If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Makes perfect sense to me.

It does seem reasonable but the issue is, that government spending on the military just doesn't disappear float away. It is either spent somewhere else by the government or not taxed so then the citizenry uses it.

While it is possible that this way spending of the money could create more jobs than any other spending of the money, it is impossible to know this though.

As much as everyone hates on politicians, they're not all fools.

 

[Pangur Bán]

So Putin is now suggesting Syria give up its stockpile of chemical weapons. Has he thwarted Obama's attack, will the US find another excuse, will there be enough ambiguity about any hand over to allow the excuse to be maintained, or will Assad just refuse? In Iraq they got around Hussein's lack of weapons by saying they had 'intel' that he actually had them. Will they try that again?

Or is this a good route out for Obama? He's sorta otherwise cornered himself with his 'red line' comments and the claims being made on behalf of US 'intel'. He has as also compromised his freedom of action, or at least his reputation, by putting the topic before what still appears to be a sceptical congress. Maybe then Putin is saving Obama's bacon, how ironic would that be given the recent fight over Snowden/Gay rights?

 

[Gucumatz]

Pangur, do you live in Albania by the way?

 

[Gucumatz]

It does seem reasonable but the issue is, that government spending on the military just doesn't disappear float away. It is either spent somewhere else by the government or not taxed so then the citizenry uses it.

While it is possible that this way spending of the money could create more jobs than any other spending of the money, it is impossible to know this though.

As much as everyone hates on politicians, they're not all fools.

But if were to cut military spending, you are right it would probably go elsewhere instead - and every politician would want a bit of that spending to go their way [As is, more spending/pork to serve as political grease would be the only way to cut military spending realistically anyhow]. That said, military spending tends to be somewhat economically efficient as far as returns go [Fairly - several other forms of government spending that are obviously much more efficient]

 

[Pangur Bán]

In a sense

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So Putin is now suggesting Syria give up its stockpile of chemical weapons. Has he thwarted Obama's attack, will the US find another excuse, will there be enough ambiguity about any hand over to allow the excuse to be maintained, or will Assad just refuse? In Iraq they got around Hussein's lack of weapons by saying they had 'intel' that he actually had them. Will they try that again?

Or is this a good route out for Obama? He's sorta otherwise cornered himself with his 'red line' comments and the claims being made on behalf of US 'intel'. He has as also compromised his freedom of action, or at least his reputation, by putting the topic before what still appears to be a sceptical congress. Maybe then Putin is saving Obama's bacon, how ironic would that be given the recent fight over Snowden/Gay rights?

As I said in multiple threads, now, this us a stall tactic.

Watch. You will see an attempt at regime change.

Turkey is building up on the Syrian border, btw.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If a political solution is worked out and Assad steps down it isn't exactly a regime change.

Assuming this is what you were talking about anyways.

 

[Borachio]

In a sense

I live and learn!

 

[Borachio]

As I said in multiple threads, now, this us a stall tactic.

Watch. You will see an attempt at regime change.

This is possible. But it seems very unlikely to me.

Turkey is building up on the Syrian border, btw.

Sent via mobile.

Notice too that part of the Soviet Russian fleet is in the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

If a political solution is worked out and Assad steps down it isn't exactly a regime change.

Assuming this is what you were talking about anyways.

True. But Assad will not step down until he serves the end of his term.

Saddam and Qaddafi got rid of all their WMDs and that did not save them.

Qaddafi was also a willing participant in the War on Terror, detaining hundreds and thousands of suspects marked by the US, sent by the US via extraordinary rendition.

The US, the Saudis, Turkey and Israel are bent on regime change.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The US, the Saudis, Turkey and Israel are bent on regime change.

Mainly when it suits them.

I don't see what you're on about though.

 

[Borachio]

I'm pretty sure Israel don't fancy another jihadist regime on their door step.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm pretty sure Israel don't fancy another jihadist regime on their door step.

Indeed. Which is why there has been limited involvement with the intent to occupy Assad rather than depose him.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Do any of you think you can explain why the US's Arab satellites want Assad gone so much? We already know that two of them, behind the scenes, have offered to pay for America's costs. I guarantee you they don't care about chemical weapons, but they should care about Islamism.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. That's a good question.

What's the answer?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Syria is heavily influenced by Iran.

Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia don't like Iran.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Do any of you think you can explain why the US's Arab satellites want Assad gone so much? We already know that two of them, behind the scenes, have offered to pay for America's costs. I guarantee you they don't care about chemical weapons, but they should care about Islamism.

Has a lot to do with the Wahabbist minds. They are an oligarchic people and instability with other mideast states suits them fine - especially since Iran could choke the Strait of Hormuz, where most of the Gulf oil comes out -- almost half of which goes to East Asia. Neutralize Iran and you cancel that threat.

And we all know what happened the last time Japan needed oil and couldn't it. [Hint: Pacific Theater WWII].

Sent via mobile.

 

[red_elk]

So Putin is now suggesting Syria give up its stockpile of chemical weapons. Has he thwarted Obama's attack, will the US find another excuse, will there be enough ambiguity about any hand over to allow the excuse to be maintained, or will Assad just refuse?

An interesting turn, looks like Assad is going to accept the offer.
And several Russian landing ships will arrive there in a few days.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Indeed, I'm sure you guys are right about Iran. Part of the reason must be that each one of those rulers remembers 1979, and for them Iran's fate is potentially theirs. They are dependent on the USA for their backing just as Iran was then, and so fear the same fate. Assad's weakness is making him a puppet of Iran, which is worryingly strong in Iraq already. That's why Saudi Arabia and Qatar (probably the two offering the US the money) are so worried. There's nothing more they would like than to fashion a new Syrian regime hostile to Iran and practically, if not rhetorically, pro-Israel ... go google 'Syria rebels funding Saudi Arabia' or something similar.

The rise and policies of Iran threatens control of oil, and most of the US's middle eastern policy can usually be interpreted as an attempt to restore the pre-1979 state of affairs or mitigate its effects.

Incidentally, for US Iranian policy, note the US bases in the ME surrounding Iran:

Worries about the threat of Iran are why they helped the Iraqis gas Iranians in the 1980s, that's why they are 'worried' about Syrian chemical weapons use now. The presidents themselves are just domestically-orientated politicians, they follow the advice, guidance and presumptions of permanent security, intelligence and diplomatic officials. Iran is their obsession.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm pretty sure Israel don't fancy another jihadist regime on their door step.

Who is the first one?