that Syrian Civil War is NO JOKE VOL. over 1300 dead after alleged Nerve gas attack

[whatstruistru]

[font=arial,helvetica][size=+1]War Is A Racket[/size][/font]

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville//CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

Smedley Darlington Butler

• Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
• Educated: Haverford School
• Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
• Awarded two congressional medals of honor:
  1. capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914
  2. capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
• Distinguished service medal, 1919
• Major General - United States Marine Corps
• Retired Oct. 1, 1931
• On leave of absence to act as 
  director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
• Lecturer -- 1930's
• Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
• Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
• For more information about Major General Butler, 
  contact the United States Marine Corps.

 

[kingkoopa]

Head in the sand

That is a phrase used for people who don't want to see the truth or scared of it. My statement had nothing to do with either I don't think.

 

[reggiekiller]

I'm not sure how many of you guys have been to the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm like 99% sure its none of yall, but its a really really odd place.

Especially Jordan.  But they are much more liberal there than we are here when it comes to homosexuality. They dont care at all lol

 

[teamjordan79]

I'm not sure how many of you guys have been to the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm like 99% sure its none of yall, but its a really really odd place.

Especially Jordan.  But they are much more liberal there than we are here when it comes to homosexuality. They dont care at all lol

what does homosexuality have to do with the attacks in Syria?

FYI They don't tolerate homosexuality (i think u can even get the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, which is ironic) at all although there is more intimacy between males in comparison with the west such as holding hands in public, however, it is not considered gay.

and i've been to the ME if it matters

 

[rashi]

I'm not sure how many of you guys have been to the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm like 99% sure its none of yall, but its a really really odd place.

Especially Jordan.  But they are much more liberal there than we are here when it comes to homosexuality. They dont care at all lol

I'm Palestinian, and I honestly dont see what is meant by this and relation to current events.

 

[sonoftony]

the media coverage on this is crazy :x

They just wanna say **** it and go to war just because.

 

[reggiekiller]

I'm not sure how many of you guys have been to the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm like 99% sure its none of yall, but its a really really odd place.

Especially Jordan.  But they are much more liberal there than we are here when it comes to homosexuality. They dont care at all lol

what does homosexuality have to do with the attacks in Syria?

FYI They don't tolerate homosexuality (i think u can even get the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, which is ironic) at all although there is more intimacy between males in comparison with the west such as holding hands in public, however, it is not considered gay.

and i've been to the ME if it matters

you're wrong

Although I thought it was BS at first too, until I saw it first hand.  Man Love Thursday is very real.

[h1]Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds[/h1]
Published January 28, 2010
FoxNews.com

Facebook979  Twitter76  LinkedIn2

As if U.S. troops and diplomats didn't have enough to worry about in trying to understand Afghan culture, a new report suggests an entire region in the country is coping with a sexual identity crisis. 

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan  details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it. 

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual." The research was conducted as part of a longstanding effort to better understand Afghan culture and improve Western interaction with the local people. 

The research unit, which was attached to a Marine battalion in southern Afghanistan, acknowledged that the behavior of some Afghan men has left Western forces "frequently confused." 

The report details the bizarre interactions a U.S. Army medic and her colleagues had with Afghan men in the southern province of Kandahar. 

In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually -- "because they were not homosexuals." 

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification." 

The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment. 

The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant. 

The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'" 

The Pashtun populations are concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country. The Human Terrain Team that conducted the research is part of a military effort to learn more about local populations. 

The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older "men of status" keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country's favorite sayings, the report said, is "women are for children, boys are for pleasure." 

The report concluded that the widespread homosexual behavior stems from several factors, including the "severe segregation" of women in the society and the "prohibitive" cost of marriage. 

Though U.S. troops are commonly taught in training for Afghanistan that the "effeminate characteristics" of Pashtun men are "normal" and not an indicator of homosexuality, the report said U.S. forces should not "dismiss" the unique version of homosexuality that is actually practiced in the region "out of desire to avoid western discomfort." 

Otherwise, the report said, Westerners could "risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...le-sexual-identity-study-finds/#ixzz2dMbDQFtn

I'm not sure how many of you guys have been to the Middle East?

Honestly, I'm like 99% sure its none of yall, but its a really really odd place.

Especially Jordan.  But they are much more liberal there than we are here when it comes to homosexuality. They dont care at all lol

I'm Palestinian, and I honestly dont see what is meant by this and relation to current events.

The homosexuality part has nothing to do with it.  But it was definitely the most eye opening part of my time there.

But the "never been to the middle east" comment, was in reference to statements saying that this stuff isn't "really" happening over there.  I've been there and seen first hand alot of atrocities.  I have no problem believing that this **** is happening from personal experience

 

[reggiekiller]

the media coverage on this is crazy

They just wanna say **** it and go to war just because.

 

[ninjahood]

the media coverage on this is crazy

They just wanna say **** it and go to war just because.

da irony is da same people were hanging bush for going to war...

 

[reggiekiller]

the media coverage on this is crazy

They just wanna say **** it and go to war just because.

Although, I wonder why people are against this.

A.  We have a volunteer military, so you wont get drafted to go.

B.  Its good for the economy.

C.  Some good might actually happen.

Despite what most of you think is going on over in CentCOM warzones, its not all atrocities and killing that the military is doing.  When I was there, our #1 mission was to develop rapport with the locals.  I got stuck in a tent with a bunch of Jordanians once for 2 months, and every single day, we dodged overt sexual advances from them, ate with them, smoked with them, and really just shared culture.  War is not all about warfighting.

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

So this "liberal" (and I hate that term, bc I'm as liberal as it comes) stance that the US is warmongering, and we're babykillers blah blah blah is BS, and misinformed.  Its funny to read through a thread like this, filled with people who are living lives of privildege compared to the people of these various ME countries, who all of a sudden have first hand knowledge that all these atrocities in Syria are fake.

 

[sonoftony]

the media coverage on this is crazy :x


They just wanna say **** it and go to war just because.

Although, I wonder why people are against this.


A.  We have a volunteer military, so you wont get drafted to go.

B.  Its good for the economy.

C.  Some good might actually happen.

Despite what most of you think is going on over in CentCOM warzones, its not all atrocities and killing that the military is doing.  When I was there, our #1 mission was to develop rapport with the locals.  I got stuck in a tent with a bunch of Jordanians once for 2 months, and every single day, we dodged overt sexual advances from them, ate with them, smoked with them, and really just shared culture.  War is not all about warfighting.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

View media item 558252

So this "liberal" (and I hate that term, bc I'm as liberal as it comes) stance that the US is warmongering, and we're babykillers blah blah blah is BS, and misinformed.  Its funny to read through a thread like this, filled with people who are living lives of privildege compared to the people of these various ME countries, who all of a sudden have first hand knowledge that all these atrocities in Syria are fake.

I had no idea you served so I'd like to say thank you

now, only reason why I'm against is because we have so many problems at home (IE: Detroit) but yet "we must go war" FOH

 

[reggiekiller]

I appreciate it bro.

But that Detroit logic is backwards, because wartime economy is one of the healthiest you can have.  So technically going to war could help Detroit.

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

[article=""][h1]Wartime Economics … Then and Now[/h1]
By Alan Reynolds

This article was first published in the Washington Times,  October 25, 2001.

The economy was also troubled by simultaneous war and recession a decade ago, when George Bush Senior was president. Yet the current situation is quite different from 1990 and in some respects better. Most important, oil prices and interest rates are already much lower, and businesses have been working off excess inventories all year.

The last recession began in August 1990, just as Iraq invaded Kuwait. One reason is obvious: The price of oil more than doubled in three months, from $17 a barrel in July to $36 by October. In fact, a sharp rise in oil prices preceded every recession of the past three decades, including this one. The difference this time is that oil prices have now been falling for quite a while, slipping from more than $34 last November to around $22 lately. That’s the good news. The bad news is that demand for energy fell largely because industrial production has declined every month for an entire year.

In 1990, U.S. industrial production did not even begin to fall until September, and then for only six months. Ironically, that difference may now make the future a bit easier to handle. Businesses have already been cutting inventories and jobs for months, unlike 1990, so there is less need or room for further cutbacks. Any store with empty shelves cannot empty the shelves a second time. Also, the fact that we begin this battle with manufacturing operating below 75 percent of capacity makes it ridiculous to fret about overstressing the economy with too much “guns and butter.”

The current recession did not begin on Sept. 11. It began no later than March, possibly as early as last October. Weakness first appeared in profits and investment, not consumer spending. Poor profits forced companies to first slash investments in inventories and equipment and later to lay off workers.

Over the past year, profit margins were squeezed by rising labor costs, energy costs and interest costs. Energy and interest expenses are clearly abating, and labor costs will too. Labor costs per unit of production rose at an 8.9 percent annual rate in last year’s fourth quarter, even after adjusting for productivity gains. With business prices rising by only 1.5 percent and labor costs by 8.9 percent, something had to give. Fortunately, it looks as though pay and benefits have moderated, minimizing the only alternative (layoffs). Economic recovery will further reduce unit labor costs by increasing the number of units each worker produces (productivity).

Just as cheaper energy will be good news for many industries that use a lot of fuel or electricity, cheaper credit will also be good news for companies that got themselves too deeply in hock. Oil prices came down after October 1990 too, which helped end that recession. But interest rates were much slower to move.

In 1990, the Federal Reserve kept the fed funds rate above 8.2 percent in September and lowered it very gradually. The funds rate was not reduced to 3 percent until December 1992 — 21 months after the recession ended. This time, by contrast, the funds rate is already down to 2.5 percent and many think it is going lower still. That has to make a huge difference. Families and firms can refinance their old debts at lower rates. And those sitting on money market funds have a stronger incentive to invest.

Before Sept. 11, as some diehards were still debating whether recession had even begun, key statistics suggested the recession may instead have been close to ending. Leading indicators had risen for a few months. And the September survey from the National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM) came in at 47 — down fractionally from August but up significantly from 42.1 in May and 43.6 in July. A decade ago, that NAPM survey dropped all the way to 39.2 in January, 1991, from 46.1 the previous August. When the NAPM survey turned up the following month, however, that did indeed signal that the recession’s end was only another month away.

If you want to know what lies ahead, keep an eye on such measures of production and profits, not unemployment or “confidence.” Focus on the supply side of the economy, which ultimately drives demand.

Unemployment is a notorious lagging indicator, which rose by a full percentage point long after the last recession ended. Consumer confidence reacts to economic news rather than causes it. The Conference Board’s confidence survey hit a cyclical low of 55.2 in January, 1991, much lower than today. Yet consumer spending rose in the month after that dismal confidence survey and continued rising by 3.1 percent over the following year.

Higher oil prices and interest rates have always shoved the economy into recession. Lower oil prices and lower interest rates have always had the opposite effect. Why should today be any different? Sure, consumers are likely to postpone some purchases for a few months. But buying less now and more later just makes next year stronger. And when people spend less on one thing they invariably spend more on something else.

Rising stock markets have always been followed by rising consumer confidence. Fortunately, we know what normally happens to stock prices shortly after the initial wartime panic. When Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the market was hit hard. But the U.S. did not fight back until Jan. 17, 1991. On the following day, a New York Times headline read “Stocks Soar and Oil Drops on War News.” Within two months, the Dow was up 19.8 percent. Similarly, two months after the U.S. stood firm in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Dow was up 21.3 percent. Resolute action evidently inspires confidence.

Soon after Sept. 11 (a bit too soon), several prominent economic writers advised buying stocks for patriotic reasons. Judging by what happened within a couple of months after similar situations, even such premature advice should soon pay off. Patriots should not feel too guilty about making money by investing in U.S. industry. It’s the American way.
[/article]

 

[bandit country]

SHOW ME ONE PERSON WHO DE NIED A CHEMICAL ATTACK HAPPENED. Get out of here with that John Kerry strawman garbage.

 

[reggiekiller]

SHOW ME ONE PERSON WHO DE NIED A CHEMICAL ATTACK HAPPENED. Get out of here with that John Kerry strawman garbage.

this.  1300 Syrians dead, and yall are sitting here trying to find ways to delegitimize that.

Its sick forreal

 

[knowledgebones72]

as a knicks fan, i refuse to accept anything ReggieKILLER has to say no matter how much sense he may make.

 

[reggiekiller]

as a knicks fan, i refuse to accept anything ReggieKILLER has to say no matter how much sense he may make.

 

[wr]

"U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3284-107a-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story_1.html

WASHINGTON — The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said in an interview with “NewsHour” on PBS. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet’s insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk” — intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad’s forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies’ concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria’s military complex. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Syrian issue publicly.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad’s forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.


In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad’s authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House’s case for a strike against Assad’s military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community’s report, which had been expected Tuesday.

The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.

“We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons,” Kerry said. “We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place.”

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn’t really matter whether the administration knew those details with total certainty.

“We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies,” Harf said.

The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad’s government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response.

“Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate.”

Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.

“There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack,” Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.

___

 

[reggiekiller]

Let me ask you this Wr.  What makes this article that you posted more credible than the ones saying that the chemical attack did happen?

Or is it just that this fits what you already thought, so you decided to post it?

"U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said."

 

 

[wr]

Let me ask you this Wr.  What makes this article that you posted more credible than the ones saying that the chemical attack did happen?

Or is it just that this fits what you already thought, so you decided to post it?

I posted it to update the discussion with a current events article. I'm not one to take sides. I just have my own opinion.

This article is not about which one of us in this thread is righ or wrong.

It's about the fact the media plays both sides of the public. Then we sit here and argue like we are them. We know they are owned and control by corporate interest.

I think what's really important is the tone of disconnect in western powers the media seems to be playing up.

 

[al audi]

as a knicks fan, i refuse to accept anything ReggieKILLER has to say no matter how much sense he may make.

 

[reggiekiller]

Let me ask you this Wr.  What makes this article that you posted more credible than the ones saying that the chemical attack did happen?

Or is it just that this fits what you already thought, so you decided to post it?

I posted it to update the discussion of current events. I'm not one to take sides. I just have my own opinion.

My bad for the tone, I was just asking though.

 

[wr]

^Saul Goodman

 

[an dee 51o]

My dad's theory that I think is definitely plausible is that the order to use the chemical weapons didn't come from Assad, but probably some other dumb officer.

Either that or the Syrian government meant to use them on a smaller scale (there have been reports for a while that chemical weapons were being used), but this attack got out of hand.

There is a possibility that a rogue faction of the rebels did it to themselves, but the attack was just so awful that it's harder for me to believe.

 

[menacin methods]

You won't find this type of reporting on CNN - http://www.globalpost.com/photo-galleries/planet-pic/5718451/life-and-death-aleppo-photos

For those who think the freedom fighters or as some call them "rebels" are responsible for the chemical weapon is a joke.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

I love how people in our government have openly admitted they don't know who is responsible for this but are still trying extra hard to get some confrontation going. Like legit admitting they have no evidence. Its not even surprising to me either.

I'm glad the UN is fighting it. Iran is promising to rain hell on Israel if there's a strike. We are not ready for that.