What's new

Will there be American invasion in Syria?

Seriously...if the dollar is no longer the standard our economy fails like never before. It will be chaos. This is why Obama wants war, to protect the economy. Losing International reserve currency status is end game folks. I'm not for war, but this is a mess.
 
How does a war in Syria do anything to prevent Russia and China from creating a new currency?

And our economy failing is the last thing that China wants. Duh. Our economy failing basically means that everyone's economy fails, especially China's. I swear, I hear every single week how China wants to kick our ***. I think this is a leftover from the mentality from the previous century. Cuz commies are all out to get us! Thee last thing China wants is for our economy to go into the toilet. They keep loaning us money because with that money we are fueling their economy. It's called macroeconomics people. Study it.

That whole Marxism taking over the planet and Khrushchev, "We Will Bury You" was so 50 years ago. What do any of these countries gain by hurting us and sinking their own economies? The Cold War is over. The sooner we learn this, the better. That whole invading for living space thing? So 1930s. Every country on earth (but us) has realized that occupation and nation building sucks. The sooner we stop doing this and focus on our own welfare, economy, and education, the better.

I think we are digging too deep into coming up with these motives for a US led war. In reality, the motives are probably a lot more simple. It's probably something stupid like Israel is afraid that this civil war could spread into its borders. Or into Iraq, our newest creation. By blowing some **** up in Syria hopefully Assad calms down (cuz thee last thing we want is for him to be killed or step down).

It's something simple like that. Not some mass conspiracy involving the reds, stalin's ghost, and the world wide conspiracy of China and Russia teaming up to destroy the Great Satan, the USA. Because... Well... Because commies are out to get us.
 
Last edited:
This is good read

I apologize for the length, but so many things tie into this one story that it will take a few posts to explain even a condensed version.

The story has many facets, but I will start with the reality of why we are talking about going to war with Syria and let things tie in as they come up. It all starts with Iran and Saudi Arabia, way back in 1901 when a wealthy Englishman, William Knox D'Arcy, approached Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qatar, the ruler of Iran, about an oil concession. The oil industry worldwide was booming and growing, and local reserves, especially in England, were insufficient for the demand. Shah Qatar agreed, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was founded with vast oil reserves found under the sand. This started a boom in the Middle East with other countries searching for oil under various countries with various concessions... at least outside the United States, who was behind the curve in exploration of International oil.

When the Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) finally decided that perhaps foreign oil reserves would be a profitable venture, there were precious few countries left to explore. Europe and India had closed all concessions except for one: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not have the geological signatures that at the time were thought to coincide with oil deposits, and as a result the Saudis watched as their neighbors became filthy rich while they were left destitute. So they were happy to grant a concession when SOCAL approached them in 1933. SOCAL struck oil, which would turn out to be the largest reserves in the area, in 1938, making the Saudis wealthy. Since that day, the Saudis have been friendly to US interests.

In Iran, there were problems brewing almost since the concession was signed. Iran's Constitutional Revolution started in 1905 and lasted for two years before giving way to various attempts by deposed Shahs to reclaim the throne from the ruling body, the Majiles. The Majiles were a democratically elected parliament that has for a short time served as a type of co-ruler beside the Shahs of the Qatar Dynasty, but the Majiles were unhappy about the concessions signed to the oil companies. The feeling was that too much control had been given to outside interests over what was an Iranian asset. Finally, after a series of internal events too numerous to list outside of a large book, the Majiles accepted Reza Shah as ruler in 1921.

What most people don't realize is that Reza Shah had help obtaining his position. American business men had begun investing in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company during this time, and both American and British interests assisted the new regime. Reza Shah was sympathetic to Western interests and would put to an end the turmoil that had threatened the concession rights to Iranian oil. The main accomplishment so far as the oil interests were concerned, was that he managed to decrease the authority of the Majiles. He turned out to be a fairly decent ruler, however, and in general had the support of his people. Reza Shah was responsible for the vast majority of the Westernization of Iran, even changing the name from Persia to Iran. In 1941, British troops forced his abdication to his son, Mohammed Reza Shah.

Mohammed Reza Shah was another story altogether. The Iranian people hated him; Mohammed Reza turned out to be a poor ruler who ignored the needs of his people and who ruled with an iron hand and according to his mood. In 1975, that mood saw proper to establish a single-party government and to declare any citizens who disagreed with the Monarchy as illegal activists. He did retain one characteristic of his father: he was happy to accommodate Western interests. He also was forced to abdicate his throne, but this time it was by the reformed Majiles who seized power in a violent revolution. In 1979, several Iranians seized the United States Embassy and held its occupants hostage until January 20, 1981, demanding the return of Mohammed Reza Shah to Iran for justice. The Shah was never returned, and that incident has left a deep scar in the psyche of Iranians who now see the United States as the major cause fo the tumultuous history they endured.

Why is this history lesson important? Because Iran is important. Mohammed Reza Shah was the leader of OPEC during its early years, and as he was friendly to US interests, he and Saudi Arabia conspired together with those interests to establish an oil distribution system that tied the value of Middle Eastern oil to the United States dollar. No country could purchase oil unless they had dollars; rubles, yen, lira, or pounds were not accepted. Monies had to first be converted to dollars. This was a boon to the US banking industry, and especially to the newly-created Federal Reserve. Instead of having to have gold and silver on hand to meet demands for redemption of gold and silver certificates, the dollars could be backed by the absolute need for oil shared by every developed and developing country across the globe.

In 1934, the United States, in response to the Great Depression, nationalized gold. This act effectively suspended the conversion of dollars for gold, since any citizen demanding conversion was assured of then having his money confiscated. While this did not last forever, it was an interesting experiment in that it proved that obvious monetary backing is less important for those using the currency than faith in the currency itself. When OPEC formed in 1960 and began the dollar-oil peg, movements began to completely remove the gold standard, movements which reached fruition in 1976. The dollar was now assumed to be fiat, although in actuality its strength was backed by the dollar-oil peg.

The foundation for this movement was laid shortly after WWII at the Bretton Woods Meeting. The United States, playing on its status after the devastation of the war left other countries in tatters, came out with the dollar as the International Reserve Currency, which made the dollar-oil peg easier to accomplish later on.
 
~~continued~~

Everything went fine with this plan, especially with Saudi Arabia maintaining a leadership role in OPEC, until the dollar started showing some signs of instability. Under International Reserve Currency status, the dollar has value by definition to any developed or developing nation. That's how the United States has managed to get away with fiscal policy that would flatten any company if a similar measure of "borrow-spend-print more-pay back maybe someday" were used. That is why the US debty is hovering around $16 trillion with no end in sight. To Americans, this has become just the way things are: the United States can print whatever it needs and everything will be OK. But to the rest of the world, this extravagance began to be troubling... especially to the Middle East, with their most precious resource tied so closely to that stumbling dollar.

We now return to our history lesson... shortly after the Iranian Hostage Crisis, war broke out between Iran and Iraq, an essentially religious war between the Shia Muslims of Iran and the Sunni Muslims of Iraq. Concerned about Iran gaining too much power without the strong hand of an American-led Shah to guide them, the US turned to the enemy of Iran, a man named Saddam Hussein, who was also friendly to the West, having been assisted into power by Western operatives. As the enemy of our enemy, Saddam was aided in the war by Jimmy Carter's administration. After the war, however, an argument broke out between Saddam and the tiny port country of Kuwait. Iraq had protected Kuwait throughout the war, and asked that, in lieu of reparations for their protection and to aid Iraq in rebuilding a devastated country, Kuwait forgive a $30 million loan to Iraq. Kuwait refused, and also refused to cooperate with Saddam in other efforts to raise capital to rebuild Iraq. Finally, Saddam learned that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields and approached the US with his grievances. The US refused to help, and Saddam took the only measure he could reasonably take: invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

This action had much more interest in the United States than his arguments had. Under George Bush Sr., the US went to war with Iraq. In the middle of the war effort, the United States stopped actions against Iraq, immediately after forcing them to withdraw from Kuwait. The American people were perplexed, but if they had realized that this was not a war but rather a "spanking" to an ally who was simply misbehaving, they would not have been so.

The aftermath of the war included severe economic sanctions on Hussein, which further exasperated his efforts to rebuild Iraq. Finally, after the UN implemented the Oil-For-Food program in 1996 in response to humanitarian concerns, Saddam found a way to get his oil sold for profit, with the assistance of an oil-hungry Russia. But this meant that in order to circumvent the oil embargo, Hussein had sold his oil for rubles... not dollars.

This revelation was coming to light in intelligence circles prior to the events of September 11, 2001, and the attack on the Twin Towers was just what was needed to get the American people behind a full military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Suddenly pulling back after forcing a retreat was not enough; Iraq was invaded and Hussein's regime was overthrown, leading to George Bush Jr.'s infamous early declaration of victory. Bearing in mind the purpose behind the war, Saddam Hussein's complete overthrow, his declaration was actually quite well-timed. Unfortunately, the remnants of his regime were not so easy to eliminate, and continuous fighting kept us active in the region until it was finally realized that there was an even greater need to be in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had started a trend, and with the dollar's strength in question, other countries decided to depeg their oil from the dollar as well. Starting in Egypt, the Arab Springs saw several countries overthrown and new pundits placed into power amid rumors that each was influenced by American black ops. When one looks at the revolutions compared to each countries fiscal policies regarding the dollar-oil peg, it becomes clear these are more than just rumors; each revolution occurred soon after an intent was shown to depeg from the dollar.

~~continued~~
 
This correlation has one major exception: Iran. Iran depegged from the dollar officially in 2007 and in 2008 unveiled the Iranian Oil Bourse, a commodity trading exchange based in Iran and open to all currencies. The only reason this was allowed was because the United States was unable to stop it; Iran's intense hatred of the West makes covert operations inside Iran notoriously difficult, if not nigh impossible. As a result, the United States has had to take other steps to protect its economic interests. Enter the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To date, no uranium enrichment has been found that tested for over the 20% enrichment limit for LEU fuel, save a tiny amount so small it was reported by the UN inspectors not as an amount, but as a "trace." Considering that Iranian centrifuges have been tampered with by Western interests via the infamous Stuxnet virus, some amount of anomalies is not surprising. Stuxnet operated by reprogramming the PLCC interfaces between the Iranian nuclear research network and the centrifuges used to enrich the uranium. BY making minor adjustments rapidly while the centrifuges were turning, the virus caused them to literally shake themselves apart. The virus could have very easily caused the centrifuges to increase their spin speed, causing anomalies in the resulting uranium enrichment.

It was never officially proven who created and released Stuxnet, but the code bears strong resemblance to US and Israeli code used elsewhere in the defense departments.

Yet, this trace amount combined with a few national security delays when inspectors showed up unexpectedly, have been used to stir up a firestorm of sentiment against Iran. Everything is now set to not just invade Iran, but to remove Iran from existence. All that is needed is for one country to decide that it has no choice but to respond to these "obvious" threats than to take immediate proactive measures and launch a pre-emptive strike. I am talking about Israel. Israel has some legitimate concerns: their small size means a single nuke would wipe them out of existence, and since Israel is a strong ally of the US, Iran has indeed made as many strong comments against them as they have toward us. Should the US strike against a sovereign country without direct provocation or obvious cause, it would be seen as ghastly an act as Hitler's actions at the beginning of WWII. But Israel, with its concerns, might be able to pull it off, especially with a little covert help from the US.

One problem still exists, and this of course is where we started: Syria. As Iran's major ally in the area, Syria under Assad is a loose cannon waiting to go off should Israel strike against Iran. Syria must therefore be subjugated just like the other countries in the Arab Spring. But Syria has not given in to revolution quite as readily as did Egypt or Libya. Doubtless with aid from Iran, who obviously can see what's going on, Syria has stood... and stood... and stood... until now we must get involved personally to correct his heinous abuse of chemical weaponry.

It's not about religion... it's not about oil... it's not about Israel... it's all about the dollar and its relation to global oil supplies. Should we lose the International Reserve Currency status, our economy will collapse into something unrecognizable overnight. The dollar will become so worthless it would take a wheelbarrow to carry enough money to buy a week's worth of food. The stock market will crash to an extent that it will not recover from. The Great Depression will look like a hiccup in a ticker tape by comparison... and the politicians, power brokers, and bankers know it. It will not just affect the middle class and below; this one will take everyone invested in the dollar out.

The real problem now, and the reason I have decided to put this out there for all the ridicule and disbelief that will inevitably be the result, is that the American people aren't buying it this time. The public and even the Congressional sentiment is against direct intervention in Syria, despite the chemical weapons card being played to great advantage. It's almost as bad as in the days prior to our involvement in WWII, when FDR wanted badly to bring America into the war and America refused. It took an attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor in 1941 to bring American sentiment around. Memos found after the war indicate that the Japanese were not just deciding to commit suicide on the US for the fun of it; American military actions, intentionally leaked information, and International posturing tricked the Japanese into believing America was about to strike them, and they simply chose to strike first. Those brave soldiers who died that day died for one reason: so we could fight the war.

Today, the President finds himself in a similar position. He has to bring the US military to bear in an unpopular action, directly against the will of the American people and Congress. How to do it? Look at history. We tricked the enemy into attacking us back in 1941, and we will do it again. This time the target will not be military, and the attackers will not appear out of a blue Hawaiian sky. This time the attackers prefer homemade bombs set off in civilian targets to cause the most devastating effect possible.

I believe we will see a terrorist attack on par with 9-11 within the next short time frame. I also pray I am wrong.

*********************
A little tinfoil hat banter, but the logic and history is sound.
 
Lol. The length of those posts now confirms my suspicion: Paranoia is alive and well. And proves my point. Russia and China working for some conspiracy to take down the USA makes for some great action movie. But nothing could be further from reality.

Lets face it. We are afraid of this civil war over spilling into chemical warfare in a country we care about. Turkey. Iraq. Israel. And bombing some **** over there might just knock some sense into Assad to mind his Ps and Qs and not use WMDs. Have your civil war, sure, whatever. But chems chems are no bueno. Use machetes instead! We didn't give a damn when these weapons were used in Rwanda!
 
Rwanda does not have oil.

WMDs were not used. Machetes were. The truth is, the world does not care if machetes are used to kill millions. Chemical warfare is a completely different ball game. That's the (sad) truth.

Israel, Iraq, and Turkey get nervous when chem chems are being used in their backyard. When they get nervous, we, the world's police, are forced to act. Or at least threaten!

The oil in Syria accounts for like .000000000000000001 percent of the oil used per day. Even if we could take over that country and steal every past drop of oil, it would last us maybe one hr. Trillions of dollars thrown away in nation building and thousands of lives isn't close to being worth the tiny bit of oil the Syria has. we probably make 10x more fuel fracking our own country.

If we wanted to really start a war for oil we would go ahead and beat the hell our of Iran. They're punks, their somewhat western friendly people (especially the college age onss) actually aren't backed by Al-Queda might actually treat us as liberators, and oil? Yahoo! Talk about oil! Hell, a war in Iran might be the war that has made the most sense since WWII. Certainly the last few wars have been head scratchers. Why did we attack Iraq again?

This isn't over oil. It's all about chemical warfare and Israel/iraq's security. We weren't talking about Syria until WMDs were used. This civil war stuff didn't just start a few weeks ago. It has been boiling over for quite some time now. However, the use of WMDs is a new twist that has our allies in the region worried.

As long as Syria wants to use conventional weapons have at it! Send your millions to Allah! "Let Allah sort it out!" But the second they use WMDs? That got everyone worried. And while I'd like to tell our allies in the region to deal with it we cannot. One, because we have too much neocon influence in our government, too much corporate interest, and too many lobbyists. War is damn good business. So is kissing Israel's ***.
 
Last edited:
WMDs were not used.

Israel, Iraq, and Turkey get nervous when chem chems are being used in their backyard. When they get nervous, we, the world's police, are forced to act. Or at least threaten!

"Forced"? Are there any hard or soft power in the world that can force USA to an action or doing a thing without their consent? You're talking like USA is the aggrieved side.
 
Many of the other countries in the region have voiced concern over the WMDs. I have no doubt that Turkey and Iraq don't like WMDs being used in their backyard. These countries can support a UN/US led resolution. They cannot support an Israel led resolution.

We are essentially doing their dirty work for them.

And are we forced to do anything? Yes and no. But that's complicated and I want to go to sleep.
 
Seriously...if the dollar is no longer the standard our economy fails like never before. It will be chaos. This is why Obama wants war, to protect the economy. Losing International reserve currency status is end game folks. I'm not for war, but this is a mess.

And for only $100 bucks of your hard earned cash, Porter Stansberry will gladly send you tips on being prepared for this coming crisis.

Innovations in extracting and processing natural gas deposits will make this country an international powerhouse like never before within the next 15-20 years. It's akin to a millionaire winning Power Ball. While I think this country will have major internal problems within the next half century, it's not going to lose it's standing in the international community any time soon.
 
Lol. The length of those posts now confirms my suspicion: Paranoia is alive and well. And proves my point. Russia and China working for some conspiracy to take down the USA makes for some great action movie. But nothing could be further from reality.

Lets face it. We are afraid of this civil war over spilling into chemical warfare in a country we care about. Turkey. Iraq. Israel. And bombing some **** over there might just knock some sense into Assad to mind his Ps and Qs and not use WMDs. Have your civil war, sure, whatever. But chems chems are no bueno. Use machetes instead! We didn't give a damn when these weapons were used in Rwanda!

Based on what? Not saying I believe Vermin but at least he is basing his arguement off history. He laid out a very detailed arguement and you think you win by labeling him as paranoid and saying no way?
 
And for only $100 bucks of your hard earned cash, Porter Stansberry will gladly send you tips on being prepared for this coming crisis.

Innovations in extracting and processing natural gas deposits will make this country an international powerhouse like never before within the next 15-20 years. It's akin to a millionaire winning Power Ball. While I think this country will have major internal problems within the next half century, it's not going to lose it's standing in the international community any time soon.

To me that depends on what criteria you are using to judge our standing with the international community. I think the gap has dramatically narrowed in soft power. The US is not seen as trustworthy and that their are viable alternatives now.

Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/...an-chemical-arsenal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

France is taking a propasal to the UN Secuirty Council that requires Syria to hand over and dismantle its chemical weapons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629/

Saudi Arabia was sending death row inmates to fight in Syria in return for commuting their sentance. That is so wrong...
 
Last edited:
Based on what? Not saying I believe Vermin but at least he is basing his arguement off history. He laid out a very detailed arguement and you think you win by labeling him as paranoid and saying no way?

Vermin's telling a story of what has been and molding it into what could be. I guess, theoretically, it could be true. But it's circumstantial evidence. Unlike the last war for oil in the name of WMD's, we know chemical weapons are present; we just don't know who used them yet. The evidence is pointing at Assad, but his regime being amicable to handing over their chemical weapons is an obstruction.. a way to buy time.

Whether he's buying time to prove it's the rebels using chemical weapons, or he's buying time to crush those rebels I have no idea. We'll never know until we get in there alike how an orthopedic surgeon never really knows the extent of the damage to a knee, so s/he has a prosthetic knee handy, but attempts to just shave bone, or remove scar tissue. So the next question we have to ask is the same question you would ask yourself when your knee is hurting you but there's a chance you could come out of it without the need for surgery.
 
Vermin's telling a story of what has been and molding it into what could be. I guess, theoretically, it could be true. But it's circumstantial evidence. Unlike the last war for oil in the name of WMD's, we know chemical weapons are present; we just don't know who used them yet. The evidence is pointing at Assad, but his regime being amicable to handing over their chemical weapons is an obstruction.. a way to buy time.

Whether he's buying time to prove it's the rebels using chemical weapons, or he's buying time to crush those rebels I have no idea. We'll never know until we get in there alike how an orthopedic surgeon never really knows the extent of the damage to a knee, so s/he has a prosthetic knee handy, but attempts to just shave bone, or remove scar tissue. So the next question we have to ask is the same question you would ask yourself when your knee is hurting you but there's a chance you could come out of it without the need for surgery.

Fair enough. But that is much more convincing than "no way, you're paranoid".
 
Back
Top