firebird77clone Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I can scarcely believe ya'll don't hav a thread running about Syria. Ok, here are some tidbits for ya which POTUS won't be disclosing Saudi Arabia wants war in Syria, doesn't much care whom does it, so long as it serves to stop Russia building their pipeline. Russia wants the pipeline to debunk OPEC and ultimately, displace the dollar as reserve currency. Saudi Arabia provided the chemical weapons. Too bad they didn't give technical training; you see, the big chemical attack is nothing more than the accidental detonation of a bunker full of chem rockets Russia and China have told us to back off. Russia has sent battle ships to the area. Syria has vowed to attack Israel in retaliation. If we attack Syria, (without UN approval, without congressional approval ) it will quite probably be the first shot of WWIII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebird77clone Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1377892800.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIEF DOC 99 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 You read the news to get confused... Saddam's arsenal was diverted to Syria and stockpiled there before the Iraq invasion? The Russian oil pipeline goes to the Black Sea doesn't it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenai Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 A lot of Saber rattling going on in the Middle East. Situation is dicey. Israel is on high alert. FYI the US did supply arms including chemical weapons to IRAQ during the Reagan years in an attempt to balance the region at the time to fend off a possible Iranian invasion of IRAQ at the time. Later remaining Chemical weapons including Sarin gas in the IRAQ inventory that was not used on the Kurds and others in IRAQ by Saddam was moved to Syria just prior to ODS. It appears Syrian Rebels with Saudi Arabian supplied chemical weapons are claiming responsibility for mishandling the SA supplied Sarin gas weapons in the most recent incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebird77clone Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 The Russian connection? Gazprom. Hope I spelled it right. Russian energy company, heavy in natural gas. And guess who has MASSIVELY funded the rebels? Quatar, the world's largest natural gas supplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIEF DOC 99 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Assad Regime bears no responsibility for the sarin 'accident' then? Invested puppetmasters are using political figures ~ telling tall tales to justify interventions? Russians are tired of freezing their asses off in winter? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Resort Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indian T Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Things are pretty fucked, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIEF DOC 99 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Things are pretty fucked, huh? Attempting to sort out the 'fukkers' from the 'fukkees' is a tuff job in that part of the world or anywhere else for that matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 from my perspective there is no evidence that it was the Assad and not rebels that used it whether on purpose or by accident. also no reason to get involved as there is no direct threat to USA Assad is actually better able to control the chem weapons than any follow-on government especially with the rebels being heavily supported and manned by branch of Al Qaida My opinion.....this is a diversionary tactic from the dozen scandals in this administration. Does this mean he is more concerned about the death of Syrian people than he is about US Citizens in Benghazi? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHIEF DOC 99 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Ol' Cadaver face Kerry sure hasbin busy on the tube lately...LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airpirate Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Comment withheld -jackass!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firebird77clone Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 Isn't it interesting, with all the talking heads jibber-jabbing NO ONE is asking from WHERE the weapons originated. And just why are McCain and Obama so willing to start WWIII ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I like the saying to let Allah sort it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickdanewf Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Its always about the same thing since the 40s......OIL.....nothing more nothing less! It won't run out in our lifetimes but if and when it does...."look the fk out"....I worry about our kids and theirs...etc, but not much can be done about that! Allah has little to do with it....thats the only justification that Immam purged radicals use to inflict their bullshit on the world just my 2 cent....YNNV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Both sides are bad, so who should we be backing? The Obama Doctrine, whatever the F that is, has made a cluster F of the world. Everything he's touched with regard to foreign policy has blown up in our faces. Innocent people are being slaughtered all over the world, it sucks, but unless it is a direct national security threat, we should stay out. Humanitarian aid is fine, military aid, no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickdanewf Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Both sides are bad, so who should we be backing? The Obama Doctrine, whatever the F that is, has made a cluster F of the world. Everything he's touched with regard to foreign policy has blown up in our faces. Innocent people are being slaughtered all over the world, it sucks, but unless it is a direct national security threat, we should stay out. Humanitarian aid is fine, military aid, no A very tough question Lab-rat! ....and fortunately way above my pay-grade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Unfortunately it's hard to trust our elected officials in DC that are supposed to make that decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalper38 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 from my perspective there is no evidence that it was the Assad and not rebels that used it whether on purpose or by accident. also no reason to get involved as there is no direct threat to USA Assad is actually better able to control the chem weapons than any follow-on government especially with the rebels being heavily supported and manned by branch of Al Qaida My opinion.....this is a diversionary tactic from the dozen scandals in this administration. Does this mean he is more concerned about the death of Syrian people than he is about US Citizens in Benghazi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.