TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:So our pitiful president has a temper tantrum and Putin takes him to the woodshed and shows him how real leaders work international diplomacy. Good Heavens. I hope we don't pay for our president's hubris on our backs. Never ever thought I would see the day where a Russian...an ex-KGB.....would have more tact, discretion, subtlety and morals than an American president.

What I am thankful for is that someone had the guts to cool off our president before he put us into WWIII. What I worry about is why Putin did it. He did not do it to pull our posteriors out of the flame.....so there is another shoe to drop somewhere. If we are very lucky he was just being responsible enough as a world player to keep lightweight from really messing things up. I don't want to think about what motivated him if we are not so lucky.

Because losing the last Russian Navy support base on the Mediterranean sea and last Cold War Client for Russian Rusty tanks and useless obsolete warfare gear is very bad for Russia.

philip964 wrote:Putin to the rescue. Saves Obama from himself. Who would have thought.

Buddies are buddies for when one cries, save my Obama!

G26ster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.

So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

If the U.S. policy is to, as you say, "destroy and disperse any enemy of the Jewish state," why did we defend Kuwait, help to liberate Iraq and Libya, defend Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states.? How is defending them "destroying" them? Also, I don't recall any U.S. troops on the ground, or air support in the '67 war, or the later war with Egypt, or the retaliatory strikes in Lebanon. Sure, we help arm them like we help arm other allies, and like our enemies arm their allies. That's what allies do.

And as for it all being about oil, the U.S imports less Iraqi oil today than it did before 9/11/01.

I believe your "at any cost" is incorrect.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All the gulf states, including Kuwait were in the US "bag", Iraq was growing threat (Check with 1 above) after Iraq-Iran war and had to be contained, destroyed or dispersed.

Can you state what was the strategic US interest in 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war or in 2003 Iraq war? If, today, US has no interest in intervening in Syria war? Why it did in 1991 and 2003?

Hint: Check with 1) and 2) above.

If you read carefully, "oil fields" mean strategic explored and non-explored national oil reserve. KSA is #1, Iraq is #2 and Iran is #3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... l_reserves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Beiruty, let me ask you......

1. What about the other video of the purported Muslim Brotherhood guy bragging about A) having poison gas weapons, and B) being willing to use them against the families of the government's supporters?

2. What do you think about (former Assad ally) Hezbollah's claim that Assad used chemical weapons and called it a big mistake for Assad? (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebano ... z2eKF3f1Ua" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

3. What about the other video showing allegedly captured rebel chemical weapons labeled from a chemical plant in Saudi Arabia (which supports the rebels)? ........and.......

4. If you had to pick sides, who would you support.......or do you agree with some of us who think we should stay the heck out of it?

1. I can claim I have a shuttle in my garage and I can strap it with couple boosters and go to Mars too. Does it make true? no. A matter fact, Al-Qaeda had fighters experimenting with poisonous gas, but nothing like military grade agent like Sairin. Moreover, Syria invested billions and billions of dollars to acquire Bio and Chemical Strategic warfare to counter Israel's Nukes. Israel have nukes, and Syria, have both WMD and their delivery means.

2. Hizbullah are still and always be Assad's Special Strike forces for overt and covert operations. Such communication being intercepted is plausible but not necessary. Iran has an ambassador in Lebanon. The question, why call the one in Damascus?

3. KSA provides, $, small arms and medical supplies. All under the watch of US department of state.

4. US has to finance, arm and support secular and/or moderate Syrians who are fighting Assad regime. I as well as many thousands and thousands Sunnis in Lebanon and Syria, do not tolerate Wahabists, nor Some Islamic Brotherhood Extremist who are hell bent on violence. On the other hand, I and so many Sunnis do not like living under a Brutal Tyrant of Syria. Let me say, Syrian Intelligence Services (more than 17 branches) are nothing but a brutal killers like those Nazzi's Gestapo. US has the interest to build a replacement state force in Syria that can have its influence after the war settles.

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.


So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

philip964 wrote:My assumption has been that neither side made the nerve agents. Saddam transported the nerve agents to Syria right before we invaded. Assad has the ability to deliver nerve agents to the rebels, the rebels have no way of delivering the nerve agents to Assad. However they have the ability to use them on themselves.

If I remember my WW2 history correctly, German soldier posing as Polish soldiers attacked Germany, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. It was called the Gleiwitz incident.

But if stopping a dictator from using nerve agents was so critical to Obama, why was he uninterested in stopping Saddam when he repeatedly used nerve agents against his people (the Kurds) and Iran?

If you watch the videos linked on the blog I quoted previously in this thread, it SHOWS rebels firing what appears to be a sort of cross between a howitzer and a giant spigot mortar on wheels, and the projectile has a large gas weapon in the warhead. They are firing it across what appears to be at least several hundred meters. They have the means of battlefield delivery, just not larger artillery or aerial delivery assets.

This device is launching a propane gas tank, (the same you can buy from Walmart), with welded impact fuze and a small explosive. Kind of an incendiary explosive device. A cheap imitation of thermobaric explosive round.

I saw a video of Real Chemical WMD rocket that none but Assad's Army could have owned and used. Syria has Bio/Chemical Warfare Divisions in its Army. Are those only for show and tell?

BTW, if the use of Chemical Weapons and/or Bio warfare Weapons is allowed to go unchecked, expect Syria to transfer such weapons to Hizbullah of Lebanon. This really bad news for Lebanon and the Region.

Rebels have no chemical warfare capability nor the means to deliver such wmd. From the videos you noted hundreds of able body fighters were shown dead by sairin gas. Who is to be blamed? You decide.

Beiruty wrote:As a mater of truth, if the Syria Campaign does serve the interest of the Jewish state, Israel, the strike would happen no matter what.
End of the story.

For all "Nay sayers", how do you deal with Iran when Iran wants to go nuclear? If the threat of force is no more, than KSA and Turkey and maybe Egypt would go nuclear in 6 months after notifying and withdrawing from NPT.

As a mater of truth, if the Syria Campaign does serve the interest of the Jewish state, Israel, the strike would happen no matter what.
End of the story.

AEA wrote:

jmra wrote:My litmus test for the political world is very simple - if BO is for it, I'm against it. Apply that logic to the last 5 years and I think you come out with a pretty good track record.

How could anyone in their right mind believe anything the bozo says?

If the congress vote no, better for the President to resign and call for early elections.

And for the record, wahabisits assassinated my beloved moderate religious leader in 1995 and in Beirut, Lebanon. Why? because our leader never stopped a day or night refuting and revealing the danger of the extremists and deviants wahabists.

philip964 wrote:Wow I'm at James Coney Island they have CCN on.

Barbara Boxer as a hawk. John Kerry as a hawk.

It's kind of some alternate universe.

What is also interesting most of the anti war anti Bush Facebook friends are staying anti war.

They are not following Obama down this road. Most say things like don't bomb Syria bomb Monsanto.

We just need to get Hilliary to commit to this war like she did with Iraq.

Some thoughts:

Sunni - conservative Muslims. Think Osama.

Shia - much more secular, moderate.

Somehow I think because of Iran - Shia and Saudi Arabia - Sunni we have gotten on the wrong side.

Assad is Shia, the rebels are Sunni like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

There is an outfit called Wahabi, they are the most intolerant, they are Sunni.

I would hate to see our guys dieing for our future killers.

My two cents. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You are wrong about Shia and Sunnis and who is moderate and who is not.

Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Marines barracks in 1982 that left 250+ US soldier dead? Who was the responsible?
Have you all forget the Beirut Bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut? Who was the responsible?
How about the US citizens that were taken hostages in Beirut? Who did that?

When talking about who is moderate in Sunnis and who is not? The extremists are sliver small portions of the nation. In Shia, the militancy is embedded in the culture, the culture of a minority that wants to rule the Majority (sunnis) at any cost.

Limited air strike with limited outcome. Think of it as slap on the wrist. What is more effective is arm and train Ex-soldiers of the Syrian Armed forces who had defected and now fighting under the banner of Free Syrian Army.