by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 36,717 - 36,756 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
Prof, you wonder why Bob would take so much time defending a murdering piece of neocon crap.
Because I had absolutely nothing else to do while not able to sleep. Just reading your crap is usually a good cure for insomnia, but it doesn't always work. Responding to your stupidity always works. Where is your proof that refutes the SEC's filings? Oh right whackjob.com says it's not true. Do your parents know you are up so late using their computer. It's time for milk and cookies so you can get to 9th grade in the morning.
Are you and the professor dating? Take it off patnet and get a motel room please.
Get used to the Cure for all of America's problems being solved by corporations monetizing the situation.
Well said Captain. People need to wake up to the fact that America is being ruled by Banks, Corporations and Israel. And Not by the neocons or the liberals that the media have us believing in or has us divided.
No Western power wants to put boots on the ground.
You don't know Republicans would have settled for no boots on the ground. And you don't know what risk a limited strike would spawn.
I don't read infowars, but I do know about Britam Defense and you need to know more.
You know next to sweet fa about Britam except that they were hacked and someone created a fake email (and have stumbled across the story a good 7 or so months after it happened, well done). Of course you think the email is real because that is your default position on anything like that.
Builders could create new homes for $50,000 per unit
The house itself is not the major cost--it's the land below the house. I'm pretty sure lots in decent areas in CA. cost well north of $50K.
This whole thing is incomprehensibly foolish. We have no business sending military forces to Syria on unproven reports of small scale chemical weapons use against a faction that hates us, and will outlaw Christianity as soon as they come into power.
Why did we elect this moron? Oh right, the alternative was a wealthy blowhard who would do exactly the same thing. We are so effed, no matter what.
Builders could create new homes for $50,000 per unit
The house itself is not the major cost--it's the land below the house. I'm pretty sure lots in decent areas in CA. cost well north of $50K.
Yep. Case in point. An average sized lot went on the market a couple of houses down from me the other day. $850K, for less than a quarter acre. Build a 2,500SF house at a low end $300/SF and presto, a 1.6M dollar house...Plus the builder has to make a profit so will sell for 1.8M at a minimum but probably more like 2M.
It's the United States of America, not the United States of Arabia.
Here is some commentary about these impending war crimes by the old Reagan Storm Trooper (who has since taken the Red Pill) Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org
Update:
"The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington's decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts."
This war or child beating as it really is, is nothing more than a ploy to bring down the markets, and raise the commodities back into unaffordable levels so Bernanke doesn't feel like a lying sack of shit, when he keeps telling people and reporters that know better, that he needs to stay the course with QE.
No, it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.
Get your foot in the door with Syria.
Cut off Hezbollah's supply lines..
Isolate Iran as we isolate NK...
The nukes are coming to Iran, quicker than you think.
Syria is just our door into disrupting Iran without bombing the shit out of them.
If Iran goes nuclear, the only strategy short of war is isolation.
This war or child beating as it really is, is nothing more than a ploy to bring down the markets, and raise the commodities back into unaffordable levels so Bernanke doesn't feel like a lying sack of shit, when he keeps telling people and reporters that know better, that he needs to stay the course with QE.
It's none of what you state.
The real objective is isolating and strangling Iran.
This whole thing is incomprehensibly foolish. We have no business sending military forces to Syria on unproven reports of small scale chemical weapons use against a faction that hates us, and will outlaw Christianity as soon as they come into power.
Why did we elect this moron? Oh right, the alternative was a wealthy blowhard who would do exactly the same thing. We are so effed, no matter what.
it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.
Wasn't that the goal of invading Iraq while still occupying Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on two fronts? Most Americans can't even find Iran on a map, and we seem to be getting farther away with each attempt.
Probably one of our goals.
But it did not stop the flow of arms to syria and hezbollah.
Time to try a different angle...
Or we can just give up and let israel and iran have at it.
and then pay 20 per gallon..
and watch the world economy go down the tubes, making today's economy seem like a boom cycle...
From a moral pov, it sucks, but in the end the needs of the many (the world) outweigh the needs of the few (arab states).
it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.
Wasn't that the goal of invading Iraq while still occupying Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on two fronts? Most Americans can't even find Iran on a map, and we seem to be getting farther away with each attempt.
the needs of the many (the world) outweigh the needs of the few (arab states).
I think you meant to say, the campaign "donations" from the merchants of war outweigh the lives of everyone else.
The Afghan and Iraq wars didn't need to be botched, but they were, and that should tell you something about who was really in charge and what their goals were. In the wake of the cold war, the U.S. has become the world's largest exporter of weapons, everything from ATF gunwalking (how many thousands of Mexicans have been killed by that now, and Congressmen pretend to be outraged about one American?) to foreign "aid" that consists almost entirely of yet more American weapons.
War always has a constituency, because it involves so much money and power. The worse the strategy, and the more complicated and vulnerable the logistics, the more money and power the war can make. So yes, after failing to reach Iran after surrounding it on three sides, of course we are told that we need "a different angle" through Syria instead.
one of our goals
War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.
Raytheon, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Honeywell, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and DynCorp always win.
I think Iran going nuclear trumps the war machine. Remember, nuclear states cannot be attacked by conventional weapons. Cold wars form. syria goes under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. whose gonna attack them at that point?
You think Israel will keep it's syrian attacks up, with iranian nukes pointed at it?
Once the umbrella forms, the doors wide open for hezbollah to flourish without threat of israeli attack.
The war machine sells conventional weapons. More states under the nuclear umbrella of others will deter conventional attacks, thus the war machine loses customers.
Better for the war machine to eliminate the possibility of nuclear umbrellas forming...top priority is to take out Iran. Syria is just a stepping stone to this objective.
War always has a constituency, because it involves so much money and power. The worse the strategy, and the more complicated and vulnerable the logistics, the more money and power the war can make. So yes, after failing to reach Iran from next door, on both sides, of course we should "a different angle" through Syria instead.
It doesn't fix anything. It is not designed to.
It is designed to legitimately get our foot ( and our allies ) in the door so we can gain more influence and justify further attacks down the line, this time hitting arms convoys going from Iran to Syria, or taking out some syrian leadership 'accidently'. Once we start the bombing, we just start changing targets.
Granted if they go through the russian port, we have no influence there. Maybe the higher ups are privy to intelligence that the majority of arms are not going through that russian port.
I fail to see how dropping couple of Tomahawks on Damask fixes the problems of open eastern border and free passage through Iraq territory as well as Russian cargo ships able to freely go into their Tartus naval base.
They won't win if Iran goes nuclear, and provides the umbrella to syria and other hostile states in the region.
War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.
Raytheon, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Honeywell, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and DynCorp always win.
War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.
What's the old saw? A war during a recession brings recovery; a war during prosperity brings recession?
Anyway, it was a crackpot theory my 8th grade US history teacher proposed.
When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...
Yeah, this company or that one will prosper due to war in this decade...that's the immediate short term effect and one to bloviate on.
However, the people in charge have to grapple with the limited proven world oil reserves, and who will be in control of it. Most likely that country/corporation will have the world by the balls looking 40-50 years ahead. And by then there will be no military intervention as the reserves will be guarded by nukes.
Now is the time to sow the seeds for controlling that supply.
The United States of America is in one of the most geographically defensible positions of any nation in the world, ever! Isolated from other powers by thousands of miles of ocean, hedged in securely between friendly countries to north and south, and separated from its enemies by half a world, it truly has nothing to fear from invasion. In fact, it has to import it's invaders, calling them immigrants, from countries that hate us (hello Arabs, Persians, and Palestinians!).
But that's essential because it gives the bloated department of homeland security something to do, as well as the NSA and all other spy agencies. They must work hard to keep a tabs on all the freshly minted Americans of questionable origin.
Since we are so impregnable to straight invasion, and yet so strong in arms manufacture, we will always have to make wars to keep our military industrial machine churning. The wars won't come to us, we have to manufacture these crises, preferably half a world away, so we can keep selling arms.
It's the curse of being so secure.
When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...
Yes, it would be wise, but it isn't how things work. Wisdom would be using biotech to make foreign oil irrelevant, but that doesn't get campaign contributions from ExxonMobil, Raytheon, etc. The Capitol is an auction where entrenched patronage networks bid for more revenue and power. It's bipartisan: each party has its own patronage base, and the centrists take from both sides; PhRMA+NRA=yet another example of how politics makes strange bedfellows.
Nukes bring peace. Lack of nukes is an opportunity for the war machine. The world would be safer if Iran had the bomb.
Quigley, most defensible, really?
A taxicab driver from Pakistan told me he walked across the border in the desert southwest. Jumped ship from the freighter he worked on in a Mexican port.
In the hands of sane people.
In the hands of religious fanatics, all bets are off... ( Iran )
Nukes bring peace.
Wisdom would be to pursue both angles, proven energy sources and possible alternative energy sources.
The Biotech angle is being invested in heavily
http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsreport2012.pdf
But it is not proven that this will provide enough energy to fuel the future. You have to keep your hand in current proven energy sources (oil) in case the biotech angle doesn't pan out...
When determining US strategy, it's wise to look 50+ years ahead...
Yes, it would be wise, but it isn't how things work. Wisdom would be using biotech to make foreign oil irrelevant,
religious fanatics
The fuckers, and after all we have done for them.
I wish the Shah could have ramped up to whatever brutality was necessary to maintain power, so that our resource extraction could have proceeded without this bullshit.
Oh...you mean like Assad and nerve gas?? I see.....
I wish the Shah could have ramped up to whatever brutality was necessary to maintain power,
A taxicab driver from Pakistan told me he walked across the border in the desert southwest.
Try this with an army and see what happens.
I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/J2LG-ASco6o
we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.
Assad and nerve gas?? I see.....
Rebel factions are splintering, infighting, and losing ground. Assad is in no danger of losing at this point.
So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….
Sorry, this lie is one to many. I don't think the American people believe it either, if that is what accounts for their overwhelming ennui re: Syria.
No...apparently you don't.
But thanks for playing....
a well-known poison gas expert voiced his suspicion in an off-the-record conversation that minimal use of chemical weapons was seen as the best way get the West used to its deployment
So he does the ONE thing that will guarantee foreign intervention??? I see….
I think a terrorist with WMD will not need an army.
You can't carry enough WMD on your back to make a significant difference. And once you have number of carriers in tens at least one of them is bound to be caught with his load prompting the border to be sealed for real (it's not as difficult as our pro-amnesty politicians tells us, if your really mean to do it). Anyhow, what Quigley meant by defensible is that we don't really have a predator of our size on our continent and oceans are still pretty good obstacle for predators from other continents to reach us.
I hope you are right. A few million illegals already here is proof till now that it can be done.
Ah yes, Red Dawn, the documentary that dared report what the MSM didn't want you to see. Those brave heroes, Charlie Sheen and C.T. Howell and the late Patrick Swayze, saved us all.
Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:
It wouldn't take millions of persons. Millions of nano grams of certain contraband substances would be quite effective.
Straw Man, if you say so.
For all we know, the terrorists with their vials already walked across our most defensible border; standing by awaiting instructions.
So you would bet on a marshmellowman versus a fire breathing anything??
Ever go camping??
Oceans are also no defense against Godzilla. Only Captain Marshmallow can defend us:
But thanks for playing....
Ouch. You play internet too rough.
"Thanks for playing" That's what all the Internet B Boys were slinging in about 2001
Well, anyway, I guess if your expert is in Spiegel, Check and Mate!
« First « Previous Comments 36,717 - 36,756 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,237,494 comments by 14,795 users - Ceffer online now