TexasCHLforum.com

So Beiruty, let me ask you......

1. What about the other video of the purported Muslim Brotherhood guy bragging about A) having poison gas weapons, and B) being willing to use them against the families of the government's supporters?

2. What do you think about (former Assad ally) Hezbollah's claim that Assad used chemical weapons and called it a big mistake for Assad? (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebano ... z2eKF3f1Ua" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

3. What about the other video showing allegedly captured rebel chemical weapons labeled from a chemical plant in Saudi Arabia (which supports the rebels)? ........and.......

4. If you had to pick sides, who would you support.......or do you agree with some of us who think we should stay the heck out of it?

1. I can claim I have a shuttle in my garage and I can strap it with couple boosters and go to Mars too. Does it make true? no. A matter fact, Al-Qaeda had fighters experimenting with poisonous gas, but nothing like military grade agent like Sairin. Moreover, Syria invested billions and billions of dollars to acquire Bio and Chemical Strategic warfare to counter Israel's Nukes. Israel have nukes, and Syria, have both WMD and their delivery means.

2. Hizbullah are still and always be Assad's Special Strike forces for overt and covert operations. Such communication being intercepted is plausible but not necessary. Iran has an ambassador in Lebanon. The question, why call the one in Damascus?

3. KSA provides, $, small arms and medical supplies. All under the watch of US department of state.

4. US has to finance, arm and support secular and/or moderate Syrians who are fighting Assad regime. I as well as many thousands and thousands Sunnis in Lebanon and Syria, do not tolerate Wahabists, nor Some Islamic Brotherhood Extremist who are hell bent on violence. On the other hand, I and so many Sunnis do not like living under a Brutal Tyrant of Syria. Let me say, Syrian Intelligence Services (more than 17 branches) are nothing but a brutal killers like those Nazzi's Gestapo. US has the interest to build a replacement state force in Syria that can have its influence after the war settles.

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.


So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

Superman wrote:If we were to use your logic, then why do we have so many prisons full of prisoners

If we were to use your logic, then why do we have a Constutition to limit government power?

Beiruty wrote:

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.

So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

If the U.S. policy is to, as you say, "destroy and disperse any enemy of the Jewish state," why did we defend Kuwait, help to liberate Iraq and Libya, defend Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states.? How is defending them "destroying" them? Also, I don't recall any U.S. troops on the ground, or air support in the '67 war, or the later war with Egypt, or the retaliatory strikes in Lebanon. Sure, we help arm them like we help arm other allies, and like our enemies arm their allies. That's what allies do.

And as for it all being about oil, the U.S imports less Iraqi oil today than it did before 9/11/01.

I believe your "at any cost" is incorrect.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G26ster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.

So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

If the U.S. policy is to, as you say, "destroy and disperse any enemy of the Jewish state," why did we defend Kuwait, help to liberate Iraq and Libya, defend Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states.? How is defending them "destroying" them? Also, I don't recall any U.S. troops on the ground, or air support in the '67 war, or the later war with Egypt, or the retaliatory strikes in Lebanon. Sure, we help arm them like we help arm other allies, and like our enemies arm their allies. That's what allies do.

And as for it all being about oil, the U.S imports less Iraqi oil today than it did before 9/11/01.

I believe your "at any cost" is incorrect.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All the gulf states, including Kuwait were in the US "bag", Iraq was growing threat (Check with 1 above) after Iraq-Iran war and had to be contained, destroyed or dispersed.

Can you state what was the strategic US interest in 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war or in 2003 Iraq war? If, today, US has no interest in intervening in Syria war? Why it did in 1991 and 2003?

Hint: Check with 1) and 2) above.

If you read carefully, "oil fields" mean strategic explored and non-explored national oil reserve. KSA is #1, Iraq is #2 and Iran is #3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... l_reserves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beiruty wrote:

G26ster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

And as to answer your core question.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.

So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

If the U.S. policy is to, as you say, "destroy and disperse any enemy of the Jewish state," why did we defend Kuwait, help to liberate Iraq and Libya, defend Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states.? How is defending them "destroying" them? Also, I don't recall any U.S. troops on the ground, or air support in the '67 war, or the later war with Egypt, or the retaliatory strikes in Lebanon. Sure, we help arm them like we help arm other allies, and like our enemies arm their allies. That's what allies do.

And as for it all being about oil, the U.S imports less Iraqi oil today than it did before 9/11/01.

I believe your "at any cost" is incorrect.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All the gulf states, including Kuwait were in the US "bag", Iraq was growing threat (Check with 1 above) after Iraq-Iran war and had to be contained, destroyed or dispersed.

Can you state what was the strategic US interest in 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war or in 2003 Iraq war? If, today, US has no interest in intervening in Syria war? Why it did in 1991 and 2003?

Hint: Check with 1) and 2) above.

If you read carefully, "oil fields" mean strategic explored and non-explored national oil reserve. KSA is #1, Iraq is #2 and Iran is #3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... l_reserves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can throw out all the "opinions" you want as to why the U.S. does anything. Apparently, for you, it's all about oil and Israel. That's your opinion, and probably the opinion of most countries that would love to see Israel disappear. You have previously called "humanitarian" grounds bull, so there's no sense debating that with you. I suppose we went into the Balkans for oil and to defend Israel, and the same for Somalia, and Panama. I'm sure you can tie all of those to oil and Israel. Of course we act in our national interest as do all countries.

As for 1991 and Iraq, you can say it was for oil and Israel, and I can say we established a huge coalition of nations and did it for humanitarian reasons. Neither can be proven. You can say that the 2003 Iraq war was for oil and Israel, and I can say it was to depose a brutal dictator who we and the world believed was developing or had nuclear weapons, or for continuously violating the no fly zone, or for plotting to assassinate Bush 41, or just to finish what we should have in 1991, or all of the above. Doesn't matter. All of it is just opinion and can be debated forever.

No doubt that excellent planning on the part of our outstanding senior military leaders and elected politicians will develop a fool proof plan to "solve" the Syrian issue the same way they did Viet Nam, Gulf war I, Gulf war II, Libya, and the Afghanistan invasion.

Beiruty wrote:So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought about the possibility it was Iran too, but I still just don't know if it is worth U.S. treasury or lives. There's only one way to put the crazy Ayatollahs out of commission in Iran, and nobody is willing to nuke them. We lack the capability, treasury, size of military, or national will to fight another ground war on a third front in the middle east, and our allies are not interested either. Iran will be Iran, no matter what we do. Sanctions don't work against them, and they absolutely don't care about getting along with the rest of the world because they are governed by religious radicals who are demon-possessed. No amount of reasoning with them will ever accomplish anything except frustrate the party trying to be reasonable..........and they are fueling the civil war in Syria.

That country is nothing but a proverbial death trap for America. It will bleed us slowly while Russia and China grow stronger. Getting involved in that part of the world is just plain unwise. Let them start blaming someone else for all their problems.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... assad-bild
Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad, says German press
Bild am Sonntag cites high-level German surveillance source suggesting Syrian president was not personally behind attacks

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

Its got to be more than just oil.

:-)
The largest foreign supplier of oil to America is Canada:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ghostrider wrote:Its got to be more than just oil.

:-)
The largest foreign supplier of oil to America is Canada:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree! Russia and China are getting a strong foothold In The region. Something is up with Russia. They're doing flybys of our war ships and have nuclear tipped missiles on their jets while swiping Guam!! Hello, it's about Russia. The problem is the powers that be want to mislead the American public that Russia is no longer a threat. The helicopters, RPGs etc are all Russian made. Think about the balance of power if Russia is able to bolster Iran, Syria, Iraq, potentially Egypt etc.

Whatever the reason, the result is we are made weak willed by this administration's willingness to tap dance until they get the politically correct, and legally correct words out properly.

AndyC wrote:

ghostrider wrote:The largest foreign supplier of oil to America is Canada

No war for oil! No war for oil! No w.... .......wait... Canada??

Heck we should just take their oil, "Canada's not even a real country anyway!"

Putin to the rescue. Saves Obama from himself. Who would have thought.

philip964 wrote:Putin to the rescue. Saves Obama from himself. Who would have thought.

Buddies are buddies for when one cries, save my Obama!

They wanted to take Syria so that they could have control of a Russian oil pipeline.