« Lawrence Auster on Obama | Main | Obama, the evil genius crypto-anti-neo-colonialist »

February 24, 2012

Comments

Half Sigma, right on. Not like the Arab States have any pull on K Street and have no pull on the price world's most important commodity. /sarc

Also, if the Israelis were *against* arming the rebels, do you think this pressure would be made public? Don't you think if you were the Arabs pushing this, you've already made Israel well aware of your plan to get Uncle Sugar involved? Maybe I am a cynic, but I get the feeling if there's a sneeze coming out of the mid-east, the Israelis already know about it.

[HS: The Israelis surely have a great spy network, but Obama doesn't especially like them. After all, he grew up in a Muslim nation so he probably learned to hate Jews as a little kid.]

The US government is utterly subverted by Saudi Arabia, who seem to buy off and maybe influence in other ways most of the people with any kind of foreign policy influence. The Jews and other pro-Israeli groups are powerful and influential, but not so much as the Saudis. This is the dog that didn't bark.

[HS: The Saudis are great diplomats. Only the Saudis can run an autocratic state, fund reactionary Wahabi Islam, officially consider itself to be in a state of war with Israel, but at the same time be our best friend.]

Anyone else notice the subtle Syria stories rolling out on all news outlets to incite public opinion into supporting intervention? Twitter saw #justice4syria trend a couple days ago, journalists are wounded and posting from youtube for help, article after article is stating how awful the syrian situation is. How bad are the elite MSM at this? Egypt taught them nothing.

[HS: In Egypt, we throw out a friendly government--an example of Obama's hate America foreign policy. In Syria, at least, the government was hostile to us and deserves to be overthrown, even though the replacement government probably won't be any better.]

One of the few things I am in 100% alignment with the Obamanauts on is their big push for green energy. Yes, practically, so far, moving in that direction has meant big no-strings-attached payoffs to Democratic donors/friends.

But, years from now, if/when the US/first world is finally discovers the technology to generate large amounts of clean, renewable energy, we will also finally be able to give a big well-deserved F-off to the Saudis, Iranians, the Gulf State emirs, and various other puffed-up ass-sitters whose sole accomplishment/reason for mattering is that they happened to have been born over the world's biggest oil fields (Hugo Chavez too, although seems to me Venezuelans are generally more industrious than Arabs).

[HS: We're not likely to magically discover a cheaper energy source for transportation than oil at under $200/bbl.]

The leaders of the Gulf states enjoy their relationship with the west, they get to become disgustingly rich, while their people remain dumb and unaware.

[HS: A win-win situation for the U.S. and the sultans. The world gets oil, and the gulf leaders are better than the Islamic nuts who might otherwise take over.]

I think this answers the question -- Hamas has ditched Assad and backed the revolution. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-syria-palestinians-idUSTRE81N1CC20120224

Does anyone know why the Gulf states have become so disgusting rich since the 2000s? Everyone I've talked to from the UAE says their country has really taken off since 2002 or so because of oil. The Saudis have been filthy rich since Roosevelt sent prospectors to determine how much oil they had, in comparison, but the Gulf states have only made it big recently. Is it because the Iraq War drove up gas prices?

If I was Israel, I'd sit back, open a bottle of Maccabee and enjoy the Shiite-Sunni fight. I'd also have the rifle, pistol and shotty right next to me.
In regards to the MSM clowns itching for the US to intervene militarily, I'm guessing the Arab Spring never happened and the protests that will occur if/when the US becomes involved in Syria will be huge!

The U.S. already has intervened using covert black-ops and CIA assets that are financially providing the rebels with equipment, military intelligence and leadership/guerrilla tactics. These are considered hard power politics and I'm positive that the administration will avoid another total war type scenario and public exposure, especially since it could escalate into another Arab vs. Israeli-esque conflict. US will not want to further disrupt the oil supply and slow down economic activity. If the region is destabilized the West will pay through higher gas prices and business operation costs.

I suppose Wikileaks does have its purposes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition

We should clearly stay out of this, other than the sort of diplomatic pressure we're already putting on Assad.

Syria is also friendly with Iran, and Syria is next door to Israel. We could try improving our relations with Iran, but the problem is if we assuage tensions too well, then we may alienate Israel, so America has to maintain diplomatic relations with Iran. They found one of our spy probes and one of their nuclear scientists were killed, so we have a serious uphill battle. We want to be amicable with Iran while maintaining strong relations with Israel.

"HS: We're not likely to magically discover a cheaper energy source for transportation than oil at under $200/bbl."

Our progress for alternative energy is coming along, and the link below is an old piece:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

[HS: That's a source of electricity and NOT a transportation fuel.]

We went to war to supported the Libyan opposition even though Libya was no threat to us. Therefore, using Obama foreign policy logic, we won't do much more than talk and some minor covert stuff, since Syria is one of the two middle eastern powers that are actually enemies to the US and our interests.

It is not clean but there is an almost limitless supply of Canadian tar sands that can be turned into gasoline for around 80 a barrel. It used to be around 55 but there is a severe labor shortage up there. Production is already very high and growing rapidly. At least for the next 20 years this will prevent oil from getting much more expensive than it is now.

The USA also has almost unlimited coal that can be converted to gasoline at around 100 per barrel. Plants to do this will start to get built when it becomes clear oil will stay above $110. So basically $200 oil in current dollars will never happen on a sustained basis. A spike that high may happen.

From what I can gather, the government in Syria really is killing civilians in high numbers. Political expediency always trumps human rights, but I really hope these cock-suckers get theirs.

HS said: That's a source of electricity and NOT a transportation fuel.

I imagine that, if/when the industrialized world figures out how to effectively generate clean and renewable electricity for the grid, the engineering problems to translate that to passenger cars will be trivial, perhaps trucks and buses too. Not so sure about planes and ships.

Hamas turning against Syria is probably just lip services, Hamas has just met with Iranian leaders and assured them that they are partners in arab victory.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=50571

Free electricity can be used to convert hydrocarbons into oil.

Also, check out:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html

The comments to this entry are closed.