Name One.
Posted on 12/17/2016 8:22:09 PM PST by dynachrome
Good good man, you have the nerve to post more of your pompous BS? After the fool you made of yourself in the primaries with your condescending lectures that were wrong on every single point. Yet here you are again, posting like you know what hell you are talking about. Have you no shame?
Name One.
cruz
Interesting. There was a pipeline from Iraq across the Golan Heights and Galilee to the Israeli seaport city of Haifa, but it was soon destroyed after Israel became a nation. You can still see the remnants.
Fast and furious was another variant.
“It all started with Mubarak in Egypt and the Arab spring”
Are you sure that Saddam Hussein wasn’t the first victim of this policy of removing secular governments and ushering in “fundamentalists” — e.g., al Qaeda, MB, etc.?
To quote Joe six chip, what "the hell are you talking about"?
I am proud of my support of Ted Cruz in the primary season and I faithfully fulfilled my promise to support Donald Trump, consistent with self-respect, in the general election season.
If you cannot produce a single specific breach of that promise shut the hell up. Not one word concerning the substance of my original reply has stained your self-righteousness. Surely you can find a specific example about someone who was "wrong on every single issue" or, failing that, perhaps you could summon the intellectual honesty to engage on the merits of the reply to which you respond.
I did not invite you to attack me personally. Why are you so afraid of me? Why cannot you engage on the merits instead of attacking me personally without provocation?
Bullshit. Obama and Clinton acted in the national interests of their Saudi and Qatari puppet masters who wanted to run a pipeline through Syria. That’s all this was about.
It's both. And, more. Much more.
The first question to ask is: Who benefits the most from a pipeline from Saudi Arabia / Qatar to Europe? Secondarily, who is hurt the most?
Also, keep in mind that there is a competing pipeline plan: It would transport gas from Iran to the west coast of Syria, and then (via tankers?) on to Europe. The same questions apply.
The answer to the first question is that it is the Euros who would benefit most from that Saudi / Qatar - to- Europe pipeline. Europe's need to buy gas is somewhat more urgent than the Gulf States need to sell it -- the Gulf States won 't literally freeze to death in the winter if they don't sell what is at present a largely undeveloped resource. The Euros have the additional problem that they do NOT want to stay in a position where Putin can dictate to them because he has a near monopoly on the gas Europe needs (especially in certain countries.) This is particularly a problem for the globalists -- though it gets right down to the average European rather quickly, too, should a major dispute arise.
If Russia has real competition for gas (and oil) sales to Europe, they, and Putin, are "screwed" big-time. That of course would delight the globalists to no end. Prior to Trump, Russian nationalism was perhaps the globalists' biggest obstruction.
If the pipeline from Iran is built, and the Saudi / Qatari pipeline is blocked, then Europe becomes even MORE dependent on Putin's good will, and Russia's position in the ME is strengthened. This is a BIG problem for the Euros and the globalists.
Secondarily, the strengthening of Iran is also a major problem for the Saudis and their ME allies, and also for Israel. The Euros' & globalists' concerns would come first to the Obama Administration -- the Saudis / Qataris input just happens to be supportive.
All of this is exacerbated by the Euro's failed rush to "green", as well as foolish ideologies in the West.
I suspect it is also considered that "draining" the Russians in Syria is worthwhile. It may be, but the human cost is atrocious.
Sadly, if one looks at the cost to the West and it's allies for pursuing failed policies in the ME, just for the last 8 years, that money could have been spent building a Western alternative following the design of the Russian / Iranian plan: Pipe the petro to the coast (in this case the coast of Israel, or even Egypt), and short-run tanker it to Southern Europe. In the case of gasoline, the additional cost per liter comes to literally a penny or so. If Russia & Iran want to build their pipeline too, let 'em. Saudi / Qatari production costs (at least at the wellhead) should be lower...
This is necessarily a very abbreviated analysis. (I've completely left out the Turks, for one thing!) :-)
Orly? If that's true, then Hillary, Bill, and most of the Clinton Foundation staff should all be in prison...
In almost every case, there are multiple forces and factors at work. In Syria, trying to figure out all the players and shifting alliances / forces is a guaranteed headache, if not insanity.
Libya, for example, was mostly about petro too, and European countries’ interference was originally pushed, behind the scenes, largely by Euro oil companies. (This was explained, in detail mostly now lost to me, by an Italian engineer of military equipment, with heavy duty military and industry connections, some years back. He foresaw almost all of it before it happened...)
Egypt was likely mostly about ideology, though.
That said, I don’t think the goal in any of these instances was the succession of radical, uncontrollable, Islamic regimes. The “goal” was a foolish notion that weak / controllable replacements could be installed. The globalists / our idiots in charge could not see the more likely result of stirring up trouble in these sorts of countries... :-(
Your point?
Out of the blue you launched a personal attack and I asked you to justify it with with some evidence.
In return, you cite a thread, presumably you mean my reply in that thread, without producing more by way of justifying all your slanderers.
In the same pattern you fail to reply to one more vital part to my last reply:
Your point?
You supply no point, you simply make another bizarre accusation and one which is patently unfair, repetitively unfair as demonstrated by the absence of any proof for your original unsolicited outrageous and unsupported accusations:
Good good man, you have the nerve to post more of your pompous BS? After the fool you made of yourself in the primaries with your condescending lectures that were wrong on every single point. Yet here you are again, posting like you know what hell you are talking about. Have you no shame?
Without getting into the whole Cruz thing (you came around sufficiently, eventually!), you make a good point.
“Intervention” is not always the wrong answer. We just need a lot smarter people making those decisions, and then the stomach to see them through, if action is necessary.
As for Putin:
The enemy of my enemy — might just be another enemy. Or, he may be a temporary help, but few such allies stay allies, unless given very good reason. Putin well could be an ally to the US, as you’ve noted elsewhere. But, I also agree, he is very, very dangerous.
Sobering stuff...
I think this is the "elsewhere" you are referring to:
Grand Strategy Comes To The Oil Patch
Hmmm... I was unaware of this: It doesn’t exactly sound like the work of some typical local thug...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joyal
Very sensible guy, BTW:
https://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910122-terror.htm
Right. I had a long response partially written, but have been very busy with an ill / elderly family member. Will try to get back to it sometime... maybe...
Putin’s victory in support of Assad’s indiscriminate war on non combatants (barrel bombs over market places for one example), is a Godsend to supporters of an amoral approach to foreign policy. Schrecklichkeit, once considered uncivilized, is now championed by Putinistas proud to champion Putin’s revanchinism and his war crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.