Syria Vote Looms

Will Capps Support or Rebuff Military Action?

Thursday, September 5, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

This past weekend, President Barack Obama announced his desire to intervene in Syria’s two-year-long civil war. Before he acted, however, he made the political calculation to forgo his prerogative to green-light military action and instead decided to seek the authorization of Congress. This means that Santa Barbara County’s congressional representative, Lois Capps ​— ​well-known for voting against the Iraq War ​— ​will once again have a say in whether the country deploys deadly force in a foreign land.

<b>MUM FOR NOW:</b>  Congressmember Lois Capps hasn’t said which way she’ll vote on possible military action in Syria.
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman (file)

MUM FOR NOW: Congressmember Lois Capps hasn’t said which way she’ll vote on possible military action in Syria.

When she spoke at a Democratic Party Labor Day event, Capps received applause for voicing skepticism of the president’s plan to strike the Middle Eastern nation that borders Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon. Whereas the president up to now has resisted any sort of intervention in the conflict pitting rebels against a repressive dictatorship that has resulted in about 100,000 deaths, Obama said Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people behooves a response.

Many commentators have chastised Obama for painting himself into a corner last year when he stipulated that the use of chemical weapons was a threshold for U.S. involvement. “It’s probably unfortunate [for Obama] to have drawn a red line,” Capps told The Santa Barbara Independent. Chair of the SBCC Political Science Department Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar said, “As any poker player knows, you don’t have a tell if you draw red lines.” When widespread reports corroborated the Assad regime’s deployment of sarin gas on August 21, the president’s hand was forced.

Eskandari, founder of the Middle East Studies program at City College, was highly critical of the president’s insistence that the use of chemical weapons requires a military strike, pointing out that the U.S. stood by when Iraq employed such devices during its eight-year conflict with Iran. On the other hand, Capps, who has yet to stake out a position ​— ​because she is still getting briefed on the issue and because the president’s draft will be revised by Congress between now and September 9 when a vote will be taken ​— ​said, “the use of chemical weapons is a clear violation of international law” and “the Syrian people cry out for response.”

She knows firsthand because just two weeks ago, she visited Syrian refugee camps in neighboring Jordan with the international poverty-fighting organization CARE. Capps indicated that the most immediate response of the U.S. should be to ramp up humanitarian aid to Syria and its neighbors.

Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

See the results without voting.

One motivating factor behind the president’s willingness to intervene is the rather recent idea that there are internationally recognized constraints on viable methods of conducting warfare. Not responding would give the impression that those regulations are merely hollow words. “We know that Assad will read our stepping away … as an invitation to use those weapons with impunity,” Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday. “Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail. North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day. They are all listening for our silence.”

About that reasoning, Eskandari wondered, “What lesson is the world supposed to gather from this ​— ​that if you do something terrible to your people the U.S. will send some missiles and kill more people?” If that logic worked, he said, Assad wouldn’t have resorted to chemical weapons in the first place. He added, “When you have the chief diplomat of the U.S. advocating for war, you have a problem.”

Mark Juergensmeyer, director of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies at UCSB, argued conversely that the destructive power and psychological effects of weapons of mass destruction do make them qualitatively different. Moreover, he believes, without the viable threat of force, Assad has no incentive to reconsider his actions. “There is a possibility — and this is what Obama’s banking on — that a strike would bring Assad back to the negotiating table,” said Juergensmeyer. “The great lesson that Gandhi taught anyone who believes in peace and conflict resolution is that you need to have leverage.” Obama also made a “thoughtful” case for the power of force to promote peace when he accepted his Nobel prize, said Juergensmeyer.

Eskandari, who isn’t sure Obama has done anything yet to merit that prize, said a recent test case for Syria is the American intervention in Libya, but it makes for a far-from-perfect comparison. Whereas Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had absolutely no international support, Russia and China both have a strategic interest in the Syrian regime. Moreover, the British Parliament voted against any military action in Syria, meaning that the U.S.’s closest ally will be watching from the sidelines.

Questions also abound about the so-called “endgame” of military involvement. Reluctant congressmembers want to know what the U.S. can reasonably expect to achieve by intervening in a civil war. While the Assad regime is repressive, the rebel groups ​— ​including Islamic fundamentalists ​— ​are not necessarily a palatable replacement. Said Eskandari, “There are no secular moderates that come to power and stay in power in the Middle East at this point.”

Juergensmeyer believes that if he felt he had no way out alive, Assad may be willing to enter a power-sharing agreement. If he doesn’t care that much about his own life, Juergensmeyer said, he might fear that his defeat would lead to the slaughter of the Alawite Muslim minority to which his family belongs. He cited Lebanon and Ireland as two countries whose governments ensure representation from rival groups. In the case of Northern Ireland, he said, mediation was not possible until both sides decided they could not win.

United Nations efforts at cajoling Assad to step down having failed, Juergensmeyer does not believe there are really any diplomatic avenues open, whereas Eskandari lamented, “I think it is the sign of the decline of a great nation when the only tool in its toolbox is a hammer.” A war-weary public seems to agree. According to a Pew Research poll, 48 percent of Americans disapprove of military action in Syria while 29 percent approve. The big question is whether they will sway their representatives. However she votes, Capps has definitely heard the message. Her constituents, she said, have “an overwhelming lack of interest in military intervention.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

I urge thoughtful voters to email or telephone Rep. Capps urging her to stay true to her expressed principles and OPPOSE any military strikes on Syria.
What Assad did - though European reports count up much less carnage - is evil and he should be punished, without doubt. Stirring up an already chaotic region by lobbing some Cruise missiles in there is not the method we should utilize. The law of unintended consequences takes over, and we are then inevitably enmeshed in another unwinnable conflict. Oh, and we won't want to pay the much higher taxes needed to wage a bigger war. Never believe a President's pledge not to put boots on the ground. This guy is now Obushama and he's lost his way internationally.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with DD on this. It's just too bad that Obama has already rattled his saber on this. He will lose credibility if he doesn't strike, and it will cost us both nationally and internationally if he does. No matter what he does or doesn't do at this point, we lose. (at least in terms of credibility)

Botany (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 5:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then let the United Nations handle this breach of International Law. For the past 6 years you've been telling the entire world that the imperialist U.S. is antiquated and evil and can no longer police the world. Now it's you Barrack.

Our Nobel Prize winning Prince of Peace is internationally illiterate, out of his league and over matched, and from the same Big Government group of politicos as George Bush. If the Dem's argue to bomb Syria every single Obama sycophant had better stop uttering the name George Bush when they are feebly defending Obama.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A Military Strike could destabilize the command and control of the hugh stockpile of WMD that is stored in Syria with high risk that some could fall into terrorist hands. Let the UN put out a warrant for his arrest and when his government falls, bring him to trial for crimes against humanity.

The USA is not the worlds Police Force. This late in the conflict, a knee jerk reaction could spell many unintended consequences for us.

Leave the naval task force in the region, watch and wait, if he does it again, target him personally.

Really tired of those old farts, in both parties, using any excuse to make war under the cloak of our National Interest, forked tongue harpies.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Questions about Syria you were too embarrased to ask"

One of the more interesting, dare I say balanced, summaries on Syria appeared recently @Wapo:

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have a look at the front page of the NYT today for an example of the extremist Muslim rebels we are helping to arm.
howgreen-Obama is not an old fart, he's a young moron with zero excuse.

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

Syrian Rebels Execute 7 Soldiers


italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, it isn't often that these 5 posters agree on anything! I did see the NYT frontpage, and I never imagined the socalled rebels were very pleasant folks, a melange of Al Qaeda, motley fanatics, genuine haters of Assad, Sunnis who hate the Alawites... replacing Assad with some or one of these could be even worse! I assume USA has plans, along with Turkey, to swoop in and take as many of the chem weapons stockpiles as possible...worst case scenario.
The combo of American hubris and sheer ignorance in this area equates to poor decisions, more war... stay out of it.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Have to agree with other commenters here. This is a civil/sectarian war. It's tragic that innocent people are being killed. Chemical weapons are terrible, but bullets and bombs are really no better. We are not the world's policeman and there is a UN, not to mention the ever-feeble Arab League. Maybe the Saudis can use their petrodollars to hire and assemble a mercenary force to restore order? It's a tragedy for sure, but it's not ours.

zappa (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our now self imposed stranglehold by the House of Saud has been mishandled by Dem's and Repub's. Start using natural gas immediately and we would control our own destiny.
Maybe the NYT will demonstrate some real cajones and show pictures of the dead kids that have been used as shields by these lovely Muslim insurgents.
Gawd what an awful mess. I never thought America was dumb enough to go along with Bush. Between the NSA knowing everything about us and our current President further destabilizing the world we are soooo screwed.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Evidence now clear and corroborated Syrian rebel groups staged this recent chemical weapons "attack" for the sheer goal of getting the US involved, after Obama's reckless redline comments.

This "attack" was not perpetrated by the Assad government. Liberal controlled media is fostering this faulty Assad conclusion in 100% conspiracy with the Obama war hawks for God knows what reasons.

Did anyone also mention George Soros is who benefits most from Middle East instability? He is itching to get a regime change in Iran and sees Syria as the necessary stepping stone to that goal.

Capps should not be sitting on the fence on this one. Capps is currently selling our country out based upon her misguided party loyalty this, when she had no trouble thumbing her nose to Bush.

War is war Lois, and bodies are just as dead and blood is on all our hands whether it is Republican President or a Democratic President who blunders us into one. The US has NO interest in this fight. You take out the Syrian rebels and knock some sense into them, if you do anything at all.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Foo what evidence are you talking about? Are you doing your research on the Syria government website? Soros,really? What next the Bilderberg group? Your tin foil hat is showing.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lois Capps has been ahead of the curve voting against war. Our involvement in the Middle East has only helped Iran and the extremists. I expect her to vote against this new round of ignorant warfare.

It would also help to cut the bloated defense budget. Obama's budget spends more on defense than Bush's ever did.

Why Obama thought this was a good idea is showing his lack of character and leadership.

Republicans are rejoicing. They now have a chance to recapture the white house. They've learned that starting dumb wars gets you unelected.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

said Juergensmeyer. “The great lesson that Ghandi taught anyone who believes in peace and conflict resolution is that you need to have leverage.”

Let's look at some other quotes from Gandhi, shall we.

Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi,

sbfotos (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's look at a cool quote from Hunter Thompson and Joe Frazier:
"Kill the body and the head will die."

No, nothing to do with this Obama mess, but cool nonetheless...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope that Capps opposes the Obama's war on Syria as she did with Bush. However, I hold little hope because Capps does what the democrat party leadership tells her to do. In this case it is Operation Save Face for Obama.

jukin (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Link to Senator Alan Grayson's petition to congress "Don't Bomb Syria" (interview on KCSB 91.9 this am, Democracy Now)
Sarin attack photos in US media another false flag. Rescue workers shown wearing particle masks. Sarin is absorbed through skin, kills within minutes, requires self-contained Hazmat suit protection, remains toxic on surfaces for hours to days following airborne dispersal.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Common wisdom is Iran is the real target for Obama's misguided war mongering against Syria. You want proof about the attacks, start reading the net beyond TPM and Huffpo and you will see plenty of credible links to Syrian rebels perpetrating this attack; not Assad.

Know you won't like the Russian's 100 page detailed conclusions presented to the UN either, but you need to read them because they stand behind this conclusion in public and are not hiding them behind eyes only classification as the US is doing with their far briefer contrary reports..

Google Soros, Syria, Iran and Obama and you will find multiple plausible connections for your reading enjoyment. In fact many of them are Soros own statements, hiding in plain sight now for years.

This matter goes well beyond pleading with Capps for a no vote. This time we demand she votes no.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)


"Old Farts" was a reference to the United States Senate.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya right Herschel, like there is ONE SHRED of evidence Assad perpetrated the attacks?

You can't believe everything you hear in the media Herschel, otherwise you end up something like WWII Germany.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Russian "report " is clearly crap, Just like the false flag theories. One of the reports assertions was that the War in gas was the type developed by the US during WWII even though the US did not have the capability to make Sarin until the1950's. But keep the tinfoil hat ready Soros is coming to get yah.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama wants to attack Assad. Syrian rebels used CW (possibly at US request?) Obama is claiming Assad used CW as an excuse to attack, a false flag scenario right out of the New American Century program.
Germany had a large sarin stockpile that was seized by the US at the end of WWII - the Germans started research on organophosphate CW's in the 30's.
I still haven't seen protective gear that would work with sarin -skin covered and masks today, but no self-contained breathing apparatus.
Syria is incidental - the goal is world domination, and oil is essential. Obama isn't - this is more Bush & Cheney's show in the long term, although Obama is an insane authoritarian dictator and a very evil creature.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obushama has lost his way, forgoes most of his credibility along with Mark Juergensmeyer. Clearly, the US gov't and others no very little about what's happening in, hey, let's slap the sh*t out of a few of them, then huff and puff our way home. McCain is for intervention since he KNOWS doing that will pull us in, OR give Netanyahu carte blanche to hit Iran. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even I am sick of the lib-dems turning warrior boys.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Barry is a credible Black Muslim Indonesian citizen using a ss# issued in the 1890's - what's the prob?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel you're all talk, I still haven't seen the evidence.

Do you know when they are at least going to release the fake evidence, like all of the obvious and proveable fake CIA created Osama "confessional" tapes?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenspan, you need to handle being wrong better. Proof is coming at you from all sides. What is your stake in this game since you simply attack the poster and spew expletives, instead of dialogue and cogent argument. Something else is driving your agenda. What is it? Obamaphile, do or die?

However, it is good for you to stay in this discussion so your string of rebuttals can be rebuked. Keep 'em coming. This is serious stuff and the sooner Obama's war mongering gets discredited, the better.

You do need to explore the role Soros has played in all this - credible stuff. White House is packed with Soros surrogates at every critical post. You knew this, right? It is shocking you write it off as tin-foil hat stuff. Much graver than that.

Tin foil hat stuff is trying to put the blame on Bush/Cheney, when Obama and his Soros friends have been in charge now for long enough to own this entire debacle.

What is your interest following Obama into this war?

foofighter (anonymous profile)

Further discussion regarding the state of evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria from the Harvard Sussex joint university collaboration project:

Read widely before committing the US to war. Ms Capps, I am talking to you.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 5, 2013 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

howgreen-I was just messin' with you...

Lighten up on poor Herschel everyone; he's still stuck in the "racism by old white guys is the cause of all problems" mentality. Heck, he probably does not know that it's a youngish African American gone nuts in Washington this time instead. Or perhaps it's the foisting of the "President as Victim" mentality that poor Obama is not responsible for his own stupidity as he too is controlled by the military/industrial complex but in reality is a brilliant and able Statesmen.
Again, we are soooo is kinda' fun to hear people like Feinstein actually stating that while her constituents disagree with military intervention she knows so much that for our own protection she will probably vote for it. Which party are the patronizing bunch of boobs now?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"evidence" you state, but almost never show web refs, foo, which is why you are regularly and relentlessly rebuked in these our thread wars.
don't agree at all 14noscames, you joking? It's simpler: Obushama isn't very smart internationally, the presidency has ruined his intellect, he's another clone for the 1% elites running this sham democracy of ours. It's like Juergensmeyer, they've fallen into what Sloterdijk calls "the prison of reason". Where do we get our hubris to imagine WE know enough about the Middle East or Syria to "solve" their problems. Live by the sword, die by the sword. NO, NO, NO on any military intervention in Syria or the Middle East!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lol, DrDan, where is the evidence that Assad carried out the attacks?? Foo and I have both posted numerous links with evidence, I've even posted pictures of the rebels launching chemical weapons, nobody has posted any evidence that Assad was behind the attacks. The administration says they have satellite imagery and whatnot - where is it? They still have guys in the photoshop lab creating the evidence from scratch I suppose?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since Dr Dan's brain immediately turns off when he sees my name, he has missed all the links posted. I am a firm believer in providing proof and original source material when statements are made.

Don't mind him asking for them at all; but I do mind him ignoring them when they are offered. Plus a few key topical words easily allow for a google search for exactly the corroboration Dr Dan requests. A little more hygienic than offering the link itself.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Israeli Cruise Missles Fired at Syria Destroyed by US Navy
European Union Times Sept. 3, 2013

Obama Requests 15,000 Russian Troops For “Upcoming” Disaster
European Union Times June 27, 2013

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How did we get into this mess today? Look no further than the ObamaGirl who beckoned this country in to Obama 2008:

This is a good video to play in juxtaposition to the ones now showing the Obama-supported Syrian rebels in action in 2013. The ones Obama is now demanding the US support with our own guns and treasure.

Did the Obama Girl get the action figure doll she was looking for?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is funny that the conspracy idiots are believing almost every "news" story that is comming from the Russian propaganda machine. The Israeli cruise missle that was shot down by US forces was part of a joint traing exercise that was planned well before the current crisis. You free thinkers buy everything the new Pravda dishes out but dismiss every western news source as being a party to a massive "false flag" operation. The only player in this game of death that had the means and motivation to launch a gas attack is clearly Assad. After the Hezbolah reinforced offensive failed to defeat the rebels his military position has greatly deteriorated. As a egotistical dictator his self preservation is his most important goal. He is refusing to go out like Kadaffi. He launched the gass attacks to goad the US into some sort of attack that gets him more money and supplies from his only allies, Iran and Russia. Repeat as necessary. The last thing Obama wants or needs is another war with Syria or Iran. I know this is contrary to your half baked skull and bones, Bilderbers, Soros distopian fantasy world, but it is reality.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama Indonesian citizen; Inside Edition

Obama's ss# was on his 2009 1040 posted online

Obama birth certificate not authentic 2012 Channel 5 Mike Zullo

Obama Muslim Brotherhood ties Jan 2013

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barry Soetoro Columbia University Foreign Student ID card

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well if it is on the Internet it must be true, right? 14 noscams, with all of your work with the Bigfoot Field Research Organization where did you find the time to do such thoughtful background work on our President's background?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You do know that in 1981 a Columbia Student ID card did not have a bar code. Fool

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CNN 9-11-01 Pentagon explosion, no plane

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lotta conspiracy idiots; foo, at the time of your post you offered ONE webref to ObamaGirl...heckuva ref. Get real.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When Rep. Capps says, "“the Syrian people cry out for response[.]” , the obvious query is WHO should undertake the reprisals. USA? UN? NATO?
A NATO-led force a la Bosnia intervention by Pres. Clinton sounds attractive, and would be much more powerful and perhaps longlasting (something McCain & other oldtime Republicans want). Put some French, Italian, Polish, German, Spanish, Dutch, British, and American boots on the ground, and intervene very directly, and at great expense. The costs could be shared in the way the first Pres. Bush funded the first Gulf War (Japan paid a lot).
Lobbing some Tomahawk cruise missiles, letting off some Hellfire missiles from our drones, talking big...and then stopping the reprisal with that (say, a 5-day bombing reminiscent of shock & awe BS) -- stupid, and counter-productive. It's always a loser when the President-of-the-moment says, "oh, now we have to do what I threatened to do since the red line I drew has been undeniably crossed." Why is that Mr Obushama??? You only policy move is a violent one, a unilateral attack on another country. Didn't you know, we're running an empire with soft power, it isn't the ancient Roman Empire, you inexperienced man.
Sanctions, more arms to some of the so-called rebels, perhaps a swoop in/black ops to seize as many chemical weapons depots that we can,...but no outright attacks, no cruise missiles, how silly, how very weak American, I'll threaten you a bit, cuff your dog or slash your tires, but I won't attack the root of this problem, will just punish a bit to prove, hey, I'm the Empire, I'm around, don't f**k with me. Silly, sophomoric, POLITICAL!
Posters should offer some actual plans and new ideas.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel - "The Israeli cruise missle that was shot down by US forces was part of a joint traing exercise that was planned well before the current crisis."

How do you know which one they planned first Herschel? Maybe the Syrian false flag was planned first and the exercise was planned second?

Again, since you haven't offered any proof that Assad was behind the attacks, and since there is none, why would we assume that they did it when it would have been really bad timing considering the UN inspectors coming into town?

But hey, keep calling us "crazy", I'm sure that will prove us wrong some day.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The UN inspectors were unable to visit the last chemical weapon attack site. Why? Because the Syrian Army was still shelling the area! Over a year ago the Assad regime admitted to possessing chemical weapons. The rockets that hit the rebel controlled areas were fired from government controlled areas. The deployment of chemical agents requires very specialized equipment and training both of which the Syrian Army has. The rebel forces are on the verge of knocking Assad out. They would have no reason to deploy chemical weapons even if they had the capability. But by all means you keep on believing carnaval barker freak shows like Alex Jones and the always accurate Soviet errrr Russian press. Hold on tight to your conspiracy theory, false flag fantasies.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The UN inspectors did visit the chemical weapons attack site, what are you talking about?

They stated that they did not have any proof that the attack came from Assad.They have yet to release a report of their findings on who did it.

I already told you the rebels were given the chemical weapons by Saudi Arabia, they didn't have the training and that is why they went off in the rebel area. That was done on purpose by the handlers so they could blame Assad. There are pictures, there are rebels who have made statements in regard to receiving said weapons and setting them off.

We have the proof, you are the crazy conspiracy theorist, the government is the one putting out the conspiracy theory about Assad planning the attack when they have no evidence.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let's start taking bets: Which will be the next Middle Eastern/Muslim country the U.S. attacks?


billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, the way Obushama is going, he might throw in with Netanyahu and we simultaneously hit Iran nuclear sites (Natanz, Sharaz, there are others) AND Assad's people in Syria...two for one! No, our President has lost his way.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I should have said that the UN inspectors were not able to visit the site of the attack for almost a week due to fact that the Syrian army was heavily shelling the area to cover it's tracks. Even then the UN inspectors had an only an hour to investigate. Your proof that the Saudis gave the rebels the weapons comes from the ultimate wing nut CT freak Alex Jones' website. If you are basing your opinion on that, I feel sorry for you.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Juergensmeyer stated, "the destructive power and psychological effects of weapons of mass destruction do make them qualitatively different." -- but he was also for hammering Libya (Indie reports) which didn't have these sorts of weapons. Has AIPAC gotten to Mark? What does this mean that the leader of Orfalea Global Studies Center is pro-war, here for the second time? What does the Orfalea Studies Center promote when it's leader is a warmonger??
Mark cannot answer Eskandari's wise query, "“What lesson is the world supposed to gather from this ​— ​that if you do something terrible to your people the U.S. will send some missiles and kill more people?” Who has much real information about Syria and where these chemical weapons might be stored? We could set off some of them. We aren't going to use close air support aircraft which means the remote cruise shots will certainly kills some civilians, some children.
Paraphrasing Arundhati Roy, "The only real lesson the US government learned from Libya is how to go to war without committing US soldiers" -- we deploy remote-controlled killing, drones and cruise missiles, then easy to say like Juergensmeyer "hey, you need to have leverage" so let's kill a bunch of people remotely and Assad will trot right up to the negotiating table. Very moral there, oh educator. Oh yeah, and to talk about power-sharing! Making zero sense PROFESSOR Juergensmeyer.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)


You claim the article was written by infowars but it's actually written by an Associated Press reporter published on Mint Press.















loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mark Juergensmeyer's comments are an outstanding example of the current degenerate condition of American liberalism.

eyerag (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2013 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but look, loon, whether the Saudis or other agents provacateur fired these truly horrible chem weapons or not, we should not strike militarily. Somehow, unless you can get your facts on the ground, fully backed with photos (which can be checked for forgeries), these conspiracy theories are just too easy. The causes of the Civil War revolved around slavery and money and land, not Lincoln's hatred of the South.
More discussion about how to destabilize Assad, bring Putin to our side a bit, install draconian UN sanctions on Syria, ... it feels like there is no argument at all for a cruise missile strike, however large or small.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who was at the early Obama rally in Santa Barbara in 2008 and watched him "heal" the fainting lady and then later watch Obama "heal" other fainting ladies at 7 other rallies with exactly the same words and the same gestures, should have know what they were electing.

Obama has not changed one bit. He remains Fraud in Chief, but now with a far better pension plan.

(Google "Obama Fainting Ladies" and get the Youtube collection of these infamous Obama crowd punking exploits, including the one in Santa Barbara held on the SBCC campus.)

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, when you go ad Hom on the POTUS it means that your ideas are weak. Come on now. It looks like you have run out of goofy conspiracy theories so now you are recycling garbage from the 08 election. Dude that was five years ago. Please please tell us about Soros, Bilderberg, and their plans for world government. I need a good laugh.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Alan "Herchel" Greenspan: Yes, don't you know, t here IS a world conspiracy. Soros, Bilderberg, the Illuminati, The Freemasons, and the evil nonagenarian patriarch of the Rockefeller family, Mr. David Rocketfeller Sr.

We all know Obama is a radical Muslim, even though he's also a very liberal Democrat. Forget the fact that these two ideologies are mutually exclusive, there is no room for logic in conspiracy theory.

I don't listen to Fox News, but get my knews from Coast To Coast with Art Bell and George Noory. I learn a lot about how there are bad people waiting to take over. Obama is like 72 percent Arab, half white, and the rest black. Even though his father was fully black and from Kenya, it doesn't matter, I believe the conspiracy theories.

(The previous post is for entertainment porpoises only, and is not meant to offend anyone)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Forget sarin gas, this is about natural gas.

A pipeline to Europe would help with the coal problem they are having in Germany, consider the advantages. Russia has other ideas for a pipeline. And anyone testing missiles should probably check the news, or look down range before firing, you wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea.

native2sb (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Orfalea supports Israel.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch your President Of the United States con attendees his campaign rallies with his "fainting lady" hoax and judge for yourself the character of this man now rattling sabres in the Middle East with Iran on the horizon, not just Syria.

The sarin gas attack Obama is trying to pin on Assad as justification for this wider incursion is as much of a hoax as his 8 fainting ladies. You elected a dangerous character to be taking you into the 21st century.

This goes well beyond an ad hominum attack on the POTUS. But it is not my problem if you don't believe what this man really is and has long been. it is your problem.

Stick with what the man does, who he has presently surrounded himself with and who clearly wanted him to hold this office, despite any credible track record, experience or abilities. You cannot ignore the backing, money, appointments and interconnections of George Soros every step of the way. Do with this what you wish, but stick with the salient facts for your own good.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2013 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wayne Madsen Report Obama intel on Syrian chemical weapons attack from Israeli SIGINT

Wayne Madsen Report Obama former CIA agent

Senator Alan Grayson 9/6/13 no transparency on Syrian CW attacks NYT

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I guess this Foofighter character would have preferred a McCain or a Romney in the past two election cycles? Give us a break with the lack of logic arguments. Both those candidates are saber ratters who would have us already chin deep in another conflict that we are ill prepared to execute. Don't be stupid.

geeber (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 4:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Syrian rebel 'eats the heart' of Syrian soldier "

Look for this on YouTube, the video is graphic and sick. So the USA is supposed to condone and back this kind of behavior but a Gas attack is immoral?

One side uses Poison Gas, the other Eats the Heart of its enemy.

We need to stay out of the Middle East, period, we the Citizens have no idea what end game is or who we are really supporting.

Follow the Money and you will find the truth, be smart America, this time.

Any elected official that votes for Military Intervention needs to be driven from office.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

geeber, Word to the wise: if you have to set up straw dogs to win your arguments, you don't a case. Stick to the facts in evidence.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Geeber misses the point, the correct candidate would have been Ron Paul.
R-money was there to block Paul and take a dive.

native2sb (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Furthermore, anyone who was paying attention would recognize that the last election was effectively decided in Jackson Hole during the summer when the Fed committed to QE3, re-inflating the debt bubble.

native2sb (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agree Geeber, & foo himself is the "straw dog" king and usually makes no sense or recites Tea Party talking points and does nothing but made ad hominem points vs. POTUS.
Totally agree HGWMV especially with your point "we the Citizens have no idea what end game is or who we are really supporting." We know very little except what various factions, with their own motivations, tell us. Obama will tell us Tuesday evening that smacking Syria means pushing Iran back, but Israel would likely use this ridiculous little attack to directly take out Iranian nuclear sites. THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
NO on Syria attack; it's stupid, and POTUS has indeed shown vacillation, lack of strategic thinking, and doesn't really believe in what he's pushing. Look how the G2 leaders in Russia shut him down. Get real, Obushama.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything




Congressman Justin Amash said last week:




And today, Amash wrote:


Congressman Tom Harkin said:


Congressman Michael Burgess said:

Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin."


I agree with the above posters who say that conspiracy theorists are often illogical. In particular the conspiracy theorists Obama, Bush and their Presidential administrations who claim that the Assad administration gassed thousands of his own people (no evidence!) and the 19 terrorists on 9/11 had absolutely no help from US, Saudi or Israeli intelligence as the evidence shows and instead conspired with a dude in a friggin cave in Afghanistan (no evidence!).

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th


121 NYFD 1ST responders in Tower 1 killed by explosions 55 minutes after impact, 45-50 minutes after the 9-11 Report states jet fuel had burned off
Firefighters for 9-11truth .org

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Despite some of the rhetoric above, Americans are generally open to questioning the events of 9/11.

After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

The reason this is worth throwing out there during this Syria discussion is because they are both obviously false flag operations with significant media propaganda output that are an attempt to lead our country into war for reasons that have NOTHING to do with the false flag attack that was actually perpetrated by the very same people planning the eventual attack against certain Middle Eastern country(ies).

I don't have to guess whether or not Assad gassed his own people, I can tell by turning on the news and listening to the incessant blathering lies of the media and know for a fact that he was setup. If you pay attention long enough you find out that the majority of crap they talk about on the news is either wrong or irrelevant to anything. It isn't much different than politics or the WWE. It's all staged.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey loonpt what will happen to your carefully crafted conspiracy theory when the US, Russia, ans Syria cut a deal on removing the MASSIVE Syrian chemical weapons stockpile out of Syria? I thought Soros and the Bilderberg gang had a US intervention already planned, jest waiting fer dat false flag.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel stop obfuscating, it makes you sound like a government agent. People here aren't that slow. Just because Assad has chemical weapons and just because chemical weapons were used in Syria does not mean that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria. Take a logic course. You've said that the rebels don't have chemical weapons and offered that as proof when in fact the rebel groups are supported by countries who do have chemical weapons like Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel.

What was said above, by members of CONGRESS, was that all of the evidence against Assad was circumstantial. You are basically calling me crazy for agreeing with several highly sensible members of congress who looked at classified evidence that you referred to earlier and said that it doesn't show any of the things you said it did. This is not helping your credibility or that of the establishment.

Face it - all of the evidence against Assad is circumstantial. It would be like if you went out to eat and went back to your car and your car was gone and you turned around to a parking attendant and blamed them for stealing it and filed a police report against them without looking at any camera footage that may exist or allowing an investigation to occur. In fact, your girlfriend stole your car, you knew about it and you plan on filing an insurance claim all along.

Now onto your question. Russia and Syria have already called Kerry's bluff and Syria has offered to give over the stockpile of chemical weapons to Russia for safe keeping. That wasn't part of the plan, Kerry actually fumbled this one up for the establishment a little and they are going to have to backtrack because the establishment could care less about who has chemical weapons, they just want to attack his country and remove him from office. So if this goes through they won't have an excuse to attack anymore unless they manufacture another excuse.

In fact, now you know what officials are saying? One Israeli official has already said that the offer Kerry made doesn't matter because it isn't practical to be carried out, so even if all of the chemical weapons were removed from Syria, the official said, we should still attack them. So they are already dismissing the offer Kerry made. You will see more of this over the coming days and the offer will essentially be revoked.. but something tells me the media will continue to parrot that Kerry made the offer and Assad never went through with it even though he offered to.

And now we have evidence that rebel groups are planning a chemical weapons attack on Israel from the supposed 'Assad controlled' areas. So maybe the rebel groups did carry out these attacks from Assad controlled areas after all, or maybe not. But now they are aiming at Israel? How much you wanna bet the plan was to blame Assad for that one, too?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herscel_Greenspan: What is loonpt's "carefully crafted conspiracy theory"?

FYI: Destruction of US Sarin stockpiles delayed until 2023

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I thought Soros and the Bilderberg gang had a US intervention already planned, jest waiting fer dat false flag." - Herschel

Uhh, they were waiting for a successful false flag. Like 9/11, that was a very successful false flag.

Syria was not a very successful false flag because too many people are questioning whether Assad carried out the attacks and much of the rest don't have faith the US military to solve the situation using violence even if he did carry out the attacks because our military is so prone to killing innocent people in the process of 'freeing' them. Not to mention our country is in debt and we can't afford to be the policemen of the world anymore.

Here, checkout what this Wisconsin Senator is facing in their home town:

Of course, Obama could go out and strike tomorrow and do the whole thing if he wants. But that is going to damage the credibility of the establishment. The establishment is constantly playing the tight-rope walk of having to do awful and horrendous things and simultaneously pretending to be our benevolent savior. Every day more people wake up.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey CT guys I stop it your making me laugh so much it hurts. Should you freaks in the woods looking for Big Foot? Or perhaps at Dealy Plaza working on yoursecond gunman theory. Or wait you could be looking for the movie set where they staged the Moon landings. Seriousy all of your crapspiracy thoeries have been debunked over and over again. 9/11 was not an inside job it was an attack planned and carried out by Al Qaeda. You keep posting your fairy tales here and I will keep on winding you up. Keep on taptaptaping that keyboard trolls.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel there is a reason why more and more people are learning about the truth all the time and I have to thank people like you who are so transparently anti-intellectual that the majority of intelligent individuals who start looking into this stuff are easily able to navigate and see the cognitive road blocks that you are constantly constructing and eventually see the obvious.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are an intellegent individual you will stop believing every agit prop story being fed to you by the Russian Government controlled media ( Your "facts" come straight out of the Putin propoganda machine. Also you do know that Alex Jones is a fraud, right? You do know that thousands of engineers, scientist and experts have debunked every one of the 9/11 truther theories, right? Oh they must be "anti-intellectual" as well.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Foo(L) was the 1st to bring up elections and how badly Obama voters messed up . He then posits Ron Paul as his "answer" to best choice. Well some of us can dream on and cast throw away votes ( example - Ron Paul , not a chance) , but most pick from viable candidates . Again , I will assert that either McCain or Romney would already have us chin deep in an unresolvable and disastrous conflict. At least Obama the waffler has stumbled his way to not attacking yet.

geeber (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the U.S. will do some "limited strikes" on Syria. I guess the U.S. government is pretty confident a few hits on Assad will settle everything and we can all go back to holding hands and singing "Micheal Row Your Boat Ashore".

Didn't we hear something similar when the U.S. invaded Iraq after it attacked Kuwait? That one went a little longer than expected.

As I said in another blog, I don't have all the answers, but I know that I won't vote for any politician who supports yet more killing. Do you really think it's all the bad guys that are going to go up in flames when the bombs drop on Syria?

I vote Libertarian and one reason I do is that they don't believe in being the worlds' Policeman. Others vote Green for the same reason. Your milage may vary but at least if I run into someone whose family has died in an American air strike I won't have to make excuses about why I supported the politicians whose decisions caused innocents to die.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Obama's performance during this crisis means he is a "waffler" then I want only waffler should be Potus. By not rushing a strike, Obama has leveraged th US position without so much as launching a spit ball at Syria. Perhaps Soros was coaching Obama on the effective use of leverage, something that has made Soros a very rich man. In reality he is only good at making and giving money away. Clearly, based the this botched Syrian false flag operation, he is a crappy mastermind of the coming one world government.

Take a step back for a moment. The last thing this administration wanted was to be dragged into a war with Syria. The Saudis have no real interest in toppling Assad. They like Bashir would rather not end up on the losing end of a popular revolt. It would mean and end to taking the lions share of a rich nation' s wealth and the possibility of ending up like Kadaffi. The Israel government far prefers the devil they know, Assad. The real story is that the Syrian Army is simply spread too thin to stop the revolution. As the rebels have made large gains in the capital, Assad panicked and launched the gas in a last ditch effort to scare the rebels and rally his supporters. The threat of force by the US has him thinking about making a deal. The Russians have no way to stop a US strike except for diplomatic channels and the constant vomit of misinformation they spew from the many "news" websites they control. That seems to have had an effect on the views of some of the posters here on the Indy. Putin wants to make a deal. Do not be surprised if Assad soon leaves Syria for exile.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama created this entire Syrian drama out of whole cloth, to divert attention from his mounting domestic scandals.

Love the historical (hysterical?) revision going on that Obama saved us from war by his dithering ..... when in fact Obama had no grounds to carry out this little war games stunt in the first place. One of America's darkest moments, for sure.

Putin ate Obama for lunch on this one, from start to finish. What a pathetic small man we now have occupying the White House.

Now it is time to get back to finding out where Obama was between 8pm and 10pm the night of 9/11/12 - pre-election. This is the question on everyone's tongues in Washington and it will not go away.


foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sarah Palin still said it best several months ago (the woman has always had exquisite timing): Let Allah sort it out.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo Foo Foo when you start quoting that fool Palin you have clearly lost the debate. The only serious domestic scandals are the ones that inhabit your tin foil covered dome.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the POTUS-waffler stuff...and von Clausewitz clearly stated that the "threat of war" can be a lot better than WAR itself. Still, Obama fell into the habitus of Bush and he was gonna go after it...and may still if the Russian Plan B doesn't measure up. Too easy to play games like this, & it looses the crazed conspiracy-theorists to invent more kaka...see foo and others above.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me repeat this: Sarah Palin said it best and said it most succinctly: Let Allah sort this out.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Yes that is a very good point - voting for Ron Paul is not a throw-away vote, voting for Obama or Romney is a throw away vote. If you let the mainstream media dictate your voting, don't be surprised when you are disappointed at the outcome. South Park said it best - every Presidential election they give us a choice between a giant douche and a crap sandwich. So don't make that choice - think for yourself. We, as a country need to stop supporting giant douches and crap sandwiches.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel, here's the thing.. there are two types of wars. There are conflicts against populations and leaders that don't have a central bank and are not cooperating with the establishment and then you have the rest - in this category every major war in modern history and even earlier has had a bank on both sides. They print money out of thin air, which is counterfeiting, then loan it to the country to fight the war then when it is over they attempt to collect on the debt. Supposedly even the American Revolution was funded by the banks - so essentially the same group of people were funding both the British and the Colonists. They even get to choose who wins - they stop printing money for the country they want to lose and then they stop being able to fund their war effort. Then eventually both sides have to pay the bank back the loans that they counterfeited. THE US DID IN FACT PAY DEBTS TO BANKS AFTER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

It's a form of slavery, fueled by war, and the banks have throughout history provoked war for nothing other than profit. I highly recommend watching the following video for more details on how we have become enslaved:

In the case of the American Revolution they placed statists within the ranks of the Colonists in order to centralize as much power as possible in the beginning while allowing enough freedom for the new country to prosper so that they could eventually take it over using their central banking schemes and have control of an economic powerhouse. It worked quite well. Yet I have a lot of respect for many of the Founding Fathers because philosophically they almost were able to pull it off - we had central banks on and off for the first 120 years of existence.

Germany was funded by the banks during WWII, in fact it was George Bush Senior's FATHER in part who was funding them and supplying them with oil.

So Herschel, I do tread carefully because you do have one thing right - Russia has a bank behind it and they are putting out information intended to weaken the United States. In fact in the last couple days they put out a huge piece for 9/11 truth. Its the backup plan for the banks in case we fail. But the interesting thing is that their side doesn't have to make up very much - 9/11 was an inside job - Syria was a false flag. They merely have to report the truth.

So I am not choosing Russia's bank because I want to be a slave to their bank instead of another bank - I promote the cause of liberty which is NO CENTRAL BANKS. I promote truth and reason. If that happens to line up with anti-US propaganda coming out of another regime I assure you it is incidental and not meant to promote the banking cartel that is supporting Russia (which is probably, secretly, the same banking cartel that is supporting the west).

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now we have the kooky evil bankers CT theory. This thread has turned into a virtual feast of goofy theories. I am going to say this once hard money fans, currency, gold,wampum, cigarettes ect only have value if someone is willing to exchange goods or labor for them. Case closed.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

'Hard money fans' are against the counterfeiting of fiat currency by banks and government and are against legal tender laws. You probably think Ron Paul is for the "Gold Standard" in your limited understanding of the subject, it is a common mistake.

You can use whatever you want to trade, just don't force me to use something that is being constantly devalued by banks and government.

Check this out, I was right again -

"Kerry Tells Lavrov Chemical Disarmament Demand Was "Rhetorical", Not Meant To Be Proposal"

I told you they don't care about innocent people getting gassed, they want to go to war.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a politician who is truly for peace -

I highly recommend voting for them for President in 2016.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee why would anyone think that Ron Paul is for the Gold Standard? Perhaps it is this quote from

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^Herschel, Ron Paul does not own, you should try and cite a verifiable source. In fact he has failed at trying to secure the domain back from the current owners.

Ron Paul supports competing currencies and believes the Gold Standard has too many shortcomings and would not implement it, although going off the Gold Standard is what has caused our financial problems but this is due to the fact that going off the Gold Standard has allowed the government to devalue and inflate our currency. People tend to confuse his explanation of how our currency became highly inflationary with the solution that Ron Paul himself would implement. He only supports the Gold Standard insofar as he would have chosen not to get rid of it over getting rid of it so that the Federal Reserve can inflate the money supply more easily. It's ok, I understand if it is a bit confusing for you as it is a bit confusing for many people.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt you must have a conspricy theory to explain your clear disconnect with the ideas of your hero, former US Representitive Ron Paul. Here is a quote from his book, Gold Peace and Prosperity The Birth of a New Currency last published in 2007. From Page fifty, "Federal Reserve notes must be made 100% redeemable in gold as of a fixed date, and at a rate determined by the market price on that date. We also must balance the budget and pledge never again to expand the money supply" Sounds like R.P. loves him some gold standard.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel_Greenspan: Where are the " thousands of engineers, scientist and experts (who) have debunked every one of the 9/11 truther theories"? Do they have a website or organization name?

Does your conspiracy theory involving Putin conclude that Putin was responsible for Bush's statement on 9-11 that he saw the first plane hit the Twin Towers on TV? (This was inadvertently videotaped by a private company working on a documentary on NYFD & first broadcast on 9/12).

How did Putin make the audiotape of NYFD responders in Tower 1 45 minutes after the 300 degree burning kerosene melted the steel frame?

How did Putin create the illusion off multiple explosions heard by NYFD, NYPD, bystanders and network news reporters reported and broadcast on 9-11 ? (network videos are on youtube)

Do you remember network news reports on 9-11 showing the military drone that struck the second tower and network news reports of explosions? - or did the government succeed in overwriting your memory of the facts (network news videos on youtube)?

Was the appearance of Sandyhook fatality Emilie Parker at the memorial for victims, (sitting on Obama's lap) part of your conspiracy theory involving Vladimir Putin?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Russian press which controls the Russian media keeps posting the same lame truth crap that you seem to be selling. No one is buying give it up troll.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How much are the feds paying for counterintel these days, Hershel?
Better than your other options, I guess, but more than you're worth.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Feds? Do not insult me. They do not pay enough. I work for ZOG and I occasionally I do freelance work for Soros and the Bilderberg group. I used to work for the Illuminati but they have a horrible h.r. department.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice try, Herschel - you're not smart enough for any one other than the US gov.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Holy Moly Herschel, you had to go all the way back to a book written in 1981 to find a quote of Ron Paul supporting the Gold Standard? (The book was re-released in '07)

Do you realize he wrote that before I was born?

What he was referring to was likely a transition back to the Gold Standard which we had abandoned completely in 1971, that was written 10 years later. He only advocated it then because it was a step in the right direction and it was close to something that had existed recently.

Currently Ron Paul advocates competing currencies, allow gold and silver to be legal tender, allow our current fiat system to compete with the gold and silver currencies and people will inevitably transfer much of their wealth to hard currency and use the fiat currency to pay taxes, if required.

The reason Ron Paul doesn't support a Gold Standard in the longterm is because Ron Paul doesn't support ANY GOVERNMENT MANDATED STANDARDS in the marketplace beyond theft and fraud laws. Period. He may use one as a crutch to move us toward freedom like in the example you cited, but inevitably he believes in the free market and that if left to their own devices people in a free market will choose the hard currencies and leave the fiat currencies in the dust.

The problem with a Gold Standard is that it is easy to manipulate, that is one reason why we had inflation and deflation back in the 1800s. If we had a bi-medal system of silver and gold that would have helped a lot because they would have to manipulate both silver and gold in order to manipulate the economy, it's a lot easier to manipulate the economy if you only have to manipulate one commodity to manipulate the value of the currency.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt the problem with you Paultards is that you do not really know what your messiah R. P stands for and if you do you cannot rationally defend him so you make stuff up. I am sure that you were around on August 26,2012. here is an interview with R.P on that date.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can we get this thread back on the important topic?
If we end up accepting Russian plan to secure the chem weapons storage sites and remove them, then we're back to ancient arguments about "verification"? Remember SALT II? Who will end up with this noxious kaka? Where will it be dissolved or whatever? Who verifies THAT? Mainly, keep talking, keep waffling, and do send lots of small arms to various rebel Syrian factions who struggle against Assad and his Alawite minority. Obama should call Erdogan and ask him to kick some a-- since Turkey is very hassled by this Syrian melee.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Syrian civil war will be over soon. Assad is looking for a way out preferably with the billions he and his family have looted from the Syrian people. He wants to avoid the fate of his fellow Baathist neighbor Saddam Hussein.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and sometimes the aftermath of a flight like Assad's is bloodier yet. The Christian minorities have allied with the minority Alawaite (Shia), there have to be many more criss-crossing tribal and clan alliances...yikes

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt: Rand Paul is already backing away from his Libertarian principles on the Drug War, so I wouldn't expect him to hold to his principles on anything else. Here is the link about how he's making himself more sellable to mainstream Republicans.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen: He was talking about Ron Paul, not Rand.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill, would you like some ice for that burn?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No need for ice, no mistakes made on my end. Ergo, I responded to Loonpt's post :
"Here is a politician who is truly for peace -

I highly recommend voting for them for President in 2016."

-loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 12:24 p.m.-

The link leads to Rand Paul, who Loonpt recommends for president, and I'm saying that since Rand is already backpedaling on the war on drugs in order to make himself more marketalbe, I have just cause to believe Rand Paul will backpedal on the other issues as well.

This should clear up the matter.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AP Fact Dheck finds Obama never made his case for war against Syria or the Assad regime. Reminding us repeated lies do not create lawful evidence.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Letter response from Capps to anyone writing in protest of Obama's war bungling shows she drank the Kool-aid, and has concluded without a shred of credible evidence Assad gassed his own people.

She remains more concerned over who was killed, rather than who did the killing. Since it is the Democrats lying to get us into a stupid war, she is all for it. So much for moral courage, Lois. Your'e fired.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo you post some wacky ideas but I think that any sane person would agree that there is at least a shread of evidence that Assad gassed his own people. Oh wait you only read the Russian approved news, my bad.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There was not a shred of credible evidence in the entire presentation to Congress, the public or the media that Assad gassed his own people.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Foo here is more than a shread of evidence. I know that it is not from any of your Russian sources but it make a very good case that the Facist criminal Assad was behind the attacks:

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel I must say linguistically speaking you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory as well.

The article says there is strong evidence but no proof - most of their evidence is because they haven't seen evidence of the type of equipment used in the hands of the Syrian opposition - but if it was provided to them by the Saudis specifically for this event to pin on Assad, why wouldn't they give them equipment that they normally don't have that the Syrian govt. does have? A lot of forethought goes into these operations.

You also said that Assad was shelling them at the time of the attacks and the shells were from Assad. Well who is to say that while they were getting shelled, the opposition decided to launch the weapons given to them by the Saudis which apparently they didn't know what they were or how to operate them - and then as witnesses there have said they fumbled it up and ended up launching the attack on their own neighborhood or a nearby civilian opposition neighborhood by mistake?

Between photos of Syrian opposition forces with chemical weapons canisters and cannons and all of the witness reports, then taking in consideration the US media response which was obviously setup beforehand, I think there is a lot more evidence that the Syrian Govt. did not launch the attack. However a case could be made that both the Syrian Govt. and the rebels set off an attack, respectively, as German intelligence reports show that Assad had told his army not to use chemical weapons even though they asked him multiple times. It could be they used them without his permission, which is pretty negligent if that happened but there's still no evidence.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Toss this one into the conspiracy mix:

White House does not want you to learn any chemical weapons Syria has today, actually came from Saddam Hussein's pre-war Iraq when he was desperately exporting his weapons of mass destruction to avoid getting attacked by Bush.

White House does not want you to learn in fact there were WMD in Iraq after all and the war on those grounds was just and proper, according to now both the Bush Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine: If you got 'em, we bomb you.

However all this overlooks how many chemical weapons the US still has in its own store houses, long after their own treaty agreements to destroy them forever.

Seems destroying them has run into snags with the Sierra Club and no one knows what to do with them. So they languish on US soils waiting for some terrorist group to purloin them; much like what recently happened in Syria.

Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first chose to deceive.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following article has a lot of really good info on how we sold Saddam Hussein the materials for his chemical weapons, how we knew he was using them against Iran and even helped him with strategic targets in Iran. We knew he used them in 1988 against the Kurds in his own country and did nothing - not even sanctions.

Why on earth anybody trusts our government in any capacity is mind boggling.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UN Official, Syrian Rebels Used Sarin Nerve Gas, Not Assad’s Army
Posted by: : Paul Ebeling
Posted on: August 27, 2013

14noscams (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2013 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

your webref is very weak, 14noscams [ Paul Ebeling is best known as a financial markets expert, not someone with any in depth knowledge of the Syrian situation or history.
Another sidebar on this webref has this thoughtful comment from Rush Limbaugh (hurrah!): "Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday that it is likely the Obama regime’s al-Qaeda rebels were the ones who gassed 1429 civilians on 21 August, and not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."
Get real; this is nutty; no citations of any worth.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 18, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yo-Yo Ma & Kathryn Stott
