President Vladimir Putin of Russia should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from piezoe:

The Putin strategy, assuming he gets Syria's cooperation, is brilliant. Any civilized country would welcome the Putin initiative with open arms. But the U.S. is not a civilized country.

Putin is threatening to expose U.S. hypocrisy. Putin may pull off this gotcha moment on the U.S., potentially showing the U.S. to be the hypocritical monster it is. The U.S. will now do everything it can to screw-up Putin's plan from succeeding, because the U.S. is itching to attack Syria. The U.S. economy is war based, as the military industrial complex is now a huge part of the total economy in terms of both production and consumption. The more wars we can foment, the more consumption and "productivity". Of course, it is, nevertheless, a perverse economy.

Recall that the U.S. ignored the reports of the experts which could not find any WMDs in Iraq, and insisted on attacking IRAQ anyway. The US may find an excuse to attack Syria, even if Syria agrees to get rid of all their chemical weapons and agrees to international inspection. We don't give up easily on a good opportunity to start yet another war. If we have no choice, we will ignore the facts, and proceed to create our own intelligence reports to support our war ambitions, ala' Iraq. We have a huge clandestine spy industry, CIA, NSA, and the redundant Military "intelligence" arm of the Pentagon. The unexpressed role of these agencies is to supply the "justifications" for military production and consumption.

The bizarre note to this whole episode is that Putin is handing Obama a chance to backtrack gracefully from the brink, but Obama will likely not gracefully accept the opportunity handed him. Listen to Obama speech tonight. That will tell you much.

What a Country!

Good post. We'll make a Libertarian out of you yet.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

You're still insinuating, though, that it was Assad who gassed his people, when no evidence has conclusively shown this. If evidence existed, don't you think it would be right there on the front page of the NY Times?

The question of whether this has to do with interests in the US is a double edged one. Does it further the interests of the American people? No. And that's all that really matters. Unfortunately, it DOES further the interests of the political elite, the Saudis and Turks and the War Machine in this country.

It is on the front page of the Times... Go read it. At this point based on the evidence it is clear that Assad's regime is behind the gas attacks. Trying to claim that it is some type of 'false flag' operation that the rebels did is absurd.

In regards to your comments about the interests of the U.S. - you are quite correct.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from gwb-trading:

It is on the front page of the Times... Go read it. At this point based on the evidence it is clear that Assad's regime is behind the gas attacks. Trying to claim that it is some type of 'false flag' operation that the rebels did is absurd.

In regards to your comments about the interests of the U.S. - you are quite correct.

Please link to the evidence. Just so you understand, editorials and he said she said crap isn't "evidence".

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Please link to the evidence. Just so you understand, editorials and he said she said crap isn't "evidence".

If you google "Where is the evidence that assad launched a chemical weapons attack" you get these results. Not one shows any link to anything a court could call "evidence" outside of hearsay.

https://www.google.com/#q=where+is+the+evidence+that+assad+launched+chemical+weapon+attacks&safe=off

Lots of stuff indicating (again, circumstantial evidence) that Assad might have had no involvement at all. So I ask again, if the evidence is clear and substantiates an attack on a foreign country, where is it?

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Please link to the evidence. Just so you understand, editorials and he said she said crap isn't "evidence".

Why don't you post your evidence that the Assad regime did not perform the gas attack or that the gas attack did not happen.

See the World Intelligence Reports column on the right of this article. Nearly all the leading western nations have released national intelligence reports clearly stating the Assad regime is responsible for the gas attacks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-over-barack-obamas-decision-to-strike-syria/

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Why don't you post your evidence that the Assad regime did not perform the gas attack or that the gas attack did not happen.

Because I don't have to support my theory. Only the side that wants to launch an attack has to support it's theory. Why don't we launch an attack on Bermuda! Please show me the evidence they didn't launch a chemical attack on their people. Honestly now. It is the person accusing the crime that has to show the proof.

Quote from gwb-trading:


See the World Intelligence Reports column on the right of this article. Nearly all the leading western nations have released national intelligence reports clearly stating the Assad regime is responsible for the gas attacks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-over-barack-obamas-decision-to-strike-syria/

The column to the right (showing the US's assessment, France's assessment and the UK's) points to a number of independent groups that confirmed a chemical attack was launched. But none of them can say who did it. Shame, that, because that would be a credible source - someone who is independent. The rest is "high confidence" youtube videos given from the rebels. Riiight. And if the UK was so sure of it, why did it back out of military support, and then later admit it had actually allowed the selling of ingredients that allowed the Syrians to manufacture these agents in the first place?

Again, if the evidence was conclusive, it would be everywhere in a clear and easy to show manner. Like when Saddam used them. It's not, and we're supposed to take the word of this administration that has shown it has repeatedly lied about a whole host of things.

Sorry, but I'm not a sheep.

 

[Ricter]

Of course it was Kerry's idea.

 

[Lucrum]

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

Maybe Obama could just give Putin his peace price. He isn't using it.



Question to all the Obama lovers: Why didn't Obama think of this?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Ricter:

Of course it was Kerry's idea.

Like Pat Buchanan said last night. Kerry fumbled into the endzone. The only question is will Obama try to take credit for Puntin picking it up? Difficult to see how any unbiased person sees this as anything other than stunning incompetence by the Obama administration. No doubt the storyline is being produced right now. Obama, the great saviour and peacemaker, sent out Kerry to bait Putin and all is right in the world again. Sadly, there are millions who will believe that.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Like Pat Buchanan said last night. Kerry fumbled into the endzone.

Kerry was essentially asked to brainstorm, and out popped a good idea. That's often how it works. Let the russkies take the credit if they need it, but it was an American idea first.