote from: give her dixie on September 03, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

America = bad
Israel = 2x bad
Assad = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Sarin gas = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Cluster bombs (Israel) = outrageous = 50xSarin gas

Sounds like it would have been better if Hitler had succeeded.

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 11:09:44 PM


America = bad
Israel = 2x bad
Assad = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Sarin gas = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Cluster bombs (Israel) = outrageous = 50xSarin gas

Sounds like it would have been better if Hitler had succeeded.

Disgusting post

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 10:42:45 PM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 03, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

Fair play for highlighting the disgusting hypocrisy of America on the issue of chemical weapons. It's enough to make you sick. They don't give a flying f**k about the Syrians who were gassed, they are just wondering how they can use this situation to their advantage. Don't you get it??

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

So anyone who has an opinion different from you and the other pom-pom shakers are supporting Assad ::)
We will not go into old ground and the numbers murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan...based on LIES.
Obama is prepared to act without a UN mandate........

As a matter of fact, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the only way the United States would be empowered legally to act in Syria is if Syria attacked the United States and threatened its national integrity. That of course has not happened and it is not possible. Syria doesn't have the ability to project power to the American homeland.
So, anything they do without UN approval is patently illegal under international law.....but don't let that stop them ::)

The US is the worst offender in terms of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction use in the history of the world.

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 10:42:45 PM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 03, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

Itchy, that is just pathetic.

As far as I can see most posters here are against war and killing.

Trust the Russian leader to apply common sense ;)


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/09/20139454545354818.html
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has warned the US against taking one-sided action in Syria, but has also said that Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution authorising military strikes.

He said that such an endorsement would require "convincing" evidence that President Bashar al-Assad's government used chemical weapons against citizens.

He also said the currently available evidence does not fulfil this criteria.




In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press news agency and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said it would be "absolutely absurd" for Assad's forces to have used chemical weapons at a time when they were in the ascendency in the conflict.

"From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realising quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," Putin said in the interview, released on Wednesday.

US President Barack Obama said in Stockholm on Wednesday that the international community "cannot be silent" following Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people.

"I discussed our assessment and (Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt) and I are in an agreement that in the face of such barbarism the international community cannot be silent," he said.

Figures vary regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack on August 21, with the US government saying that 1,429 people were killed by poison gas in the attack, and aid agencies putting that number at closer to 355.

Assad's government has blamed the attack on the rebels, and a UN inspection team that examined the attack sites near Damascus is awaiting lab results on soil and tissue samples.

"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the UN Security Council,'' Putin added in his interview.

"And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumours and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that."

He also cited experts who believed that the current evidence "doesn't look convincing", and raised the possibility that the armed opposition had "conducted a premeditated provocative action trying to give their sponsors a pretext for military intervention".

Putin compared the evidence presented by the US administration so far to false data used by that country to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"All these arguments turned out to be untenable, but they were used to launch a military action, which many in the US called a mistake. Did we forget about that?" he said.

UN action not excluded

In the interview, Putin did not "exclude" the possibility of the use of force by foreign countries against Syria, if there was enough evidence provided to the UN and that body sanctioned such an action.

If there was clear proof of what weapons were used and who used them, Russia "will be ready to act in the most decisive and serious way," Putin said.



 
Spotlight
In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria


He strongly cautioned the US against launching military action without UN approval, however, saying it would represent an aggression.

Asked what kind of evidence on chemical weapons use would convince Russia, Putin said "it should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used".

Putin also said Russia has provided some components of the S-300 air defence missile system to Syria but that the delivery had not been completed.

He said that the process remained suspended "for now".

The interview on Tuesday night at Putin's country residence outside Moscow was the only one he granted prior to the summit of G-20 nations in St Petersburg, which opens on Thursday and will see major world powers discuss the global economy and the crisis in Syria.

US considers Syria action

Meanwhile, US national security officials will on Wednesday hold a series of public and private hearings with members of the US House of Representatives regarding the authorisation of the use of military force against Syria.

The meetings come after leaders of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Tuesday that they had reached an agreement on a draft authorisation, paving the way for a vote by the committee on Wednesday.

Among other provisions, the draft, which was obtained by Al Jazeera, sets a 60-day limit on military action in Syria, with a possibility for a single 30-day extension subject to conditions.

The deal reached by Senator Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the panel, and Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican, includes a provision banning any use of US armed forces on the ground.

If the document is approved by the committee on Wednesday, it will then be sent to the full Senate for a vote after members return from their August recess on September 9.

Earlier John Kerry, US secretary of state, and Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary, gave evidence to the committee, where they assured the committee that there was "zero intention" of putting troops on the ground.

The draft resolution requires Obama to consult Congress and submit to the Senate and House of Representatives foreign relations panel a strategy for negotiating a political settlement to the Syria conflict, including a review of all forms of assistance to the rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

Menendez said that the authorisation remained "narrow and focused" and "limited in time".

In a crucial show of support on Tuesday for Obama, John Boehner, House speaker and a Republican in Congress, said he would back Obama's motion for strikes against Assad, and called on his party colleagues to do the same.

His Republican colleague, House majority leader Eric Cantor, also supported Obama's call.


 

 


Source:

Al Jazeera and agencies

Striking Syria: Illegal, immoral, and dangerous



Whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria would be a reckless and counterproductive move.

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam.

Obama said he will ask the US Congress to authorise military action against Syria [AFP]


If I were very optimistic, I'd say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament, and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook - he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it's Congress' fault.

But unfortunately, I don't think that much optimism is warranted. Obama's speech - not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command are not time-bound - gives opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilise, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president accurately described it, "some things are more important than partisan politics". For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama's progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial.

Obama said he will "seek Congressional authorisation" for a military strike on Syria. He said he believes US policy is "stronger" if the president and Congress are united, but made clear his belief that he "has the authority to strike without" congressional support. That's the bottom line. The first question shouted by the press as he left the White House rose garden was "will you still attack if Congress votes no?" He didn't answer.

There is little question that the Obama administration was blindsided by the British parliament's vote against the prime minister's proposal to endorse war. They were prepared to go to war without United Nations authorisation, but were counting on the UK as the core partner in a new iteration of a Bush-style "coalition of the willing." Then NATO made clear it would not participate, and the Arab League refused to endorse a military strike. France may stay in Obama's corner, but that won't be enough.

And Congress was getting restive, with more than 200 members signing one or another letter demanding that the White House consult with them. Too many pesky journalists were reprinting Obama's own words from 2007, when then-candidate Obama told the Boston Globe that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorise a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't stop. And that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no.
Illegal

However frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorises the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That's the authorisation President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally.

The problem for President Obama is he still is determined to use military force, despite the requirements of international law. He says he doesn't need that authority - that maybe he'll use the 1999 Kosovo precedent to "go around" the Security Council. The problem, of course, is that the 1999 US-NATO assault on Serbia and Kosovo was illegal - faced with a sure Russian veto, Bill Clinton simply announced he would not ask for Council permission. Instead, he would get permission from the NATO high command. But aside from the hammer-and-nail problem (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if you're NATO military leaders looking for re-legitimation, everything looks like it needs a military solution), nothing in international law allows NATO to substitute for the Security Council. The Charter was specifically designed to make it difficult to get authorisation for military force - its whole raison d'etre is to stand against the scourge of war. So any new decision to go to use military force without Council authority means that use of force is illegal.

Right now, in Syria, that means that members of Congress have the chance to prevent another illegal US war. If Congress should approve it, likely for political or partisan reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, their vote would mean direct complicity in an illegal and immoral war.

Immoral


Pentagon officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be (remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed. Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even more culpable.

Dangerous

A US military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to "stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians could face similar retaliation from the government.

A US strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who gain will be the most extreme Islamist forces within the opposition, particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda. They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and a great local target.

There is also the danger of escalation between the US and Russia, already at odds in one of the five wars currently underway in Syria. So far that has been limited to a war of words between Washington and Moscow, but with the G-20 meeting scheduled for next week in St Petersburg, President Putin may feel compelled to push back more directly, perhaps with new economic or other measures.

Crucially, a military strike without United Nations authorisation undermines the urgent need for serious, tough diplomacy to end the Syrian war. The US just cancelled a meeting with Russia to talk about negotiations; a couple of months ago, Russia cancelled one. They both must be pushed to meet urgently to arrange and implement an immediate ceasefire and an arms embargo on all sides in Syria.

And finally, what happens the day after? If Syria retaliates against a US missile strike - with an attack on a US warship, or a US base in a neighbouring country, or on US troops in the region, or against Israel ... do we really think the US will simply stand back and say "no, this was just a one-time surgical strike, we won't respond"? What happens when that inevitable response pushes the US closer towards direct full-scale involvement in the Syrian civil war?

The word to Congress now must be - you got the vote. That's important, because now you can use that vote to say NO to military action.

What should the US do?


First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?
•First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.
•Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.
•Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.
•President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.
•Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job....)
•Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes.

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN Defy US Power, on the legacy of the February 15 protests.




The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Quote from: muppet on September 04, 2013, 02:03:36 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 10:42:45 PM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 03, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

Itchy, that is just pathetic.

As far as I can see most posters here are against war and killing.

Really? Seems it depends who is getting killed. I'll ask Dixie and his buddies a few straight questions for hopefully some straight  answers...

- Why is it relevant what a country did in the past when they are trying to make decisions in the now.
- Name a country that has the power to make a intervention of any sort in Syria that has not itself at some time committed a war crime.

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all.
- Do you think the UN has any teeth to act on anything given that a number if countries have a Veto.
- Has the UN not failed Palestinians too.
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power.
- How many people should be gassed to death before the West takes action.

Simple questions. It would be nice if whataboutery, Israel or posting of 500 word articles could be avoided.

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 09:34:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 04, 2013, 02:03:36 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 10:42:45 PM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 03, 2013, 10:04:22 PM
Fair play to the protester who interrupted John Kerry tonight shouting "You were in Vietnam and you know we used Chemical Weapons". Sometimes the truth is hard to take.........

Fair play for what? What's that got to do with anything. Have you and these other cheer leaders for murderous dictators anything sensible to say at all.

Itchy, that is just pathetic.

As far as I can see most posters here are against war and killing.

Really? Seems it depends who is getting killed. I'll ask Dixie and his buddies a few straight questions for hopefully some straight  answers...

- Why is it relevant what a country did in the past when they are trying to make decisions in the now.
- Name a country that has the power to make a intervention of any sort in Syria that has not itself at some time committed a war crime.

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all.
- Do you think the UN has any teeth to act on anything given that a number if countries have a Veto.
- Has the UN not failed Palestinians too.
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power.
- How many people should be gassed to death before the West takes action.

Simple questions. It would be nice if whataboutery, Israel or posting of 500 word articles could be avoided.

Itchy

Please firstly outline the conditions which the US would need to fulfill for a legal war against Syria.

Can you not just answer a bloody question. I think you haven't a clue seafood nor a moral bone in your body. Answer the questions and prove me wrong.

sure why dont you show us the way Itchy....i.e. answer a question yourself

I rest my case. It is easy to piss and moan about everything but it seems the "experts" have no ideas, no proposals, nothing to say and are just a bunch of empty vessels with expertise in copy & paste only.

Good lad

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 10:14:28 PM
Can you not just answer a bloody question. I think you haven't a clue seafood nor a moral bone in your body. Answer the questions and prove me wrong.

Itchy

War is only legal if :

a) it is okayed by the UN security council
b) it's in self defence

Israel has not been attacked by Syria and hasn't a hope of getting Russia and China to back a Yank attack on Syria.
This is senior hurling, Itchy.
You have to know your stuff. Otherwise you'll lose the ball very quickly.

Illegal wars are very dangerous.

Anyone that takes a cursory look in here Seafood is seeing you for what you are Seafood. A bluffer. You won't answer the questions no more than skull or Dixie because you know the answers show your position on Syria to be hypocritical in the extreme to your position on Palestine. The only thing consistent is your hatred of Israel.

You are simply a coward.

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 10:57:46 PM
Anyone that takes a cursory look in here Seafood is seeing you for what you are Seafood. A bluffer. You won't answer the questions no more than skull or Dixie because you know the answers show your position on Syria to be hypocritical in the extreme to your position on Palestine. The only thing consistent is your hatred of Israel.

You are simply a coward.

Itchy

Go to bed. You are either too tired or hungry. 

My position from the get go is that I am completely sceptical of western powers who skilfully control the media flow in our part of the world. I'm never going to take the word of governments who've a long history of creating the excuses to get involved in armed conflicts to suit other strategic interests.

Let's see the unrefutable evidence

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on September 03, 2013, 11:12:34 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 03, 2013, 11:09:44 PM


America = bad
Israel = 2x bad
Assad = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Sarin gas = naughty = not as bad as Israel
Cluster bombs (Israel) = outrageous = 50xSarin gas

Sounds like it would have been better if Hitler had succeeded.

Disgusting post

yes he forgot about phosphorous bombs used by Israel. I don't know whether they are bad or good now.. so confusing couldn't somebody just invade somebody so we'd know who the baddies were... :-\

Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2013, 11:09:04 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 10:57:46 PM
Anyone that takes a cursory look in here Seafood is seeing you for what you are Seafood. A bluffer. You won't answer the questions no more than skull or Dixie because you know the answers show your position on Syria to be hypocritical in the extreme to your position on Palestine. The only thing consistent is your hatred of Israel.

You are simply a coward.

Itchy

Go to bed. You are either too tired or hungry.

I took your advice and went to bed but when I got up I see you still won't answer to attempt to answer one of simple questions I put to you. Sleep or no sleep you are still an empty vessel and a coward.

Quote from: theskull1 on September 04, 2013, 11:13:59 PM
My position from the get go is that I am completely sceptical of western powers who skilfully control the media flow in our part of the world. I'm never going to take the word of governments who've a long history of creating the excuses to get involved in armed conflicts to suit other strategic interests.

Let's see the unrefutable evidence

How can there be such evidence when you won't believe anything except al Jazeera? Where would this evidence come from and if you got it would it make any difference to whether the west should intervene?

Itchy...you have the argumentation technique of a blood thirsty deranged idiot....no offence

That first sentence there is so incomprehendible its hard to believe.

We've got to the point now that "evidence" is meaningless have we? Very biblical  :-\

The answer to your second sentence is the UN weapons inspectors.

Only a fool would not see that my position is a very valid position to take. Two wrongs do not make a right. This is an ugly ugly conflict with power brokers looking after their vested interests ... I believe none if them at their word

Quote from: Itchy on September 05, 2013, 07:13:48 AM

Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2013, 11:09:04 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 10:57:46 PM
Anyone that takes a cursory look in here Seafood is seeing you for what you are Seafood. A bluffer. You won't answer the questions no more than skull or Dixie because you know the answers show your position on Syria to be hypocritical in the extreme to your position on Palestine. The only thing consistent is your hatred of Israel.

You are simply a coward.

Itchy

Go to bed. You are either too tired or hungry.

I took your advice and went to bed but when I got up I see you still won't answer to attempt to answer one of simple questions I put to you. Sleep or no sleep you are still an empty vessel and a coward.

Have some hot milk, Itchy.


Most Americans don't want another Middle East war. They are the ones who send the soldiers and there's one veteran suicide per day.
Here's the New York Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-faces-barrier-in-his-own-party-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0


Many of the president's core supporters, especially African-Americans and members of the Democratic Party's liberal wing who voted repeatedly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are expressing the deepest reservations. With rank-and-file House Republicans showing little inclination to back Mr. Obama on an issue on which he has staked his political credibility, scores of Democratic votes will be needed if a resolution authorizing force against Syria is to pass the House.

Democrats say they are being confronted with a difficult choice: Go against the wishes of a president who is popular and well respected in their caucus, or defy voters back home who are overwhelmingly opposed to another United States military intervention overseas.

Quote from: seafoid on September 05, 2013, 08:42:04 AM

Quote from: Itchy on September 05, 2013, 07:13:48 AM

Quote from: seafoid on September 04, 2013, 11:09:04 PM

Quote from: Itchy on September 04, 2013, 10:57:46 PM
Anyone that takes a cursory look in here Seafood is seeing you for what you are Seafood. A bluffer. You won't answer the questions no more than skull or Dixie because you know the answers show your position on Syria to be hypocritical in the extreme to your position on Palestine. The only thing consistent is your hatred of Israel.

You are simply a coward.

Itchy

Go to bed. You are either too tired or hungry.

I took your advice and went to bed but when I got up I see you still won't answer to attempt to answer one of simple questions I put to you. Sleep or no sleep you are still an empty vessel and a coward.

Have some hot milk, Itchy.


Most Americans don't want another Middle East war. They are the ones who send the soldiers and there's one veteran suicide per day.
Here's the New York Times. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-faces-barrier-in-his-own-party-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0


Many of the president's core supporters, especially African-Americans and members of the Democratic Party's liberal wing who voted repeatedly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are expressing the deepest reservations. With rank-and-file House Republicans showing little inclination to back Mr. Obama on an issue on which he has staked his political credibility, scores of Democratic votes will be needed if a resolution authorizing force against Syria is to pass the House.

Democrats say they are being confronted with a difficult choice: Go against the wishes of a president who is popular and well respected in their caucus, or defy voters back home who are overwhelmingly opposed to another United States military intervention overseas.

Obama won't put troops on the ground in Syria, just 'strategic' 'surgical' strikes via drones or fly overs where the loss of American lives will be minimal. They'll bring down Assad alright and then leave the place in a sectarian blood bath (which it probably already is) with thousands getting slaughtered either way with conventional weapons provided by either the Russians or French and British depending on what side of the conflict your on.
The TV cameras will stop rolling in Syria just like the have in Libya and Iraq and shortly in Afghanistan when the US and Brits pull out to leave the Taliban to it.
It'll be just another mess where the innocents get slaughtered to appease some outside brokers interests in the region..
And we wonder why there's so many Muslims 'terrorists'?

Some poetry for you Itchy....

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know, There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Quote from: give her dixie on September 05, 2013, 09:59:34 AM
Some poetry for you Itchy....

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know, There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Itchy reminds me of Jedward's X factor audition.

Not very good and incredibly annoying
but something intriguing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw


He wants to  understand the Middle East
He definitely has the potential

Quote from: seafoid on September 05, 2013, 11:04:51 AM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 05, 2013, 09:59:34 AM
Some poetry for you Itchy....

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know, There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Itchy reminds me of Jedward's X factor audition.

Not very good and incredibly annoying
but something intriguing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw)


He wants to  understand the Middle East
He definitely has the potential

Perhaps you could help him understand, then. He has asked a number of questions. That's usually how people arrive at an understanding. Here are just two from his selection:

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all?
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power?

These seem reasonable to me in the context that Assad is murdering his people, the opposition is an unholy alliance of all types from the moderate to the lunatics and the UN is unable to act because of Russia's veto. I haven't come to an opinion myself. I'd be interested in your opinion as someone who has spent time in the Middle east and probably has a better understanding of it than myself (or Itchy).

Don't think Seafood or the boys answer questions Hardy, maybe they will for you but for me they are as evasive as Fine Fail politicians.

Quote- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all?

The UN Security Council is hamstrung by those countries who (ab)use their veto to support their own strategic interests and crap all over any ethical or moral considerations. This time it is the Russians' turn, but they all do it.

War is very a lucrative business for some Governments and its attraction is irresistible to manufacturers of munitions.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/iraq-orders-c-130js-05400/ (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/iraq-orders-c-130js-05400/)

July 25/08: The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Iraq's official request for 6 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, which will supplement the 3 refurbished C-130E's that currently form Iraq's medium transport fleet.

The estimated cost is $1.5 billion, and the prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX and Rolls-Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, IN. Going forward, up to 10 U.S. Government and 10 contractor representatives will participate in 2-week long annual technical and program management reviews. Lockheed Martin and Rolls Royce aren't the only contractors for this request, however, which also includes defensive equipment from Alliant Techsystems and BAE Systems. The detailed request includes:

6 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft identical to the USAF baseline standard
28 Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 engines, (24 installed, 4 spare)
8 of ATK's AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems (6 installed, 2 spare)
8 of BAE's AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems  (6 installed, 2 spare)

Meanwhile it seems the rebels get some of their weapons from Assad's Army!

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120606/syrian-rebels-weapons-arms-revolution (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120606/syrian-rebels-weapons-arms-revolution)

Quote from: Hardy on September 05, 2013, 12:11:00 PM

Quote from: seafoid on September 05, 2013, 11:04:51 AM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 05, 2013, 09:59:34 AM
Some poetry for you Itchy....

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know, There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Itchy reminds me of Jedward's X factor audition.

Not very good and incredibly annoying
but something intriguing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw)


He wants to  understand the Middle East
He definitely has the potential

Perhaps you could help him understand, then. He has asked a number of questions. That's usually how people arrive at an understanding. Here are just two from his selection:

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all?
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power?

These seem reasonable to me in the context that Assad is murdering his people, the opposition is an unholy alliance of all types from the moderate to the lunatics and the UN is unable to act because of Russia's veto. I haven't come to an opinion myself. I'd be interested in your opinion as someone who has spent time in the Middle east and probably has a better understanding of it than myself (or Itchy).

I told already answered Itchy's question 1.

Syria needs a peace conference sponsored by the countries that use the most Middle East Oil ie  India, China and the EU. There is going to be peace at the end of the war anyway- why not go straight to it now? 

Re q2 I think international law is the way to go for the Palestinians . Name a western power that's going to do anything for them while the Israelis run US Mid East policy. The main problem with the Palestine situation is Israel's insistence that it is above International law because of something that is in the Bible.

International law is the only way to safeguard Israel in the future as well. This quasi Prussian eternal war approach is going to end in a mess for them the way things are going.

 

On Wednesday the Jihadi Nusra Font which is an ally of al Qa'ida attacked the Christian village of Ma'aloula which is one of only 3 towns in the world where Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, is still used.

These jihadis are the people the US wants to help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030)

UK has new evidence of use of Chemical Weapons.

Probably a bill, and a request for instructions.

Really? Seems it depends who is getting killed. I'll ask Dixie and his buddies a few straight questions for hopefully some straight  answers...

- Why is it relevant what a country did in the past when they are trying to make decisions in the now.
Track record pure and simple

- Name a country that has the power to make a intervention of any sort in Syria that has not itself at some time committed a war crime.
Saudi Arabia but they are content to sit back and let others do the dirty work

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all.
Gas has been used once....yes one time too many, but cruise missile strikes/regime change is not going to help the ordinary Syrian

- Do you think the UN has any teeth to act on anything given that a number if countries have a Veto.
Useless as proved in Rwanda and Balkans
- Has the UN not failed Palestinians too.
Absolutely
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power.
Not going to happen....let's be honest

- How many people should be gassed to death before the West takes action.
How many deaths are acceptable full stop? After all 100,000 have died so far.

My honest attempts at answering your questions Itchy, I'd be interested in hearing your views

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-4-2013/groundhog-deja-clusterf--k

Quote from: Count 10 on September 05, 2013, 09:04:58 PM
Really? Seems it depends who is getting killed. I'll ask Dixie and his buddies a few straight questions for hopefully some straight  answers...

- Why is it relevant what a country did in the past when they are trying to make decisions in the now.
Track record pure and simple

- Name a country that has the power to make a intervention of any sort in Syria that has not itself at some time committed a war crime.
Saudi Arabia but they are content to sit back and let others do the dirty work

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all.
Gas has been used once....yes one time too many, but cruise missile strikes/regime change is not going to help the ordinary Syrian

- Do you think the UN has any teeth to act on anything given that a number if countries have a Veto.
Useless as proved in Rwanda and Balkans
- Has the UN not failed Palestinians too.
Absolutely
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power.
Not going to happen....let's be honest

- How many people should be gassed to death before the West takes action.
How many deaths are acceptable full stop? After all 100,000 have died so far.

My honest attempts at answering your questions Itchy, I'd be interested in hearing your views

Thanks Count, I appreciate that you at least tried although I would not agree with everythingyou say. I will answer in return...

Why is it relevant what a country did in the past when they are trying to make decisions in the now. If, before considering a countries moral right to respond to such a thing we should check their CV for past discretions then nothing will ever be done. The reason I asked this question was because Dixie was congratulating some boys that were heckling Kerry about how the US used WMD's, presumable referring to Hiroshima 60 years ago! It is not relevant as every country of influence has skeletons in the closest - The US, the Russians, the Chinese, the germans, the french and the brits - all of them. If they are all to be cast aside then there is no hope of anything being done. This might grind at people but this is the real world where real solutions must be worked on.

Name a country that has the power to make a intervention of any sort in Syria that has not itself at some time committed a war crime. The answer to this is simple, none of them. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with a horrendous record on human rights. The German in WW2, The French in Algeria, The Brits in Ireland, The Russians in Chechnya etc etc. There are no good guys I'm afraid.

Do you think the UN has any teeth to act on anything given that a number if countries have a Veto. Agreed, completely useless. So what is to be done when intervention of some sort is required and the Russians (in Syrias case) or the Yanks (in Israels case) prevent anything being done. Unilateral action is necessary or otherwise you sit back and do nothing as the slaughter continues in the glow of the fact you are obeying "international law". Inaction goes against the meaning of international law.

Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power. It may be unlikely but I'd like to know would you support it? I certainly would. Intervention could be a boycott or expelling diplomats or just unilaterally helping Palestinians.

How many people should be gassed to death before the West takes action. No more. Assad has crossed a line and action is needed. If none is taken then we can expect the gassing  to continue and increase. Future generations would look back and be  disgusted with us in the west. The Yanks are the best of a bad lot and I support their proposal to target some strategic military targets from the air for a short period, for no more than to act as a deterent. Its not perfect but its better than doing nothing or waffling at the UN or trying to organise a conference that would achieving nothing as the will is not there. I have yet to hear any other practical proposals on how to deter Assad. Some are more worried about handing some advantage to Israel than they are to protect innocent women and children from Sarin gas at the hands of a crazed loon.

Quote from: Hardy on September 05, 2013, 12:11:00 PM

Quote from: seafoid on September 05, 2013, 11:04:51 AM

Quote from: give her dixie on September 05, 2013, 09:59:34 AM
Some poetry for you Itchy....

The Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

As we know, There are known knowns
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

Itchy reminds me of Jedward's X factor audition.

Not very good and incredibly annoying
but something intriguing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwW_DYmxEw)


He wants to  understand the Middle East
He definitely has the potential

Perhaps you could help him understand, then. He has asked a number of questions. That's usually how people arrive at an understanding. Here are just two from his selection:

- How should the international community act on Syria in the short term (I.e now) to stop people being gassed to death or should they not act at all?
- Would you support a unilateral intervention on behalf of Palestine by a western power?

These seem reasonable to me in the context that Assad is murdering his people, the opposition is an unholy alliance of all types from the moderate to the lunatics and the UN is unable to act because of Russia's veto. I haven't come to an opinion myself. I'd be interested in your opinion as someone who has spent time in the Middle east and probably has a better understanding of it than myself (or Itchy).

The international community firstly has to let the UN inspectors carry out their work. The UN is the only body with the right to actually intervene but the full facts need to be determined first. People will die in the meantime unfortunately but that is a sad fact of this mess. Is the option of a ground force of UN peacekeepers to limit civilian casualties an option? Is that viewed as intervention and can it be vetoed by the Power 5?
Syria (and most of the Middle East) is an outrageous mess and is the worst humanitarian crisis of this century so far but as far as I am concerned and the past century proves my point that any western military intervention will just make the scenario a whole lot worse. Western intervention in this part of the world has caused alot of the instability already and if Obama, Cameron or Hollande think they can make matters better by bombing the shit out of the place then they are dreaming.
I'm of the opinion that in the long run the Syrian people need to determine the path to go down. There are very few cases in history where outside military intervention has improved the internal situation in the long term.

Quote from: boojangles on September 05, 2013, 10:52:07 PM


The international community firstly has to let the UN inspectors carry out their work. The UN is the only body with the right to actually intervene but the full facts need to be determined first. People will die in the meantime unfortunately but that is a sad fact of this mess. Is the option of a ground force of UN peacekeepers to limit civilian casualties an option? Is that viewed as intervention and can it be vetoed by the Power 5?
Syria (and most of the Middle East) is an outrageous mess and is the worst humanitarian crisis of this century so far but as far as I am concerned and the past century proves my point that any western military intervention will just make the scenario a whole lot worse. Western intervention in this part of the world has caused alot of the instability already and if Obama, Cameron or Hollande think they can make matters better by bombing the shit out of the place then they are dreaming.
I'm of the opinion that in the long run the Syrian people need to determine the path to go down. There are very few cases in history where outside military intervention has improved the internal situation in the long term.

These lads don't want to make these places better for the ordinary Syrians, they want their man in power. Russia have a man in power there now they're happy with so irrespective of what proof the UN inspectors reveal about the gas attack they'll not sign up to any form of intervention if it means toppling Assad. Ordinary Syrians or all creeds can go on dying in the mean time.

Lets not kid ourselves that the Americans, British, French, Russians or whoever are do gooders, they're not, there has to be ulterior motives for the lot of them to get involved.

A UN peace keeping force is the only option, and then some sort of amnesty or process to take as many guns out of these areas as possible.

Henry Kissinger reckons the Balkanisation of Syria is the only workable outcome. I think he may be right, but it's something that may have to spread elsewhere in the middle east. As I pointed out in the other thread some time ago, the sectarian divisions aren't reflected in the post colonial borders.

The middle east is unlikely to buy into liberal-cultural amnesia, as the west has done, so these divisions are likely to stick around for a while till they get sick of hating and killing the other side.

Sadly nations borders are written and re-written in blood so after the middle east has resettled itself after much strife we might see a little bit of peace.

Quote from: thejuice on September 06, 2013, 11:10:44 AM
Henry Kissinger reckons the Balkanisation of Syria is the only workable outcome. I think he may be right, but it's something that may have to spread elsewhere in the middle east. As I pointed out in the other thread some time ago, the sectarian divisions aren't reflected in the post colonial borders.

The middle east is unlikely to buy into liberal-cultural amnesia, as the west has done, so these divisions are likely to stick around for a while till they get sick of hating and killing the other side.

Sadly nations borders are written and re-written in blood so after the middle east has resettled itself after much strife we might see a little bit of peace.

The levant was divided into 4 countries by the brits and the french. The brits carved out palestine to give to the zionists and the french made lebanon for the maronites. Balkanising syria would suit Israel whose goal is broken neighbours mired in war. Turkey won't tolerate the syrian kurds being granted independence.
How would kissinger divide damascus and aleppo?

Maybe the syrian people should be let decide their future.
Qatar is funding the jihadis- should it be allowed host the world cup?

Sometimes you just have to take your hat off to those men who are one step above us mere mortals. The world salutes you James. You are beautiful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11753050

I dont subcribe to your point of view if the russians love their children too..

A war with russia? Europe and america would hammer them in about a month.. Retreating back from the advancing euro/american forces wouldnt work this time for russia as it did against napolean or the germans such is the strenght of such an army..

I see the north koreans fired a couple of missiles to stir the shit that guy needs a slap

Quote from: lawnseed on March 03, 2014, 07:11:31 AM
I dont subcribe to your point of view if the russians love their children too..

A war with russia? Europe and america would hammer them in about a month.. Retreating back from the advancing euro/american forces wouldnt work this time for russia as it did against napolean or the germans such is the strenght of such an army..

I see the north koreans fired a couple of missiles to stir the shit that guy needs a slap

A month?

Which month? I hope they don't make the mistake Napolean & Hitler did. Or the one they made before in the Crimea. Remember the quick shock & awe war promised in Iraq?

Does anyone ever learn anything?

...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Ah I dunno. The movie industry could do with another dust up. The Middle East has been done. A rebirth of the old Cold War genre would be great for Hollywood.

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Quote from: AZOffaly on March 04, 2014, 04:43:53 PM
Ah I dunno. The movie industry could do with another dust up. The Middle East has been done. A rebirth of the old Cold War genre would be great for Hollywood.

Ohhh that's very cynical and conspiratorial!!!

Quote from: Sidney on March 04, 2014, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Do you think Lawnseed has learned?

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 05:47:19 PM

Quote from: Sidney on March 04, 2014, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Do you think Lawnseed has learned?

have you ever seen the Russian army? they're a joke! badly trained. shite equipment. 112 different languages spoken. I'd go as far as to say the brits would kick the shit out of them on their own.
I worked in the old east Germany while the Russian army was still there. they spent most of the time blocking roads with their crap vehicles that had either run out of fuel or boiled. they would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Quote from: lawnseed on March 04, 2014, 09:59:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 05:47:19 PM

Quote from: Sidney on March 04, 2014, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Do you think Lawnseed has learned?

have you ever seen the Russian army? they're a joke! badly trained. shite equipment. 112 different languages spoken. I'd go as far as to say the brits would kick the shit out of them on their own.
I worked in the old east Germany while the Russian army was still there. they spent most of the time blocking roads with their crap vehicles that had either run out of fuel or boiled. they would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Tell the truth, it was Granard and the FCA wasn't it?

Quote from: lawnseed on March 04, 2014, 09:59:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 05:47:19 PM

Quote from: Sidney on March 04, 2014, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Do you think Lawnseed has learned?

have you ever seen the Russian army? they're a joke! badly trained. shite equipment. 112 different languages spoken. I'd go as far as to say the brits would kick the shit out of them on their own.
I worked in the old east Germany while the Russian army was still there. they spent most of the time blocking roads with their crap vehicles that had either run out of fuel or boiled. they would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Maybe you should look up Napoleon and Hitler sometime seed. ;)

Quotethey would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Did you buy any?

QuoteMaybe you should look up Napoleon and Hitler sometime seed.

If Napoleon and Hitler had looked at the weather forecast, they might have beaten the Russian army.

Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2014, 10:24:44 PM

Quotethey would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Did you buy any?

QuoteMaybe you should look up Napoleon and Hitler sometime seed.

If Napoleon and Hitler had looked at the weather forecast, they might have beaten the Russian army.

Does the Russian winter vary that much?

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 10:44:16 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 04, 2014, 10:24:44 PM

Quotethey would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Did you buy any?

QuoteMaybe you should look up Napoleon and Hitler sometime seed.

If Napoleon and Hitler had looked at the weather forecast, they might have beaten the Russian army.

Didnt buy any guns.. But I got to fire a rifel for a tin of pears.. Just a couple of rounds. They were just kids with no english and surprisingly less german than I had.  Any army would slaughter them I felt sorry for them

Does the Russian winter vary that much?

More of a russian ",bare" than a bear

Quote from: lawnseed on March 04, 2014, 09:59:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 05:47:19 PM

Quote from: Sidney on March 04, 2014, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on March 04, 2014, 04:41:58 PM
...and there is next to zero chance of a war.

Maybe people have learned, so.

Do you think Lawnseed has learned?

have you ever seen the Russian army? they're a joke! badly trained. shite equipment. 112 different languages spoken. I'd go as far as to say the brits would kick the shit out of them on their own.
I worked in the old east Germany while the Russian army was still there. they spent most of the time blocking roads with their crap vehicles that had either run out of fuel or boiled. they would have sold their weapons for a few quid.

Seems you are still on the Stasi/KGB payroll.

I think most world leaders are primarily economists now. I think they are unlikely to start anything that would have drastic consequences and slow down any western consumption that they are so dependent on. This includes Putin as well.

Unless the USA and EU over egg the sanctions, which I doubt they will, it's unlikely we will see a full on conflict.

Wasn't much of a stand off before the sides were round the table, some infantry and one missile launch and everyone comes running to the table. Not that I think this it is a bad thing, but I have no time for Putin and the way Russia has been carved up between his cronies.

Quote from: NAG1 on March 05, 2014, 01:57:28 PM
Wasn't much of a stand off before the sides were round the table, some infantry and one missile launch and everyone comes running to the table. Not that I think this it is a bad thing, but I have no time for Putin and the way Russia has been carved up between his cronies.

Was that not done in Yeltsins watch and fortified under Putin who seems to 'take out' any oligarch not singing to his tune?

Quote from: thejuice on March 05, 2014, 01:51:11 PM
I think most world leaders are primarily economists now. I think they are unlikely to start anything that would have drastic consequences and slow down any western consumption that they are so dependent on. This includes Putin as well.

Unless the USA and EU over egg the sanctions, which I doubt they will, it's unlikely we will see a full on conflict.

This was an interesting observation seeing as it now appears that the US and Russia are now actually at war. Not Lawnseed's idea of war though, countries that can defend themselves to a certain level (i.e. can hit the enemy hard) will no longer face the traditional military engagement. The big wars of the 21st century will be fought financially.

I am reading this Currency Wars at the moment and at the start he talks of the US military exploring war games using oil, currency, the markets etc as weapons.

http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global-Crisis/dp/1591845564 (http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global-Crisis/dp/1591845564)

Hmmm, the price of nickel has been climbing steadily recently.  When there is a war or the threat of one, nickel prices rise.

Russia threatened to withdraw airspace overflight rights to EU/US & some Oriental airlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-05/eu-airlines-could-suffer-from-russian-airspace-sanctions.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-05/eu-airlines-could-suffer-from-russian-airspace-sanctions.html)

This economic war is fascinating in a strange way, but there will be unexpected consequences ahead.

Emmm.. Where does the idea that war is bad for the economy come from? History tells us war is the best remedy for ailing economies. During ww2 was a boom for the yanks they raked it in

Quote from: lawnseed on August 10, 2014, 08:26:46 PM
Emmm.. Where does the idea that war is bad for the economy come from? History tells us war is the best remedy for ailing economies. During ww2 was a boom for the yanks they raked it in

Yes, where are you getting that idea?

Its not an idea its a fact

 :o

Quote from: Hardy on August 11, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
:o

What? The american economy boomed during ww2. Google it

How did the german economy get on?

Quote from: lawnseed on August 11, 2014, 10:48:39 AM

Quote from: Hardy on August 11, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
:o

What? The american economy boomed during ww2. Google it

I know.

Quote from: lawnseed on August 11, 2014, 09:06:11 AM
Its not an idea its a fact

It is your opinion, and it is an opinion that you introduced to this thread, pretending that someone had said the opposite - which no one did, and you are now declaring it as a fact - which it isn't, even though you are the only one talking about it.

Read my post again, I am talking about 'financial war'.

You then go on a rant about war being good for the economy.

Russia putting warships off the OZ Coast, subs in Sweden waters, bombers off the coast of west coast of the USA and know they are going to patrol the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean to "maintain peace". Is Putin pushing for a new cold war to help strengthen his hold on Russia?

Economic war is in full swing now.

Brent Oil Prices (http://www.euroinvestor.com/stock/chart.aspx?id=2327059#InstrumentId=2327059&ViewMode=Daily&DrawType=Mountain&Scale=Linear&Years=5&StartDate=20131128&Currency=USD&AutoadjustDay=false&AutoadjustIntraDay=false&News=true&Volume=true&Minimap=true&Peergroup=false&Toolbar=true&GridValue=false&GridTime=false&Slider=80)

So what happens next?

What do you think should happen next ?

What do you want to happen next ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30322198 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30322198)

President Vladimir Putin has warned Russians of hard times ahead and urged self-reliance, in his annual state-of-the nation address to parliament.

Russia has been hit hard by falling oil prices and by Western sanctions imposed in response to its interventions in the crisis in neighbouring Ukraine.

The rouble, once a symbol of stability under Mr Putin, suffered its biggest one-day decline since 1998 on Monday.

The government has warned that Russia will fall into recession next year.

Speaking to both chambers in the Kremlin, Mr Putin also accused Western governments of seeking to raise a new "iron curtain" around Russia.

He expressed no regrets for annexing Ukraine's Crimea peninsula, saying the territory had a "sacred meaning" for Russia.

He insisted the "tragedy" in Ukraine's south-east had proved that Russian policy had been right but said Russia would respect its neighbour as a brotherly country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30490082 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30490082)

The Russian central bank has announced it is hiking its key interest rate to 17% from 10.5%.

The bank said the move was to try to ease the rouble's recent descent in value.

The Russian rouble has dropped to a new low against the US dollar, as falling oil prices and Western sanctions continue to weigh on the country's economy.

It snapped back to 60 roubles per dollar from a low of 67 earlier.

The 60 mark is considered a "psychological barrier" for Russia's national currency, says the BBC's Moscow correspondent, Steve Rosenberg.

Since the start of the year, the rouble has lost more than 45% of its value against the dollar.

Russia's central bank has tried unsuccessfully to stabilise the currency, buying roubles in the markets.

It has spent more than $70bn (£44.7bn) supporting the rouble since the start of the year.

"This decision is aimed at limiting substantially increased rouble depreciation risks and inflation risks," the central bank said in a statement. The decision is effective from Tuesday.

The leap in rate follows an increase to the prior rate of 10.5% on 11 December and an increase of 1.5% to 9.5% in October.

The World Bank warned the Russian economy would shrink by at least 0.7% in 2015 if oil prices do not recover.

Raising interest rates has its own risks, as more expensive borrowing can itself slow growth. But it may also stem the tide of money leaving the country.

Oil prices slumped to lows not seen for five-and-a-half years. US benchmark crude West Texas Intermediate traded at $55.91 per barrel, while North Sea Brent crude traded near $60 per barrel. Both markets have fallen by almost half since June.

Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it is, to smoke out Iran and Russia.

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

I'm not sure the US has as much influence over the Saudis as is made out. After all, it hasn't been in the interests of the US for oil prices to soar the way they have in recent years. Not that I would dismiss your argument out of hand though.

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

I'm not sure the US has as much influence over the Saudis as is made out. After all, it hasn't been in the interests of the US for oil prices to soar the way they have in recent years. Not that I would dismiss your argument out of hand though.

The rise of oil prices always see money flood into the dollar thus strengthening it. Considering the state of their debt mountain and their ongoing deficit this might have been seen as useful. The Russians and the Iranians have been trying to trade oil/gas outside the dollar thus attempting to undermine it. (The first country to try this was Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2000).

There are pros and cons on all of these actions but at the moment, especially when Putin was mooning at the White House in Ukraine, I would say that this scenario was appealing.

The Saudis would hardly deliberately piss off the US (NATO), Russians & Iranians all at the same time?

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

The fall in the oil price is bad for the Eurozone which is fighting deflation.
It needs inflation to get the debt burden down.
It's bad for highly leveraged frackers as well. And countries like venezuela.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/16/russia-has-lost-economic-war-with-west-rouble-currency

As I said, I wouldn't dismiss suggestions of US manipulation of oil prices out of hand. But the simpler explanation is that US oil production has rocketed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11215412/US-oil-production-surge-to-break-Saudi-Arabias-grip-on-world-energy.html). Good luck trying to separate that out from the fall in price to be able to identify the manipulation.

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
As I said, I wouldn't dismiss suggestions of US manipulation of oil prices out of hand. But the simpler explanation is that US oil production has rocketed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11215412/US-oil-production-surge-to-break-Saudi-Arabias-grip-on-world-energy.html). Good luck trying to separate that out from the fall in price to be able to identify the manipulation.

Fair enough, Deiseach, but this took the market by complete surprise
Might be linked to China slowing down as well. 

The accepted wisdom was that fracking couldn't produce the amount necessary to make a dent in Opec's share of the market. Looks like this may have been wrong. Bye-bye, Yogi Bear!

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

The fall in the oil price is bad for the Eurozone which is fighting deflation.
It needs inflation to get the debt burden down.
It's bad for highly leveraged frackers as well. And countries like venezuela.

Surely lower energy prices for the EU will reduce 'imports', improve national trade deficits and leave more money in people's pockets? Not that this is the objective of course.

Larry Elliott thinks it is down to US manipulation:

QuoteRussia has just lost the economic war with the west
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 December 2014 11.58 GMT (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/16/russia-has-lost-economic-war-with-west-rouble-currency)

A full-blown currency crisis. That's one way to describe the situation in Russia, where even the attempted "shock and awe" of a 6.5 percentage point-hike in interest rates failed to halt the rouble's slide on the foreign exchanges. The other is to say that Russia has been engaged in an economic war with the west – and has just lost.

Put simply, this was Moscow's Norman Lamont moment. Back in September 1992, the then chancellor said he would defend the pound and keep Britain in the exchange rate mechanism by raising official borrowing costs to 15%, even though the economy was in deep trouble at the time.

Russia is in even worse shape than Britain was in 1992. With a clapped-out manufacturing sector, it is over-reliant on its massive stocks of oil and gas at a time when the price of oil is falling through the floor. A barrel of Brent crude was trading at below $60 a barrel on Tuesday, compared to a recent peak of $115 in the summer.

The west knows all about the vulnerability of Russia's economy. When the introduction of sanctions over Russia's support for the separatists in Ukraine failed to bring Vladimir Putin to heel, the US and the Saudi Arabians decided to hurt Russia by driving down oil prices. Both countries will face some collateral damage as a result – and this could be considerable in the case of the US shale sector – but both were prepared to take the risk on the grounds that Russia would suffer much more pain. This has proved to be true.

At some point, lower oil prices will lead to stronger global growth, because consumers will have more money to spend and businesses will have more spare cash to invest. At that point, the price of oil will rise. But we are not there yet; in the short term the oil price is likely to keep falling.

So where does that leave Russia? Like Lamont, it has reached the end of the road with interest-rate increases. If a 6.5-point rise proves insufficient to halt the collapse of the rouble, it is hard to know what would do the trick. What's more, it's clear that some members of the policy elite in Moscow are unhappy with the idea of further damaging an already weak economy through draconian increases in interest rates to defend the currency.

As a result, there are now only two options. The first is to allow the rouble to find its own level, in the hope that the decline in the oil price will prove temporary and that rising demand for energy as the global economy recovers will push up the rouble against the dollar. The other is to introduce stringent capital controls. These are seen very much as a last resort by Moscow, but may prove necessary if the rouble rout continues.

The phrase "perfect storm" is much over-used, but in Russia's case it is entirely apposite. The country has a collapsing currency, a collapsing economy and sky-high interest rates. The question now is how the Putin government responds. If Moscow softens its line over Ukraine, it will be a case of mission accomplished for the west. But if economic agony makes a wounded Russian bear even more belligerent, it could prove to be a hollow victory.

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 02:08:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

The fall in the oil price is bad for the Eurozone which is fighting deflation.
It needs inflation to get the debt burden down.
It's bad for highly leveraged frackers as well. And countries like venezuela.

Surely lower energy prices for the EU will reduce 'imports', improve national trade deficits and leave more money in people's pockets? Not that this is the objective of course.

All that but it will put downward pressure on wages leading to more price falls which lends to heavier debt burdens since deflation increases the real value of debt.
EZ inflation was something like 0.2% in September  with falling oil prices blamed.
The ECB has a target of 2% inflation.   And needs more like 3-4%.

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 02:52:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 02:08:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

The fall in the oil price is bad for the Eurozone which is fighting deflation.
It needs inflation to get the debt burden down.
It's bad for highly leveraged frackers as well. And countries like venezuela.

Surely lower energy prices for the EU will reduce 'imports', improve national trade deficits and leave more money in people's pockets? Not that this is the objective of course.

All that but it will put downward pressure on wages leading to more price falls which lends to heavier debt burdens since deflation increases the real value of debt.
EZ inflation was something like 0.2% in September  with falling oil prices blamed.
The ECB has a target of 2% inflation.   And needs more like 3-4%.

I am no economist but I don't get this sweeping statement that all deflation is bad.

Certainly overall deflation is not good. But, for example, technology always has deflation. A plasma TV or 1 Terra-byte computer would have cost a fortune 8 years ago. But their price always deflates and it still doesn't stop people buying what is actually a luxury item, while they wait for the price to come down, which they know it will. (Actually whey do wait initially and then buy away regardless one it is affordable. After that deflation is irrelevant.).

Obviously property deflation is problematic as it is linked to debt and bank balance sheets, and for most people is probably their largest purchases in their lifetimes.

But energy prices falling and affecting inflation. How can that be bad? Cheaper energy for people. It is not as if they will put off buying energy due to the falling price. We buy it when we need it.

What am I missing here?

When two people have the both hands on each others throats, the stronger one knows he'll suffocate the other one before he runs out of air.

America and Saudi are betting that they've more air in the tank than Russia

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 03:21:17 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 02:52:19 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 02:08:35 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 01:32:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 12:37:15 PM

Quote from: deiseach on December 16, 2014, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: theskull1 on December 16, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
Does anyone believe that this oil price collapse isn't a power play by the west and their Arab cohorts?

I think it's fair to say that Saudi Arabia is happy to see the price plummet to put a lot of the competition out of business. But seeing as the most vulnerable competitors are American frackers, it's not really in the interests of the west, i.e. America.

The pros for the US include destroying the Russian economy, hammering the Iranian economy and cheap prices at the gas station for a couple of years in the run up to a presidential election.

The con is a delaying in the extraction of wealth for the frackers.

I think it is definitely in the interests of the US.

The fall in the oil price is bad for the Eurozone which is fighting deflation.
It needs inflation to get the debt burden down.
It's bad for highly leveraged frackers as well. And countries like venezuela.

Surely lower energy prices for the EU will reduce 'imports', improve national trade deficits and leave more money in people's pockets? Not that this is the objective of course.

All that but it will put downward pressure on wages leading to more price falls which lends to heavier debt burdens since deflation increases the real value of debt.
EZ inflation was something like 0.2% in September  with falling oil prices blamed.
The ECB has a target of 2% inflation.   And needs more like 3-4%.

I am no economist but I don't get this sweeping statement that all deflation is bad.

Certainly overall deflation is not good. But, for example, technology always has deflation. A plasma TV or 1 Terra-byte computer would have cost a fortune 8 years ago. But their price always deflates and it still doesn't stop people buying what is actually a luxury item, while they wait for the price to come down, which they know it will. (Actually whey do wait initially and then buy away regardless one it is affordable. After that deflation is irrelevant.).
Obviously property deflation is problematic as it is linked to debt and bank balance sheets, and for most people is probably their largest purchases in their lifetimes.But energy prices falling and affecting inflation. How can that be bad? Cheaper energy for people. It is not as if they will put off buying energy due to the falling price. We buy it when we need it.

What am I missing here?

Deflation and what it means for debt

All of the adjustment required by the Germans will take place through austerity and price deflation in the periphery. Most of the adjustment still lies ahead. Furthermore, it has been decided that debt burdens will be reduced by paying them off – not by inflation, default or debt forgiveness. So for Italy the Germans want to see prices falling and wages falling to get the economy competitive again.
This is nuts.  If Italy already has a debt to GDP ratio of 130% and the economy contracts by say 10% over 4 years as deflation takes hold
(reminds me of this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuuObGsB0No)

then it will have a debt to GDP ratio of 130/0.9 = 144% or so - all going in the wrong direction

Normally you expect debt burdens to reduce as the economy grows but with deflation it grows. 
Bond markets are not pricing deflation into yields. Deflation makes default more likely.

Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Pick cars then. Or stuff that usually increases in price.
When people hold off on buying because they expect prices to fall it's very hard to stop the cycle continuing.
Debt requires  economic growth , otherwise it strangles the economy.

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 07:49:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Pick cars then. Or stuff that usually increases in price.
When people hold off on buying because they expect prices to fall it's very hard to stop the cycle continuing.
Debt requires  economic growth , otherwise it strangles the economy.

Not an expert but think

1) lower oil prices should stimulate aggregate demand and therefore growth as obviously oil is an input for many more industries than it is an output.

2) while it is true that initial inflation readings will be lower as a result of lower oil prices, if prices were to stay the same for a year then the impact on inflation will be removed as the base level has changed. Think what is important is not so much the current rate of inflation but inflation expectations for the future and as a result of 1) if nothing else was going on, then inflation expectations should go up

There is a lot else going on however. Russia looks to be in full blown currency crisis and Indonesia's currency not so hot either, while China is slowing down. All in all, it looks like EM demand is slowing, so possible that EU local demand goes up but falling demand from EM offsets this partially or completely. What the net impact on euro zone inflation will be I have no idea...

Quote from: CiKe on December 16, 2014, 08:59:10 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 07:49:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Pick cars then. Or stuff that usually increases in price.
When people hold off on buying because they expect prices to fall it's very hard to stop the cycle continuing.
Debt requires  economic growth , otherwise it strangles the economy.

Not an expert but think

1) lower oil prices should stimulate aggregate demand and therefore growth as obviously oil is an input for many more industries than it is an output.

2) while it is true that initial inflation readings will be lower as a result of lower oil prices, if prices were to stay the same for a year then the impact on inflation will be removed as the base level has changed. Think what is important is not so much the current rate of inflation but inflation expectations for the future and as a result of 1) if nothing else was going on, then inflation expectations should go up

There is a lot else going on however. Russia looks to be in full blown currency crisis and Indonesia's currency not so hot either, while China is slowing down. All in all, it looks like EM demand is slowing, so possible that EU local demand goes up but falling demand from EM offsets this partially or completely. What the net impact on euro zone inflation will be I have no idea...

From FT yesterday:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3f5e4914-8490-11e4-ba4f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3M65PuWB7



"In normal times, the broad effects of the oil price drop on the global economy are well known. It should act as an international stimulus that will nevertheless redistribute heavily from oil producing countries to consumers and the longer the new prices endure, the more profound will be the effects on the structure of industries across the world.
But this time, economists are actively debating whether the world has changed and other moving parts — such as falling inflation levels and the strong dollar — will throw sand into the works of the usual economic relationships.
But when oil prices fall, there is no iron law that enhances global economic growth. The main effect is a huge redistribution from oil producers, who receive less for the effort of extracting the black gold, to consumers who benefit from cheaper transportation and energy, enabling them to spend more money on other goods and services or to save their windfall.
Most economists still agree with Christine Lagarde, IMF managing director, who this month said that "it is good news for the global economy". The positive effect on growth should arise because oil consumers tend to spend more of their gains than oil producers cut their consumption."

Quote from: CiKe on December 16, 2014, 08:59:10 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 07:49:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Pick cars then. Or stuff that usually increases in price.
When people hold off on buying because they expect prices to fall it's very hard to stop the cycle continuing.
Debt requires  economic growth , otherwise it strangles the economy.

Not an expert but think

1) lower oil prices should stimulate aggregate demand and therefore growth as obviously oil is an input for many more industries than it is an output.

2) while it is true that initial inflation readings will be lower as a result of lower oil prices, if prices were to stay the same for a year then the impact on inflation will be removed as the base level has changed. Think what is important is not so much the current rate of inflation but inflation expectations for the future and as a result of 1) if nothing else was going on, then inflation expectations should go up

There is a lot else going on however. Russia looks to be in full blown currency crisis and Indonesia's currency not so hot either, while China is slowing down. All in all, it looks like EM demand is slowing, so possible that EU local demand goes up but falling demand from EM offsets this partially or completely. What the net impact on euro zone inflation will be I have no idea...

Normally it might stimulate demand but the main problem now is weak bargaining power for workers meaning pay rises are no higher than inflation. So petrol might be cheaper but they won't get real pay rises.
The neo Victorian distribution of wealth is also favourable towards deflation. Rich people don't care about it as long as asset prices stay high. they are more afraid of inflation.

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 09:31:59 PM

Quote from: CiKe on December 16, 2014, 08:59:10 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 07:49:52 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 06:27:19 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 16, 2014, 06:25:13 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
Yes but surely deflation of energy prices, imported into the EU, is not the same as a reduction in the purchasing power of the Euro, which is the deflation they are talking about.

Inflation and deflation are actually defined as the increase and decrease of the money supply. Prices are a secondary effect that sometimes don't follow the rule. E.G the US has dramatically increased the money supply, but there has been little inflation in the US. The EU is about to try the same thing.

Anyway, I am curious as to the real effect of falling oil prices, which is an import into the Eurozone (i.e. we don't produce any) on the money supply. There have to be many effects other than a simple deflationary one.

It depends on what happens to salaries and price expectations.
If people expect prices to fall they'll hold off until they do.
So that ipod can wait until February. 
the Euro is already struggling to shake off deflation.

But technology is always getting cheaper. That iPod in February might be a 128GB rather than a 64GB.

One difference I could see is that grain prices might fall as a result of a drop off in demand for biofuels thus driving prices down.

Pick cars then. Or stuff that usually increases in price.
When people hold off on buying because they expect prices to fall it's very hard to stop the cycle continuing.
Debt requires  economic growth , otherwise it strangles the economy.

Not an expert but think

1) lower oil prices should stimulate aggregate demand and therefore growth as obviously oil is an input for many more industries than it is an output.

2) while it is true that initial inflation readings will be lower as a result of lower oil prices, if prices were to stay the same for a year then the impact on inflation will be removed as the base level has changed. Think what is important is not so much the current rate of inflation but inflation expectations for the future and as a result of 1) if nothing else was going on, then inflation expectations should go up

There is a lot else going on however. Russia looks to be in full blown currency crisis and Indonesia's currency not so hot either, while China is slowing down. All in all, it looks like EM demand is slowing, so possible that EU local demand goes up but falling demand from EM offsets this partially or completely. What the net impact on euro zone inflation will be I have no idea...

Normally it might stimulate demand but the main problem now is weak bargaining power for workers meaning pay rises are no higher than inflation. So petrol might be cheaper but they won't get real pay rises.
The neo Victorian distribution of wealth is also favourable towards deflation. Rich people don't care about it as long as asset prices stay high. they are more afraid of inflation.

Don't dispute that worker bargaining power is low right now but you claimed that lower oil prices will put further pressure on wages and say that lower oil prices are bad for the eurozone. I'm not following your logic as all else equal lower oil prices are good for the economy which is good for the average worker. Or maybe better to look at this the other way around.  Workers may not see their gross pay increase but they should have more disposable income to spend on non-essentials. If we assume not all is saved then that leads to growth.

I'm not trying to dispute deflation is a serious and worrying threat by the way.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usfunds.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Finvestor-alert%2F_2014%2F2014-11-14%2FCOMM-the-acceleration-of-oil-production-in-the-US-is-one-of-the-key-causes-of-recent-declines-in-oil-prices-11132014-lg.gif&f=1)

Increased US production and reduced demand. China is slowing down. Commodity prices are down a lot over the last 6 months as well. 

Quote from: seafoid on January 05, 2015, 07:53:43 PM
Increased US production and reduced demand. China is slowing down. Commodity prices are down a lot over the last 6 months as well.

Obama's people have shown themselves to be very clever and able to get things done with or without The Senate & Congress, and notably without going to war.

Quote from: muppet on January 05, 2015, 08:23:40 PM

Quote from: seafoid on January 05, 2015, 07:53:43 PM
Increased US production and reduced demand. China is slowing down. Commodity prices are down a lot over the last 6 months as well.

Obama's people have shown themselves to be very clever and able to get things done with or without The Senate & Congress, and notably without going to war.

"Stock markets believe slide from peak of $115 a barrel reflects slowdown in China, recession in Japan and looming eurozone deflation"

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/05/asda-cuts-petrol-price-diesel

I hope Obama is not too deflated

Quote from: seafoid on January 05, 2015, 09:05:53 PM

Quote from: muppet on January 05, 2015, 08:23:40 PM

Quote from: seafoid on January 05, 2015, 07:53:43 PM
Increased US production and reduced demand. China is slowing down. Commodity prices are down a lot over the last 6 months as well.

Obama's people have shown themselves to be very clever and able to get things done with or without The Senate & Congress, and notably without going to war.

"Stock markets believe slide from peak of $115 a barrel reflects slowdown in China, recession in Japan and looming eurozone deflation"

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/05/asda-cuts-petrol-price-diesel

I hope Obama is not too deflated

It is Putin who is deflated.

http://gasoil.steelguru.com/global/6383/lithuania_signs_us_deal_to_replace_russian_gas_deliveries (http://gasoil.steelguru.com/global/6383/lithuania_signs_us_deal_to_replace_russian_gas_deliveries)

Lithuania signs US deal to replace Russian gas deliveries

1 day 4 hours 53 minutes agohits: 10

(Follow @GasOilGuru on Twitter for important updates)

It is reported that the Baltic states' reliance on Russia for gas is a legacy of its five decades of Soviet rule The Baltic states' reliance on Russia for gas is a legacy of its five decades of Soviet rule

Lithuania said that it had signed a trade agreement to buy liquified natural gas from the United States in a move aimed at reducing the EU Baltic state's heavy dependence on Russian gas deliveries.

Under the deal with Houston-based Chenier Energy company, the first LNG fuel is expected to arrive in Lithuania as early as next year, state-owned company Litgas said in a statement.

Yes there is a war comin..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-is-preparing-for-a-possible-war-a7476316.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-is-preparing-for-a-possible-war-a7476316.html)

So, France bomb the shit out of Syria a couple of years ago, and the response is the attacks on Paris and also Bastille Day. The Germans welcome refugees and the response is the same. This does not equate. The only logic I can think is an ultimate power is deciding to keep us all in fear, no matter what choice governments make. Keep us all in a state of mania while money is made in a realm that Islam,Christianity, Race does not matter. What matters is the bottom line and the profits of war.

Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on December 21, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
So, France bomb the shit out of Syria a couple of years ago, and the response is the attacks on Paris and also Bastille Day. The Germans welcome refugees and the response is the same. This does not equate. The only logic I can think is an ultimate power is deciding to keep us all in fear, no matter what choice governments make. Keep us all in a state of mania while money is made in a realm that Islam,Christianity, Race does not matter. What matters is the bottom line and the profits of war.

This is it.

Religion, States, Nations, Monarchies, Revolutionaries, Counter-Revolutionaries, Left, Right, etc, etc, etc. Cui Bono?

Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on December 21, 2016, 10:55:29 PM
So, France bomb the shit out of Syria a couple of years ago, and the response is the attacks on Paris and also Bastille Day. The Germans welcome refugees and the response is the same. This does not equate. The only logic I can think is an ultimate power is deciding to keep us all in fear, no matter what choice governments make. Keep us all in a state of mania while money is made in a realm that Islam,Christianity, Race does not matter. What matters is the bottom line and the profits of war.

Or maybe the logic is lone poorly educated/vulnerable/mentally ill nutcases falling for a sick, cultish* ideology and deciding to kill innocent people.

*also works with n replacing l.