Strike against Syria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

2007 Biden and Obama both say the president has no constitutional authority to take unilateral military action. Biden goes so far as to call it an impeachable offense! I guess they were speaking not of the President in general but George W. Bush in particular. The hypocrisy is borderline painful. It still boggles my mind that in a country full of brilliant people, these two buffoons run our country and were actually re-elected.
FLASHBACK: Obama and Biden opposed unilateral military action, Biden wanted to impeach Bush - YouTube

---

The hypocrisy does not surprise me in the least. What sickens me is how the general public was persuaded to take such a strong opinion against the previous administration and yet seem to have no opinion about what is happening today. It goes to show you the level of influence the left has on public perception in this country. Publicly those who were supportive of the prior administration were forced to give thought to the administrations policies on military interventions. But the supporters of this administration carry on as if its not even happening. When our system works well, we keep each other honest. We did very little to vet this president and have done little to vet his policies and actions since then. And I sincerely believe we will regret that in years to come.

When I believed that our involvement was out of concern for oil and profit it concerned me greatly, but I was able to at least understand those motives.
Now I have no idea why we're still involved in what seem to be nothing but sectarian conflicts that had no beginning and will have no end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnus

When I believed that our involvement was out of concern for oil and profit it concerned me greatly, but I was able to at least understand those motives.
Now I have no idea why we're still involved in what seem to be nothing but sectarian conflicts that had no beginning and will have no end.

---

Exactly. Like it or not, a case can be made for the flow of oil. We use oil for so many purposes. One person might not find that enough to to go to war, I accept that. But it's justification for someone else. And a valid case for national interest can be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

Exactly. Like it or not, a case can be made for the flow of oil. We use oil for so many purposes. One person might not find that enough to to go to war, I accept that. But it's justification for someone else. And a valid case for national interest can be made.

---

Oil - we got some!

"Oil reserves in Canada were estimated at 179 billion barrels (28×109 m3) in 2007. This figure includes the oil sands reserves that are estimated by government regulators to be economically producible at current prices using current technology.[1] According to this figure, Canada's reserves are third only to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia."

Canada's Oil Reserves 2nd Only To Saudi Arabia - By Campion Walsh, Dow Jones Newswires, Petroleumworld.com:

Canada's Oil Reserves 2nd Only To Saudi Arabia

There was a great documentary sometime ago about Canadian oil, the Texans really got it, knew what the potential is, knew that we already were the #2 supplier of oil to the US.

But Robert Redford and his crew think that our oil is, "dirty" (like any oil is clean?), but purchasing from the Saudi's is OK, not that they fund terrorism or have an oppressive regime or anything like that.

Word here is that Obama will sign the Keystone pact before he leaves office, he wouldn't do it before (even though it makes perfect sense) because he'd lose the Left vote (and couldn't hang with Robert Redford and friends), but will sign it nonetheless.

I remember a great line from one of the Texas oilmen, he said there are pipelines everywhere, going everywhere already, and the one pipeline they didn't want to see, was the one going anywhere but the US.

A Citigroup report forecasts that Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by 2030

"A recent Citigroup report argues that Saudi Arabia may turn into a net oil importer by 2030. This possibility worries not only the Saudis, but also oil importers which rely on Riyadh to stabilize energy markets. However, many analysts seem persuaded that the ongoing shale revolution will prevent energy scarcity."

Is Saudi Arabia really running out of oil? - ABO - About Oil and Energy

It will be a fun and fine day, when all the Ferrari, Harrods, etc.. dealerships close in Saudi Arabia, Dubai returns to a dust bowl, and within two hundred years of discovering and selling oil, Saudi Arabia will have gone from a rag to riches to rags story, when North America is energy efficient and we export oil and energy to our allies, where OPEC is irrelevant and we don't read things like this, "Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria." (The Times, UK, Thurs Aug 29/13)

Good friends to have those Saudi's....:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phrank

It will be a fun and fine day, when all the Ferrari, Harrods, etc.. dealerships close in Saudi Arabia, Dubai returns to a dust bowl, and within two hundred years of discovering and selling oil, Saudi Arabia will have gone from a rag to riches to rags story, when North America is energy efficient and we export oil and energy to our allies, where OPEC is irrelevant...

---

I think you, perhaps, meant "energy independent".

Regarding OPEC as becoming "irrelevant": There are, currently, twelve OPEC member nations (Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela), and all of the major oil companies -- BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell -- will continue doing business-as-usual with them, even after the Saudis' wells have gone-dry. It's business... profits. OPEC will never become "irrelevant" -- certainly not for the US -- unless/until the US opts for a nationwide investment in nuclear power (or finally figures-out cold fusion).

And, regarding the US becoming an "energy exporter": Not happening... unless/until we rebuild our national electric grid (and that ain't happening, because there's no/not-enough profit in it for the deregulated energy suppliers).

This is about to get interesting, Putin is moving 2 Russian warships into the area, there has been speculation that Russian assets will be used as a blocking agent much like putting important assets next to Hospitals and Schools...


Until somebody can explain to me that there is an upside to this, beside a punitive reaction to the use of CW's I am against any action...

It would be different if we thought we could hit the CW's safely, or if we were going in with the intent of regime change, but that is exactly what we (the American Public) are being told is NOT the mission objective...


So either we are finally getting smart and not telling our enemies what the military is going to do, or we are still being idiots...

Time will tell

Just hearing

5th DDG moving into position

USS Stout (DDG-55) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also there are going to be 2 Aircarft carriers in the area

The Harry S Truman and the Nimitz will overlap patrols in the area.. The Nimitz is in the Persian Gulf and the Truman is moving into the Indian ocean


http://rt.com/usa/us-military-syria-strike-111/


Oh and the IDF is handing out Gas Masks

The use of poison gas has been unthinkable worldwide since the end of WW1, even the Nazis did not use it. Like nuclear weapons, its sole purpose has been as a threat to keep out invaders. Perhaps a limited strike to destroy these munitions is coming. Military intervention for peacekeeping or nation building may or may not work. Peace was restored in the balkans, but Iraq has been a costly disaster, especially for Iraqis.

Zyklon B was the gas of choice for the Nazi's operating the death camps resulting in millions of deaths.

A view from the other side Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria - English pravda.ru on Russian deployment of naval assets to the Med. Gentlemen we are about to watch yet another dance of the tangled sphincters. Standby for S&Gs.

Bob