Syria

[snowcat]

I don't understand this response regarding natural gas? What is our national interest? We have more supply of natural gas here in the US than we have demand and the prices are very low for natural gas. We are not going to get involved over natural gas, right?

No, I don't think we have national interest in Qatari gas and it is why I would like us to stay completely out. It is serious business for Russia however.

Here is an interesting read from a year ago:

The time of Syria came, but the Syrian issue woke up a big brother that has been watching in silence, The Russian Federation. But why did Russia ignore Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and some other allies who we essential to its political power in the Area?

It appears that the theory has came to be true, Qatar-the number one natural gas producer- wants to produce more and supply Europe. Europe, wants to be supplied with cheaper gas. Turkey also wants cheaper gas and wants to benefit from its strategic location and have an influence over the European countries in order to be able to join the EU. Therefore, a gas pipleline that passes from Qatar-through the red sea shore- to Isreal passing though Beirut, reaching Syria and then Turkey, which will in turn supply Europe with continuous gas production coming from Qatar.

I know it looks confusing, the point is, a gas pipeline has to pass from Qatar through Syria to reach Europe. This has angered the Russians, the main gas supplies to Europe. And this is actually what the plan is all about, reduce the dependence on the Russian gas following the crisis of the Russian-Ukraine boycott that had awakened Europe on the danger that Russian can impose on them.

http://bassemelremesh.wordpress.com/...pipeline-plan/

[Jacob]

This is unbelievable, except when you consider the source. Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard, seeing that a war with Syria is not as popular among Republicans as he'd like offer the following to make a Syrian war more palatable:

soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program. They can explain that Obama’s dithering in the case of Syria shows the utility of unequivocally giving him the authority to act early with respect to Iran. An Iran debate would pretty much unite Republicans and conservatives and would help mitigate political problems arising from a Yes vote on Syri

Don't like one war? I understand. How about two?

[Uncle Ted]

Send Obama as well...

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.


The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.


“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”


“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
[...]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pol...ing-cong,33752

[Uncle Ted]

Oh good hell... The Boss has been kidnapped!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnekdahl/1...r-may-hav-a1x1

[YOhio]

There's Almost No Chance Russia's Plan for Syria's Chemical Weapons Will Work

Russia's proposal for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to place his chemical weapons under international supervision and then destroy them is quickly gaining steam. Assad's government accepted the plan this morning. A few hours later, President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande announced that they'd seriously explore the proposal. It already has the backing of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a growing number of influential lawmakers from both parties. There's just one problem: the plan would be nearly impossible to actually carry out.

Experts in chemical weapons disposal point to a host of challenges. Taking control of Assad's enormous stores of the munitions would be difficult to do in the midst of a brutal civil war. Dozens of new facilities for destroying the weapons would have to be built from scratch, and completing the job would potentially take a decade or more. The work itself would need to be done by specially-trained military personnel. Guess which country has most of those troops? If you said the U.S., you'd be right.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...pons_will_work

[imanihonjin]

There's Almost No Chance Russia's Plan for Syria's Chemical Weapons Will Work



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...pons_will_work

The administrations handling of Syria may be its biggest political blunder yet. Obama has proven himself to be worthless and without a spine.

[snowcat]

The administrations handling of Syria may be its biggest political blunder yet. Obama has proven himself to be worthless and without a spine.

These guys are terrible at foreign policy, but normally excellent at politics. This time they have looked inept at both.

I am just glad we are not attacking Syria.

[Katy Lied]

A throw away line from Kerry and Russia jumps on it, China blesses it, the UN Chief likes it. No one cares what the US thinks. We are impotent in international affairs.

[Uncle Ted]

The administrations handling of Syria may be its biggest political blunder yet. Obama has proven himself to be worthless and without a spine.

Well maybe he will get to keep his nobel peace prize.

[myboynoah]

There's Almost No Chance Russia's Plan for Syria's Chemical Weapons Will Work



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...pons_will_work

Yes, a genius move by Russia. Well, not really a "genius" move, as it is so obvious, but a genius move when considering with whom they are negotiating.

[snowcat]

Yes, a genius move by Russia. Well, not really a "genius" move, as it is so obvious, but a genius move when considering with whom they are negotiating.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I noticed this months ago, but what the hell is going on with John Kerry's face? Then you've got Joe Biden. The most noteworthy thing this administration has accomplished is breaking through the Botox and facelift taboo in politics, though I suppose Nancy Pelosi was the precursor.

[myboynoah]

Maureen Dowd slams Obama

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.

A State Department spokeswoman walked back Kerry’s first slip, but once the White House realized it was the only emergency exit sign around, Kerry walked back the walking back, claiming at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that he did not “misspeak.”

But in the end, she still blames W. LOL

[Moliere]

So chemical weapons are bad, but killing over 100,000 people without chemical weapons is not bad

Also, are we going to strike or not? Seems like the answer changes on a daily or even hourly basis. Is there a plan or not? The whole thing is ambiguous, which scares me. I just checked cnn.com and it seems like we mgiht strike now of diplomacy fails :facepalm:

I hope whoever is the next president will take the first two weeks of their presidency and do a middle east tour apologizing for Obama's amateur handling of these issues.

[myboynoah]

So chemical weapons are bad, but killing over 100,000 people without chemical weapons is not bad

Also, are we going to strike or not? Seems like the answer changes on a daily or even hourly basis. Is there a plan or not? The whole thing is ambiguous, which scares me. I just checked cnn.com and it seems like we mgiht strike now of diplomacy fails :facepalm:

I hope whoever is the next president will take the first two weeks of their presidency and do a middle east tour apologizing for Obama's amateur handling of these issues.

I see what you did there. Funny.