IMO they will raise rates. the economy will stall. they will be forced to increase purchases of equities and reduce rates (again). the fed will not let another 2008 happen however they will make the crash that much harder. the house of cards has been built for a long time over many administrations and its waay past the point of any attempt at recovery. delaying the pain will make the pain even worse but when it comes crashing down USD will be gone forever and alternatives (like metals and yes BTC) will reign. you will have time though as petrodollar is king at this point other nations will fall before us. make your time.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

I never though there WAS a question. I mean, the name itself, "WORLD TRADE Center". It's all about anti-globalization. They mind the fact that we remove crude oil from their homelands (which, given their delusions about an Eternal Caliphate, is a big swath of land), and give monstrously corrupt regimes all the cash and military might they want, as long as they keep the situation contained. The region was never stable to begin with, but with the way it was set up, it'll never get better. In their eyes, the WTC was where all those petrodollars were laundered and used to put a respectable business face on the dark deeds of the past. It's why Ward Churchill got into so much trouble by referring to those who worked in the WTC as 'little Eichmanns'-- hey, man, they were only following orders, pushing papers around an office. He wasn't calling them Nazis. Rather, Eichmann was found guilty not of killing anyone, but rather perfecting a system, the consequences of which was the slaughter of millions. This does not justify in any way the actions taken by the hijackers and their masters. The religion they so fervently follow forbids 'collateral damage'. They are hypocrites, and they are delusional. All this came out before, and I can imagine the MSM not really giving a damn about trucking out that bag of loons one more time.

As for 'It's Israel, stupid!" I'm not a fan of atrocities against unarmed civilians. I have no idea what it would take to make that part of the world get along. I do know that, were we to follow the whims of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the entire country AND race would be driven into the sea and drowned. There is no pretense to compromise. Israel is a convenient head to hang their hate. Simple as that. Could Israel chill the crap out a little more? Probably. 34 Americans died on the USS Liberty because Israel got sloppy.

The Palestinians need to realize what the people in Kansas seem incapable of understanding--there are people out there who will deceive you. They will make you believe that they are on your side, and protecting your interests. In truth, they only want to stir up the muck within yourselves, and will often make you act outside of your own self-interest. If we can't solve it among people at relative peace, how do we solve it when both sides have been going at it for decades?

This is how the terrorists use your petrodollars.

>> ^bcglorf:

First off, I think Bush and Cheney should both be impeached and thrown in jail for allowing torture and the idea of Geneva-less non-combatants.

I'm with you there.

That said, comparing an invasion of Georgia to an invasion of Saddam's regime in Iraq is ludicrous. Georgia never gave government offices to wanted terrorists. Georgia never annexed a soverign nation. Georgia never used chemical weapons against it's neighbors and own people. Georgia never committed genocide. Saddam did all of these and a great deal more.

And this is where you lost me. I am comparing the motivation of the political leaders who invaded these nations, and I see a similarity between political agendas being served. First of all, the annexing you speak of was in 1990, and H.W. Bush answered that one. Dubya's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with genocide or chemical weapons or annexing nations; it had everything to do with American hegemony and protecting the dollar when Saddam decided to switch from the petrodollar to the petroeuro. Any other reason given for the invasion and occupation was bullshit propaganda.

First off, Bush Jr. wasn't in power when 100's of thousands of lives were at stake in Rwanda and Sudan. I think it's unfair to blame prior presidential inaction on the current president(even one that aught be impeached). More importantly, the left wing argument about non-intervention in Sudan or Rwanda is insane. The question is SHOULD the world have intervened in Sudan and Rwanda, and the answer is a deafening YES!

I'm not just talking about the crises in Sudan and Rwanda. Africa is marred by violence and famine, and dictators run most of it with an iron fist, thus causing millions of deaths across the continent. If we are so gung-ho about stopping genocide, why not start there instead of in the Middle East? We chose the Middle East, and it's because we're afraid OPEC will switch to the petroeuro and destroy the dollar. And we cover this in the guise of stopping terrorists. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still missing, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. PROPAGANDA takes the place of information, yet again.

If non-intervention in Iraq would have led to a coup and a civil war that in any way resembled Sudan or Rwanda then inspite of Bush and Cheney's actions that appall me, the act of preventing that would redeem them. That said, I don't think anyone can really see what an internal Iraqi civil war would've looked like. Though, it would be fair to say it would have been ugly, at least as ugly as the current situation in Iraq.

You don't know what a civil war in Iraq looks like? Have you not heard the body count of civilians caught in the crossfire of the Sunni-Shi'ite battles?

I think this may be an excerpt of this longer post (mine incidentally):

http://www.videosift.com/video/Iraq-and-the-Petrodollar-first-step-on-the-march-to-war

The Petrodollar conspiracy is a weak one, and is not backed by any serious economic argument. At roughly $6 trillion foreign exchange reserves are simply not that large a chunk of global assets (not to mention debts or transactions).

That said, control over oil production probably has a far larger economic and political value than the price of oil would suggest.

I've just posted the whole thing. Submit your upvote now, be a part of history!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Iraq-and-the-Petrodollar-first-step-on-the-march-to-war

Choggy is actually sort of right on this one. The Democrat vs Republican duopoly distracts people. The collectivist mentality usually means defending whatever your party does when the other side blames and visa versa. Judging by actions and not words (Bush campaigned on no policing of the world), it's clear that both parties believe in military interventionism of some kind. McCain's a warmongering nut who thinks Iran getting nukes is the end of the world when the soviets had 40,000. We knew that. But look at all the people in love with the Democrat candidates. Neither Clinton or Obama want to close up our bases all over the world. They, like McCain, also believe Iran getting nukes shouldn't be allowed and would probably strike militarily. I support going after Bin Laden in Pakistan because he attacked us, but look at what we did instead. Nation building, industrial profiteering, coercing the petrodollar. We'll keep getting this nonsense instead of addressing the idea that intervention may be the root cause of 9/11s and people hating us as long as people keep ignoring the Ron Paul's of the world, suppressing third parties, etc. This will all end on economic terms soon enough, the worst way it possibly can. The soviets made the same mistake, but didn't have as free of a market to sustain it for as long as we have.

QM - "Displays of weakness are unacceptable. This enemy respects only brute force. " - what kind of bullshit philosophy is that to live by?

Firstly, peaceful negotiations are not a sign of weakness. Working with the UN is not a sign of weakness. Talking to Iran and Syria is not a sign of weakness. Talking to Muqtada al-Sadr is not a sign of weakness. America should never have gone into Iraq the way they did - illegally, unprepared, ill-informed, and without a mandate from the international community. Britain shouldn't have followed - blame Blair, he is a complete idiot and the most hated PM in British history. Unfortunately, British support meant that Bush and his neocon army began to believe their own lies.

Secondly, how the hell did we end up in a world where people think that the only way to achieve anything is by threatening or killing people? No one respects brute force. It may temporarily coerce people into submission. But it fosters hate, resentment, and revolt in the long-term - just look at Palestine. Ghandi and Mandela achieved an awful lot without heavy artillery and torture!!!

Thirdly, you are assuming that you can easily define who the enemy is - you can't!!! if America had done some research before they invaded, had consulted anyone who knew anything about Iraq, they would have realised just how complex the political, religious and ethnic division in iraq are. Before the illegal invasion of Iraq, there had been increasing hostility between Shi'a and Sunni - due in a large part to the extreme form of unitarian Hanbali Islam (known in the West as Wahhabism or Salafism) spread by Saudi with the help of petrodollars. Wahhabis are particularly vocal in their condemnation of the Shi'a - branding all Shi'a as heretics. Couple this with the appalling treatment of the Shi'a under Saddam and the regional power aspirations of Iran and Syria and you have a potent recipe for disaster. The last thing anyone should have done was ignite a sectarian conflict - which is now effectively a civil war - in the most religiously divided country in the Middle East.

Furthermore, the unquestioning support of the US and Britain for Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon, has inadvertently increased the power of Hezbollah - a Shi'a party. Hezbollah were widely heralded as the defenders of Lebanon against the unjustified brute force used by Israel to collectively punish the Lebanese people. The inability of the Lebanese government to respond to Israeli aggression - which was directed not just at Hezbollah but at all the peoples of Lebanon - has given Hezbollah a chance to seize power. The Sunni, Christian and Druze of Lebanon do not want to be ruled by a conservative Shi'a party so there is an increasing likelihood of a second sectarian civil war in Lebanon.

So where has brute force got us?

Thousands dead in Palestine and Israel. Thousands dead in Lebanon. Thousands dead in Iraq.

As the prospect of a wider sectarian conflict consuming the whole of the Middle East becomes ever more likely, I think it's time that we stopped advocating brute force, stopped saying you're either with us or against us, and started advocating dialogue.