First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Attack on Syria announcement by President Obama
25695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Universe :0
Offline
Posted 9/8/13 , edited 9/8/13

Morbidhanson wrote:


sosarx wrote:

Obama: "protect human rights"....."the right thing to do"

You mean to tell me that YOU want to protect human rights?

And there's no ulterior motive? Our only interest is protecting human rights?

Really? Huh...

Oh I get it....


You're just playing a silly joke on me. There's always self interest when it come to the US government's involvement in any international affair..

Oh silly Obama. Your joke was foiled





Serious Note

This guy seriously is going to destroy our nation. We're already on our knees with all the problems here at home, now you want to kick us in the face with another bullshit?


Yeah, if human rights are really a priority, the protection of them should probably begin with our own country. But, as we can see, it's all about wealth. 'Human rights' is one of the most stupid and obvious fake reasons the government comes up with. Yet people will believe it.

Let's advocate human rights by bombing civilians. Seems legit.


Yep, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what takes place in the up coming weeks.

I wonder what will happen.
Congress votes yes? Votes no?

Obama orders air strikes anyway?

Man, who knows. With our typical opaque government, anything can happen.

27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/8/13
Probably don't even need to vote and he will just announce that US bombs have struck Syrian soil.
29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 9/9/13 , edited 9/9/13
Interesting developments if they pan out...


RT @Reuters: Russia says it will urge Syria to put chemical weapons under international control if that will avert military strikes.


RT @Reuters: Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov says Moscow does not know whether Syria will accept proposal.


EDIT:

Hmmm... this theme is progressing. No word from the U.S. is this would prevent missile strikes. Plus, it doesn't alter what has already happened, so it may be blown off by Obama as "too little too late".


RT @Reuters: Syria welcomes Russia's proposal for Damascus to put its chemical weapons under international control: Foreign Minister Walid Al-Moualem



More reading on Oil at this juncture...

- Syria and the world oil market
- http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2013/09/syria_and_the_w.html

The growing likelihood of U.S. military action in Syria seems to be one factor in the recent sharp rise in oil prices.

That is not because Syria itself is an important producer of oil. According to the EIA, the country was producing less than 370,000 barrels a day in 2010, only half a percent of the world total. Civil unrest and an embargo had brought that down to 71,000 barrels this May, less than 1/10 of 1% of global supplies. If that goes too, nobody but the Syrians will miss it.

But the question is whether conflict would be neatly contained within Syria. The situation in Egypt, for example, remains quite unstable, and it would not take much to set it off again. Egypt is also a relatively minor contributor to world production. But the Suez Canal and Sumed pipeline together transport 3.5 million barrels of crude petroleum and refined petroleum products through Egypt each day, a number that would correspond to 4.6% of total world field production of crude oil.
29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 9/9/13 , edited 9/9/13

Morbidhanson wrote:

Probably don't even need to vote and he will just announce that US bombs have struck Syrian soil.


Well, legally, the President can authorize, without consent from the full Congress, a strike of this size. However, the President has said publicly that he will not strike without the full backing from Congress.

When the idea of striking Syria first came out, I believe Obama was willing to go it "alone" and without Congressional approval. I think a few days later, he decided to include congress in the process. If the U.S. Congress rejects strikes against Syria and the President backs down, France has said they will not do it alone.

The U.N. is unlikely to give its support as both China & Russia are blocking any U.N. approval. The U.N. has also suggested that strikes against Syria might not be "legal".

At this point, and it could all change mind you, it doesn't appear as if Congress will vote in favor of strikes. If congressional approval fails, Obama still has options and bombs could still drop, but large scale military action with so little support might be too risky even for him. Might be best to fire up the drones and begin a more subversive campaign.

This week will be the tell. We'll see how Obama sells it. Who knows... maybe congress will change their minds and vote for it. Either way, strikes are not a fait accompli.
29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 9/9/13 , edited 9/9/13

30-minute chart of Crude Oil (WTI). Oil is selling off today (Monday).

Oil weak, stocks up (DOW is up +140 points as of 3:30 PM EST). If you go by what the market is saying, "smart money" seems to be leaning more towards no U.S. military action in Syria. Obviously, the market isn't always right, but smart money, big futures traders, don't lose often. If they are wrong here, we could see a nice sell off in stocks later this week.

Price is the only truth.

/Edit:

And it looks like the Russian proposal might prevent missile strikes or at the very least, delay the strikes:


RT @BreakingNews: President Obama: Proposal to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control could be a breakthrough. - @AP


RT @BreakingNews: Obama: A strike against Syria would 'absolutely' be put on hold if Assad abandons chemical weapons - @ABCWorldNews


We'll have to see, but the markets may have gotten this one right today...Crude Oil selling off briskly early in the overnight session (Oil trades almost 24-hours a day; except on weekends). Now down to $108.26 dollar per barrel.
Posted 9/9/13 , edited 9/9/13
If Obama wants to help some people in Syria, fine. But it isn't, nor should it be, my problem. I did not decide to help. And honestly, if we were ALL less reliant on the government, it would not be our fucking problem.

Quit grouping us together with the title of "America." You are whatever you aspire to be.
29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 9/10/13 , edited 9/10/13
And there you have... No war with Syria for now...

Obama Calls for Pause in Authorizing Military Strikes on Syria
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/obama-calls-for-pause-in-authorizing-military-strikes-on-syria.html


President Barack Obama pulled the U.S. from the brink of a military strike against Syria to pursue “encouraging signs” of a possible diplomatic solution to the confrontation over the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.

In a nationally televised speech from the White House that attempted to navigate between international calls for action and a war-weary public back at home, Obama said he’s asked Congress to delay a vote authorizing the use of military force while the administration pursues a proposal that would have Syria surrender its chemical arms.


Oil is selling off more tonight. Traders are unwinding their Syria premium. Should take us to 104-106 ish.

So I guess this thread is done. Too bad Bush wasn't in the White House. This topic would have 2000 posts by now. Ah, those were the days...
24277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/10/13
Congress delayed their vote last night anyway... This guy... I don't think he would have got the votes, in which case it would have been executive order number 500 or something for this president.
26428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / NJ, USA
Online
Posted 9/10/13 , edited 9/10/13

anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

If Obama wants to help some people in Syria, fine. But it isn't, nor should it be, my problem. I did not decide to help. And honestly, if we were ALL less reliant on the government, it would not be our fucking problem.

Quit grouping us together with the title of "America." You are whatever you aspire to be.


War costs money. Tax payer's money. If we do go to war with Syria, you're involved whether you like it or not.

Anyway, we're still tens of trillions of dollars in the negative and we have many problems with the infrastructure here in the US. We shouldn't be fixing the problems of other countries until we've fixed ours. It sucks that innocent people are being killed over there, but anytime we intervene, more blood is shed i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and those we save end up hating our guts. Plus, China and Russia is backing Syria. We don't want a WW3 now do we?
Posted 9/10/13

Chopsuey9444 wrote:


anti-lambsacrifice wrote:

If Obama wants to help some people in Syria, fine. But it isn't, nor should it be, my problem. I did not decide to help. And honestly, if we were ALL less reliant on the government, it would not be our fucking problem.

Quit grouping us together with the title of "America." You are whatever you aspire to be.


War costs money. Tax payer's money. If we do go to war with Syria, you're involved whether you like it or not.

Anyway, we're still tens of trillions of dollars in the negative and we have many problems with the infrastructure here in the US. We shouldn't be fixing the problems of other countries until we've fixed ours. It sucks that innocent people are being killed over there, but anytime we intervene, more blood is shed i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and those we save end up hating our guts. Plus, China and Russia is backing Syria. We don't want a WW3 now do we?


As I've said, if we were less reliant, it wouldn't be our problem. WE are not going to war. You're suggesting you take the heat for something YOU don't even agree with. How much sense does that really make?

26428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / NJ, USA
Online
Posted 9/10/13
No, we're not going to war (at least I hope we don't), but if we do and China and Russia both decide to step in, you better have your radiation suit ready. Also, I do not support this conflict, but alas, I do not represent the whole country. If I did own the US, I would be dealing with much more important things here than with petty conflicts over there.
25521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/10/13
I'm not enough in-the-know to contribute to this conversation much, but in my opinion we should just stay out of Syria... While I am well aware of the atrocities President Al-Assad has allegedly committed, I can't see any sense in risking the lives of our soldiers for a country that hasn't exactly been friendly with the US, assuming any of these "limited strikes" include any boots on the ground.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/13

Chopsuey9444 wrote:

No, we're not going to war (at least I hope we don't), but if we do and China and Russia both decide to step in, you better have your radiation suit ready. Also, I do not support this conflict, but alas, I do not represent the whole country. If I did own the US, I would be dealing with much more important things here than with petty conflicts over there.


Yup, most of us probably wouldn't be going to war but the country would be at war and that includes us. The money thing is totally correct. Now is simply not a time to invest so much on something that's bound to suck us in more in the future.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/11/13

Hairbelly wrote:

And there you have... No war with Syria for now...

Obama Calls for Pause in Authorizing Military Strikes on Syria
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/obama-calls-for-pause-in-authorizing-military-strikes-on-syria.html


President Barack Obama pulled the U.S. from the brink of a military strike against Syria to pursue “encouraging signs” of a possible diplomatic solution to the confrontation over the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.

In a nationally televised speech from the White House that attempted to navigate between international calls for action and a war-weary public back at home, Obama said he’s asked Congress to delay a vote authorizing the use of military force while the administration pursues a proposal that would have Syria surrender its chemical arms.


Oil is selling off more tonight. Traders are unwinding their Syria premium. Should take us to 104-106 ish.

So I guess this thread is done. Too bad Bush wasn't in the White House. This topic would have 2000 posts by now. Ah, those were the days...


That's because Kerry fucked up. If it were Clinton, she'll definitely get us this war, rather than manage to gaff her way into peace.

29118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
83 / F / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

longfenglim wrote:



That's because Kerry fucked up. If it were Clinton, she'll definitely get us this war, rather than manage to gaff her way into peace.



You don't think they've really achieved lasting peace here do you? I've read your posts... You seem smarter than that. And Kerry didn't do anything here. The Russians brought this "peace" offering to the table. Kerry did nothing but carry water.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.