Arabs to pay for our invasion of Syria??????

[CosmicCowboy]

What the Fuck? Have these people lost their fucking minds?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

[cheguevara]

Mercenary nation :lol

:lmao I knew choosing Ketchup as Secretary of State would be the gift that keeps on giving :lol

hope and change allright

[Koolaid_Man]

Mercenary nation :lol

hope and change allright

RUtDqKu7tDU

[EVAY]

What the Fuck? Have these people lost their fucking minds?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

Does that part of the quote not matter?

[DisAsTerBot]

Does that part of the quote not matter?

yeah, nobody's talking about it...except the conversation we had where they offered to finance it. Except for that conversation, nobody is talking about that.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think that's what is called a "trial balloon"...will people be OK if we invade Syria as long as someone else pays for it?

[EVAY]

I think that's what is called a "trial balloon"...will people be OK if we invade Syria as long as someone else pays for it?

Look, I think that Obama has been a complete fool on this issue, and if he had kept his f%$#%^%$ mouth shut instead of posturing about a 'red' line, we might not be in this mess right now.

But having said that, there is zero evidence that Obama has the slightest interest in having the U.S. work as mercenaries for the Arab nations.
There is nothing in his actions now or over the last x years that would indicate that he would accept that, much less push for it. He is not, for all his faults, another George W.

John Kerry saying on the record that some Arab states would LIKE us to play that role doesn't mean squat for saying what Obama wants to do or doesn't want to do.

I honestly believe that you are over-reading this one, CC.

[The Reckoning]

so now it's safe to say every major presidential candidate since gore (lmao) has been a war mongerer.

[SA210]

He is not, for all his faults, another George W.



http://stpeteforpeace.org/factsheets/obama.html

[EVAY]

http://stpeteforpeace.org/factsheets/obama.html

Yes, I am familiar with the items in the article you referenced. And no, I don't like the fact that Obama has continued most if not all of Bush's foreign policy initiatives. But Obama has NOT started a war (yet) that is based on no reason other than he hates the head of government, like Bush did in Iraq.

And no, I am not a Democrat who turns a blind eye when Obama does things that Bush did. I'm not a democrat at all and didn't vote that way in the last election.

BUT...what Obama is (imo) reasonably faulted for is his idiotic penchant for shooting off his mouth in ways that get the entire country into trouble (like making a claim about a 'red-line that he can't back up)...or like he did with respect to Gitmo.

That fault of Obama's is based on his extreme naiveté that seems to have all the critical thinking aspects of "I believe that if you are just nice to people they will be nice back". Didn't work with Republicans, didn't work with Russia, didn't work with almost anyone at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

Look, I think that Obama has been a complete fool on this issue, and if he had kept his f%$#%^%$ mouth shut instead of posturing about a 'red' line, we might not be in this mess right now.

But having said that, there is zero evidence that Obama has the slightest interest in having the U.S. work as mercenaries for the Arab nations.
There is nothing in his actions now or over the last x years that would indicate that he would accept that, much less push for it. He is not, for all his faults, another George W.

John Kerry saying on the record that some Arab states would LIKE us to play that role doesn't mean squat for saying what Obama wants to do or doesn't want to do.

I honestly believe that you are over-reading this one, CC.

Could be. But the fact that we are even considering committing US forces to support known Al Qaeda factions in Syria after what they did on 9/11 just blows me away.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a civil war between two bad choices. Launching a few cruise missiles and smart bombs and blowing up a few more non-combatants isn't gonna solve a fucking thing. and if it does, and Assad is overthrown we may end up with something even worse. What exactly is our end game here?

[cheguevara]

Saudis have a lot of stake. They felt their collars tighten while watching the Arab Spring uprisings.

They will not have that and the bombings in Lebanon, promise of $12 billion to the Egyptian army to control Muslim Brotherhood, and now, Regime change in Syria to protect their Eastern province where most of their oil reserves are concentrated are all not only ambitious moves, but moves to protect their livelyhoods. At least that is according to Prince Bandar Bush Bin Satan, the engineer of the NEW MIDDLE EAST.

as I said before, US is just a puppet and Saudi will not let something like democracy or money stand in the way of protecting their trillions. They are in a fight for survival and they have unlimited funds.

http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bandarr.jpg?resize=0%2C0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/on-the-middle-east/2013/aug/25/saudi-bahrain-kuwait-sectarianism-shia-sunni

Saudi Arabia has been in the news because of its staunch support for the military-backed government in Cairo – part of its wider strategy of resisting the Muslim Brotherhood and rolling back change. But closer to home the Saudis also back Bahrain's Al Khalifa rulers, a Sunni dynasty facing down protests by the island state's Shia and democratic opposition.

Toby Matthiesen's new study of the Gulf counter-revolutions demonstrates how the Saudis, Bahrain and Kuwait have all combined repression and cash handouts with an almost instinctive sectarianism to keep demands for reform at bay.

The Saudis had long fretted about unrest in their predominantly Shia eastern province — the heartland of the kingdom's oil industry. But when republican dictators were being toppled in Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli and revolution was in the air just across the Gulf in Manama, anti-Shia feeling was ratcheted up with the mass arrests of local activists who were accused of being part of a "foreign conspiracy." It was supposedly led by Iran, but beyond shrill propaganda from Tehran and dark hints about "sleeper cells," there is no evidence of that.

[boutons_deux]

Another "Coalition Of The Billing", like the First Gulf War

[boutons_deux]

Saudis would like Iran's influence lessened in Syria, which also has big influence in Lebanon, as would USA and Israel.

[Halberto]

Assuming this is a legitimate option, the Arabs are saying "Hey, we'd love to watch Americans die in this never-ending power struggle with Islam vs. your ideologies... In fact, we like the idea so much we'll fund the whole thing."

No matter how hard the media trys to spin it, the Arabic nations will never see our military presence in a positive light. Clearly they're not interested in being our buddies that we look after time to time.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1202/nobel-peace-prize-obama-nobel-for-war-politics-1330099312.jpeg

[cheguevara]

Saudis would like Iran's influence lessened in Syria, which also has big influence in Lebanon, as would USA and Israel.

that is what the pretext is, but in truth it is just to quell the Arab Spring uprising. People are giving Iran way too much credit if they believe Iran is responsible for the Arab Springs and the victories of the Muslim Brotherhood :lol

Bandar Bush Bin Satan is just a Saudi NEOCON that has aspirations to win the Middle East like morons such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and Karl Rove before him

[cheguevara]

Assuming this is a legitimate option, the Arabs are saying "Hey, we'd love to watch Americans die in this never-ending power struggle with Islam vs. your ideologies... In fact, we like the idea so much we'll fund the whole thing."

No matter how hard the media trys to spin it, the Arabic nations will never see our military presence in a positive light. Clearly they're not interested in being our buddies that we look after time to time.

:lol this has nothing to do with Ideologies

this is about cold hard cash and oil resources and regional strategies to deliver gas/oil to the mass markets at the highest price possible

Saudi kings don't give a shit if you worship Satan as long as they have their billions, planes, vacations and prostitutes(female AND male btw)

[ElNono]

Well, if we gonna whore out, can I at least get a check? :lol

[SA210]

Could be. But the fact that we are even considering committing US forces to support known Al Qaeda factions in Syria after what they did on 9/11 just blows me away.

This right here is what's worse than everything... that the public. Obama supporters, and msm is letting them get away with. supporting Al Qaeda. Frickin amazing.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1202/nobel-peace-prize-obama-nobel-for-war-politics-1330099312.jpeg

Obama didn't give himself the NPP.

[cheguevara]

Obama didn't give himself the NPP.

but he did receive it gladly while his Drone War strategy was sitting on his desk

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama didn't give himself the NPP.

http://www.indiastand.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2010/04/obama.jpg

It wasn't like he said...c'mon guys...Gandhi deserves it more than I do...

[SA210]

Obama didn't give himself the NPP.

:lmao You're going all out man

He sure did accept it.

[Das Texan]

Kerry must suck at negotiation. Cant even get the Arabs to assume some of our Chinese debt in this deal.

Bad business deal.

[cheguevara]

will fund billions for your war but won't let one single plane refuel in your territory on it's way to Syria :lol

Saudi kings are some sick puppies

[EVAY]

It's a civil war between two bad choices. Launching a few cruise missiles and smart bombs and blowing up a few more non-combatants isn't gonna solve a fucking thing. and if it does, and Assad is overthrown we may end up with something even worse. What exactly is our end game here?

This, I completely agree with. The other issue - where you are surprised that 'we are even considering committing U.S. Forces' - is what I think we are NOT doing. Somebody else suggesting a plan of action to us that that they want us to take does not mean that we are considering doing it...it only means that they want us to do this.

[Clipper Nation]

so now it's safe to say every major presidential candidate since gore (lmao) has been a war mongerer.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have both run for President multiple times since Gore, tbh..... the anti-war candidates have been there, they're just immediately deemed "unelectable" by the media, and like sheep, the electorate falls in line....

Btw, Gore argued for increased military spending and nation-building in 2000.... ironically, Dubya campaigned against it :lol

[ElNono]

they're just immediately deemed "unelectable" by the media

Elections are all about telling people what they want to hear... that's the bottom line... Ron Paul was never that kind of guy, and so that made him unelectable. It really isn't the media, his message just wasn't appealing.

Guys like him that run mostly on strict ideals don't understand the system: you have to win elections FIRST, then you get the power to do what you want to do.

[SA210]

That's called dishonesty nono

[cheguevara]

Elections are all about telling people what they want to hear... that's the bottom line... Ron Paul was never that kind of guy, and so that made him unelectable. It really isn't the media, his message just wasn't appealing.

Guys like him that run mostly on strict ideals don't understand the system: you have to win elections FIRST, then you get the power to do what you want to do.

except Dr. Ron Paul was never in it to win the election.

All his moves were calculated at spreading his message, not win the nomination. He knew that he was never going to be nominated. He used the GOP elections to promote his message and wake up tens of thousands of people. He accomplished his goal. But again, he was never in it to win.

It's kind of that Back to the Future scene where Michael J Fox starts playing heavy rock at his paren't home coming high school party. Most didn't get it, but one or 2 did get it and made the phone calls to Elvis thus, triggering the invention of Rock n Roll.

[ElNono]

That's called dishonesty nono

To an extent, sure. You could also qualify it as pragmatic.

The thing with guys like them though is that they chose to be an active part of the system to change it, but the system demands you to attain power to do that. The conduit to that power requires certain concessions, but they're clearly unwilling to do that strictly on a ideological basis.

Rand is a little different on that aspect. He's more of a hawk and been much more willing to toe the party line...

[ElNono]

except Dr. Ron Paul was never in it to win the election.

All his moves were calculated at spreading his message, not win the nomination. He knew that he was never going to be nominated. He used the GOP elections to promote his message and wake up tens of thousands of people. He accomplished his goal. But again, he was never in it to win.

It's kind of that Back to the Future scene where Michael J Fox starts playing heavy rock at his paren't home coming high school party. Most didn't get it, but one or 2 did get it and made the phone calls to Elvis thus, triggering the invention of Rock n Roll.

What's the end game? "spreading the word" is cool and all, but it quickly turns into irrelevance without the power to effect change.

[cheguevara]

What's the end game? "spreading the word" is cool and all, but it quickly turns into irrelevance without the power to effect change.

you don't think public opinion has changed as opposed to a decade ago? just today few years later after the GOP primaries there are plenty of examples of Paul's influence. Look at the public opinion >90% oppose the war and very vocally. You don't think some of it has to do with Paul's and his followers message?

Paul's message is alive and well, the same cannot be said about Obama's message. :lol

and who said Paul never had power. 40 years in Congress and being able to speak daily face to face with lawmakers and citizens. that's a lot of power

this is not Hollywood. Things don't change one minute to the next.

[DMX7]

Obama was masterful in Libya.

[cheguevara]

Obama was masterful in Libya.

sure he was

http://freepatriot.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Stays-in-Benghazi.jpg

[DMX7]

LOL Benghazi

[ElNono]

you don't think public opinion has changed as opposed to a decade ago? just today few years later after the GOP primaries there are plenty of examples of Paul's influence. Look at the public opinion >90% oppose the war and very vocally. You don't think some of it has to do with Paul's and his followers message?

Paul's message is alive and well, the same cannot be said about Obama's message. :lol

I don't really see such change, tbh. I haven't really seen anything different: elections keep going to the guy that keeps telling people what they want to hear, and the party/money system the kept Ron irrelevant is alive and well (and by saying that, I'm not particularly endorsing such system, simply giving my assessment).

Barry is going to be a lame duck president like most every president on a second term. Happened to dubya, and pretty much every other two-term president. I frankly still cannot believe the GOP couldn't put together a semi-serious candidate to get him out, he was that bad in his first term already.

There's also plenty of reasons not to want to get into another military involvement. (I personally don't, and I'm no Paulite)


and who said Paul never had power. 40 years in Congress and being able to speak daily face to face with lawmakers and citizens. that's a lot of power

this is not Hollywood. Things don't change one minute to the next.

Well, he's gone now, and his kid is a lot closer to the party machine. Not close enough yet, IMO, to get a nomination, but closer.

But this does go at the heart of what I was saying... 40 years in Congress to basically be a witness to see the growth of everything he stood against: bigger government, welfare, military, debt, etc etc etc.

He just never had actual power to effect change. I'm sure his intentions were good, but when you get in that system, you gotta play by certain rules or be relegated to the back seat.

[RD2191]

I don't really see such change, tbh. I haven't really seen anything different: elections keep going to the guy that keeps telling people what they want to hear, and the party/money system the kept Ron irrelevant is alive and well (and by saying that, I'm not particularly endorsing such system, simply giving my assessment).

Barry is going to be a lame duck president like most every president on a second term. Happened to dubya, and pretty much every other two-term president. I frankly still cannot believe the GOP couldn't put together a semi-serious candidate to get him out, he was that bad in his first term already.

There's also plenty of reasons not to want to get into another military involvement. (I personally don't, and I'm no Paulite)



Well, he's gone now, and his kid is a lot closer to the party machine. Not close enough yet, IMO, to get a nomination, but closer.

But this does go at the heart of what I was saying... 40 years in Congress to basically be a witness to see the growth of everything he stood against: bigger government, welfare, military, debt, etc etc etc.

He just never had actual power to effect change. I'm sure his intentions were good, but when you get in that system, you gotta play by certain rules or be relegated to the back seat.
:tu

[cheguevara]

I don't really see such change, tbh. I haven't really seen anything different: elections keep going to the guy that keeps telling people what they want to hear, and the party/money system the kept Ron irrelevant is alive and well (and by saying that, I'm not particularly endorsing such system, simply giving my assessment).

Barry is going to be a lame duck president like most every president on a second term. Happened to dubya, and pretty much every other two-term president. I frankly still cannot believe the GOP couldn't put together a semi-serious candidate to get him out, he was that bad in his first term already.

There's also plenty of reasons not to want to get into another military involvement. (I personally don't, and I'm no Paulite)



Well, he's gone now, and his kid is a lot closer to the party machine. Not close enough yet, IMO, to get a nomination, but closer.

But this does go at the heart of what I was saying... 40 years in Congress to basically be a witness to see the growth of everything he stood against: bigger government, welfare, military, debt, etc etc etc.

He just never had actual power to effect change. I'm sure his intentions were good, but when you get in that system, you gotta play by certain rules or be relegated to the back seat.

the book is still being written. Nobody can say wether Paul's message changed anything yet. But things are different from last 2 wars. 60+% were for Iraq war, 45+% were for Libya and now its 30-% or worse. how can you possibly say public opinion has not changed regarding nation building and warmongering. Agree it's silly to say it's all due to Paul's message, but it's even sillier to say Pauls message had nothing to do with this change. Paul laid the groundwork of all the arguments against war you are hearing from common folk these days.

in the end it might all be futile, it's true. But I was just answering the question of why Paul ran and it was not to win the election.

you can't really beat a system that triples down every election in money and influence. But the public opinion against war is a good sign at least. Look at Britain, things changed there. It might not happen here but who knows? next war plan vs. Iran could go the way Britain did.

[ElNono]

the book is still being written. Nobody can say wether Paul's message changed anything yet. But things are different from last 2 wars. 60+% were for Iraq war, 45+% were for Libya and now its 30-% or worse. how can you possibly say public opinion has not changed regarding nation building and warmongering. Agree it's silly to say it's all due to Paul's message, but it's even sillier to say Pauls message had nothing to do with this change. Paul laid the groundwork of all the arguments against war you are hearing from common folk these days.

in the end it might all be futile, it's true. But I was just answering the question of why Paul ran and it was not to win the election.

you can't really beat a system that triples down every election in money and influence. But the public opinion against war is a good sign at least. Look at Britain, things changed there. It might not happen here but who knows? next war plan vs. Iran could go the way Britain did.

Agree to an extent.

I personally think since Nam, the US population in general has had little stomach for long, drawn out wars (something that's been mentioned on this board quite a few times). Which is the reason I thought the whole concept of "war on terror" (including Iraq, etc) was stupid, especially when no goals were actually set, and we were introduced to concepts such as pre-emptive, never ending wars. I think the gradual decline in support for such interventions it's a natural reaction to that. That said, I also think the economic aspect, especially looking at the current state of the economy, also plays a part. And then obviously, that WMD foobar intelligence certainly caused quite a bit of credibility damage, especially on allies.

All that said, we're going to Syria, in perhaps one more display that public opinion be damned. There's plenty of time to change hearts and minds using the big party/money machine for the midterms next year.

[lefty]

so now it's safe to say every major presidential candidate since gore (lmao) has been a war mongerer.

[admiralsnackbar]

Two things:

Why wouldn't the Arab League be happy to temporarily disrupt a competitor's oil production (particularly when they might gain access to their competitor's product as a prize for being pliant and supportive?).

Moreover -- why would anybody trust the Arab League to actually pay up? Are they really against chemical weapons when they are also against every other manner of human rights? No.

Fuck them, their dubious funding, and this sabre-rattling bullshit. This is capitalism, straight up.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why not just bite the hand that feeds you?

whats actually stopping america from taking over saudi arabia and claim everything?...

america puppet state of saudie now? lmao

[pgardn]

why not just bite the hand that feeds you?

whats actually stopping america from taking over saudi arabia and claim everything?...

america puppet state of saudie now? lmao

So what is stopping the US?
Answer your own question.

[cheguevara]

Agree to an extent.

I personally think since Nam, the US population in general has had little stomach for long, drawn out wars (something that's been mentioned on this board quite a few times). Which is the reason I thought the whole concept of "war on terror" (including Iraq, etc) was stupid, especially when no goals were actually set, and we were introduced to concepts such as pre-emptive, never ending wars. I think the gradual decline in support for such interventions it's a natural reaction to that. That said, I also think the economic aspect, especially looking at the current state of the economy, also plays a part. And then obviously, that WMD foobar intelligence certainly caused quite a bit of credibility damage, especially on allies.

Vietnam was a different campaign, it was the campaign against Communism. That campaign ended when USSR disbanded.

I am mainly talking about this new campaign which is basically the Neocon plan to keep and take control of the middle east and resources. Unfortunately it was a plan drawn up out of greed. A couple of decades later and now the public has caught on to the BS. the war on terror, BS. There is no war on terror, you cannot fight a strategy. It's like having a war on sieges. :lol


All that said, we're going to Syria, in perhaps one more display that public opinion be damned. There's plenty of time to change hearts and minds using the big party/money machine for the midterms next year.

that is not set in stone. I give the chances of the public giving a big blow to the Neocon plan now at 30%. Most of the Congress members are still undecided and are getting thousands of calls a day to vote NO to war.

[cheguevara]

why not just bite the hand that feeds you?

whats actually stopping america from taking over saudi arabia and claim everything?...

america puppet state of saudie now? lmao

Don't forget the Middle East is composed of thousands of Warrior Tribes. And unfortunately US was stupid enough to allow Saudis to build, train, fund and arm a huge chunk of those tribes. They are now like a pack of rabid dogs in their cage ready to eat through anything once let out.

The Saudis and Prince Bandar Bush Bin Satan have the keys to this gate. Get rid of them and the gates of hell itself will open and the hordes of demons and barbarians would make minced meat of the oil fields and US military bases.

[MannyIsGod]

Look, I think that Obama has been a complete fool on this issue, and if he had kept his f%$#%^%$ mouth shut instead of posturing about a 'red' line, we might not be in this mess right now.


Well put.

Obama wrote a check that he never expected to be cashed and now we're having to pay the fucker. Fuck that man. I don't want to attack a country to save fucking face. Its bullshit.

[cheguevara]

Saudis have a lot of stake. They felt their collars tighten while watching the Arab Spring uprisings.

They will not have that and the bombings in Lebanon, promise of $12 billion to the Egyptian army to control Muslim Brotherhood, and now, Regime change in Syria to protect their Eastern province where most of their oil reserves are concentrated are all not only ambitious moves, but moves to protect their livelyhoods. At least that is according to Prince Bandar Bush Bin Satan, the engineer of the NEW MIDDLE EAST.

as I said before, US is just a puppet and Saudi will not let something like democracy or money stand in the way of protecting their trillions. They are in a fight for survival and they have unlimited funds.

http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bandarr.jpg?resize=0%2C0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/on-the-middle-east/2013/aug/25/saudi-bahrain-kuwait-sectarianism-shia-sunni

Saudi Arabia has been in the news because of its staunch support for the military-backed government in Cairo – part of its wider strategy of resisting the Muslim Brotherhood and rolling back change. But closer to home the Saudis also back Bahrain's Al Khalifa rulers, a Sunni dynasty facing down protests by the island state's Shia and democratic opposition.

Toby Matthiesen's new study of the Gulf counter-revolutions demonstrates how the Saudis, Bahrain and Kuwait have all combined repression and cash handouts with an almost instinctive sectarianism to keep demands for reform at bay.

The Saudis had long fretted about unrest in their predominantly Shia eastern province — the heartland of the kingdom's oil industry. But when republican dictators were being toppled in Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli and revolution was in the air just across the Gulf in Manama, anti-Shia feeling was ratcheted up with the mass arrests of local activists who were accused of being part of a "foreign conspiracy." It was supposedly led by Iran, but beyond shrill propaganda from Tehran and dark hints about "sleeper cells," there is no evidence of that.

been a long time coming. Saud and Bandar Bin Satans frankenstein army has awoken

[cheguevara]

Don't forget the Middle East is composed of thousands of Warrior Tribes. And unfortunately US was stupid enough to allow Saudis to build, train, fund and arm a huge chunk of those tribes. They are now like a pack of rabid dogs in their cage ready to eat through anything once let out.

Nostradamus

[TDMVPDPOY]

but if the white man wants to take over the middle easts, whats stopping them?

[cheguevara]

but if the white man wants to take over the middle easts, whats stopping them?

They do have control but they need their dictators to keep that control.