No, but it doesn't necessarily harm us. How much has the Congolese civil war harmed us? Or even gained our attention?I get your point. But a civil war that never ends doesn't help us either.Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The war in Syria (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Geezil
- Start date
The Muslim Brotherhood want to establish an Islamic state and expand Islamic power. The military want to keep things calm so they can get rich. Which would you like to see win, from the standpoint of the US?Not headline challenged. Just meaning to imply whether or not it is in the United States' best interests to have the Egyptian military or the Muslim Brotherhood "win" in Egypt either.Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
"Democracy"The Muslim Brotherhood want to establish an Islamic state and expand Islamic power. The military want to keep things calm so they can get rich. Which would you like to see win, from trhe standpoint of the US?Not headline challenged. Just meaning to imply whether or not it is in the United States' best interests to have the Egyptian military or the Muslim Brotherhood "win" in Egypt either.Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's different. Syria is too close to the oil producers. That makes all the difference, even if our government can never say it.No, but it doesn't necessarily harm us. How much has the Congolese civil war harmed us? Or even gained our attention?I get your point. But a civil war that never ends doesn't help us either.Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
"Democracy"The Muslim Brotherhood want to establish an Islamic state and expand Islamic power. The military want to keep things calm so they can get rich. Which would you like to see win, from trhe standpoint of the US?Not headline challenged. Just meaning to imply whether or not it is in the United States' best interests to have the Egyptian military or the Muslim Brotherhood "win" in Egypt either.Well,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
Having an "Islamic state" (A DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED Islamic state) isn't the problem. Also see: the United Arab Emirates. Terrorism? Iran? Problem. But that does not automatically mean that Islam = Bad/Danger/Terror. Any more than "Catholic" means child molester (or people being tolerant/indifferent to it).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Just suppose, for a moment, that there was no oil in the Middle East or that oil was useless. Can you imagine the indifference?
he, or at least Syria, has always been in bed with themWell,if you're headline challenged, the OP did say Syria.Just so that I'm clear here...are we talking Syria, or Egypt?!
Assad is in bed with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. That's quite a foursome. If he wins this thing, he makes nothing but trouble for Israel, Jordan (our lone friend among the Arabs) and us. So we don't let him win. On the other hand, the rebels are being dominated more and more by Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The secularists are being shunted aside. If we let them win, they will turn and make trouble for...the usual suspects. So we don't let them win.
sure would be nice to be using all of this $$ on domestic issues, such as energy, than policing the middle east.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It would be Africa. The oil isn't just a resource we covet, but the means by which those countries have made money and gathered somewhat modern weapons.
cstu
Footballguy
And yet not many are with me on converting our transportation to U.S. produced hydrogen fuel. The biggest hurdle is the lack of filling stations. For $120 billion (not even factoring in economies of scale) we could could add hydrogen fuel to every gas station in the country. A lot of money, sure, but a drop in the bucket compared to what we're spending to keep a grip on our access to oil.
Imagine how our economy would be if the $387 billion we spend on foreign oil per year was instead paid to Americans who produce hydrogen here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
If I am an American politician, I would be scared to death of this situation. If you support an attack on the Syrian govt., you leave yourself open to a major political attack: you sided with and provided support to Al Qaeda. Someone here already posted the Lieberman remarks on this. In a quick sound bite, it does sound bad to point out a politician supported AQ in Syria.
msommer
Footballguy
Not to hijack but what would be the pump cost (assuming similar taxation, profit levels etc) of the equivalent in hydrogen of one gallon of unleaded?
How much investment would be required to produce enough hydrogen to replace gasoline at the pump?
What water source are you considering and what would be the environmental impact of diverting that water through our cars?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Great post, but we know the major players pulling the strings have too much money tied to oil to support this.
cstu
Footballguy
I would expect taxes would be adjusted to keep revenue the same - hydrogen is about 2.5x more efficient so instead of .50 per gallon of gas the tax would be $1.25 per kg of hydrogen.
While the initial cost of new plants would be high, I think the cost to build plants would be covered by the sale of the fuel. The great thing about hydrogen fuel is price stability - no more worrying about fighting in the ME jacking up gas prices. In fact, as hydrogen becomes mass produced it should only drop in price.
If more water is needed then we can produce it using solar powered desalination plants.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
I realize that and it will likely take $200 a barrel oil before people force something to happen. Unfortunately we'll be behind the curve once again and be paying hundreds of billions more per year for oil until we can finally get off of it.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
jamny
Footballguy
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'WASHINGTON (AP) — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.
President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.
The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their plans.
Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Syrian issue publicly.
U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.
In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.
The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.
The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.
"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."
On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn't really matter whether the administration knew those details with total certainty.
"We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," Harf said.
The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response.
"Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate."
Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.
"There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack," Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.
President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."
However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.
The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their plans.
Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Syrian issue publicly.
U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.
In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.
Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.
The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.
The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.
"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."
On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn't really matter whether the administration knew those details with total certainty.
"We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," Harf said.
The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response.
"Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate."
Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.
"There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack," Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.
Jayrok
Footballguy
But I thought it isn't about oil. John Kerry says it is about moral obscenities. And it is America's duty to represent the association of decent countries of earth to seek out and punish these immoral regimes.
jamny
Footballguy
Sure oil plays a part in it but it's not only about oil. Even if we were energy independant that doesn't mean the rest of the world would be. They would still be making money, there would still be terrorism and we would still be put into a position of having to respond. It's more about power and control than oil.
Jayrok
Footballguy
So are we responding because it is an act of terrorism or because they are making money to fund terrorism? Is punishing immoral behavior just a smoke screen to gain public approval while the plan is to gain control in the region? If it is about preventing them from making money, why wouldn't we bomb Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well?
jamny
Footballguy
Who knows what the real motivation is. There are so many implications to intervention in Syria. So many players. I'll stick to my possibly naive perception that we are doing it because we cannot let chemical weapons usage go on without repercussions. If we don't do something now and he does it again, do we respond then? How about another time, or another region like Egypt? Put a stop to it early and let them continue to blow each other up. Chemical weapons are a red line that shouldn't be crossed.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
We win this thing yet?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I do. This is consistent with the way Obama went to war with Libya, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity about WMDs.
Jayrok
Footballguy
But why are we ordained to respond? If they used chemical weapons on another country like Egypt or Israel, sure the international community should step in and respond. But it's just us and a couple of jeeps from the UK that get tagged.
What if the US said we'll use our Navy and cruise missiles, etc., but someone else in the international community pays the bill? Why do we as taxpayers have to absorb the costs?
jamny
Footballguy
I'm with you on that. Charge the Saudis.
With the UK wavering it's looking more and more like we do nothing or go it alone.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Why? Saddam had chemical weapons too and used them, his nuke program was not as far along as we feared. It is not like bombing the hell out of Syria and hoping something good arises out of the mess is any better plan today than it was in Iraq.
jamny
Footballguy
I just think he could have had more leeway had he not made the comment. Maybe more diplomatic avenues instead of military. Get Russia to repremand them or something. Russia can't be thrilled with the chemical use.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
If I were president, first thing I'd do is give everyone in the army sneakers. Get around that whole "boots on the ground" loophole.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Over/Under on time of attack is 1 pm ET today.
Parrothead
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
culdeus
Footballguy
Ok, well why not this plan:
-Bomb the crap out of Syrian Airbases and any missle/air defense bases they could use.
-This makes Tim and Israel happy as they won't lob anything in that direction
-This makes Russia mad, but it's a fake made because they know Syria will need new weapons $$$$$
-Doesn't risk civilian deaths (much) so won't make us look stupid.
-The syrian military and their moms are ##### anyways
What could possibly go wrong?
-Bomb the crap out of Syrian Airbases and any missle/air defense bases they could use.
-This makes Tim and Israel happy as they won't lob anything in that direction
-This makes Russia mad, but it's a fake made because they know Syria will need new weapons $$$$$
-Doesn't risk civilian deaths (much) so won't make us look stupid.
-The syrian military and their moms are ##### anyways
What could possibly go wrong?
jamny
Footballguy
Night time in Syria on Friday so as not to affect our stock market right away.
7PM (EST) on Friday
timschochet
Footballguy
I haven't spoken to Israel lately so I don't know what his views on this subject are. But I'll be sure to ask him next time we hang out.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Good point. But I think we would be indifferent toward Syria.
timschochet
Footballguy
Agreed. Obama has been very consistent, and, up to this point, a terrific foreign policy President. But I do question this latest decision, if he takes it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Israel is black. Israel Johnson. Don't know his religion.
timschochet
Footballguy
Disagree, but even if youre correct the differences between the two are stark. I don't much like the idea of bombing Syria, but much like Reagan putting troops in Lebanon and then pulling them out of Lebanon, it's not that significant an action long term one way or the other. Meanwhile, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the single worst foreign policy decision in American history.
