[QUOTE=kladner;351145]And therein lies many a conflict. Of course, this leaves aside a change in borders which was engineered at the end of WWII, and has sustained even greater conflict since.[/QUOTE]

And some wonder (or perhaps leverage upon) why some are pissed off....

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351104]A reasonable retort ... but as TheMawn points out, you made [I]your[/I] evidenceless claim first.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but Cheesiepoofs, there is a crucial distinction - I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic, whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact.

But thanks for the clarification - so "your subjective impression is that most commentators..."

The reason the above distinction is so crucial here is that all of the U.S. claims of "proof the Assad regime used chemical weapons" I have seen to date use similarly misleading wording-as-if-of-indisputable-fact, which have been dutifully parroted by the US MSM establishment, which apparently abrogated its responsibility to ask critical questions of those in power some decades ago.

I await actual independently verifiable evidence of such claims. I consider, I think quite reasonably, any military intervention absent both such evidence and some form of independent verification thereof, as a "rush to war". Anyone who disagrees with that stance needs to explain why "WMDs in Iraq - take our word for it" was a rush to war, but "Chemical weapons used by Assad - take our word for it" is allegedly not.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351171]Ah, but Cheesiepoofs, there is a crucial distinction - I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic, whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact.[/QUOTE]

Just wondering ewmayer... Is it possible to press the "reset button"?

Is it possible to stop killing people to find a solution?

[QUOTE=chalsall;351172]Is it possible to stop killing people to find a solution?[/QUOTE]

Not for the warmongers and associated profiteers who actually run the US government.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351176]Not for the warmongers and associated profiteers who actually run the US government.[/QUOTE]

Can you prove that?

[QUOTE=chalsall;351177]Can you prove that?[/QUOTE]

Proof in the mathematical sense, no; but my evidence for it is at least as strong - IMO quite a bit more so - than that the Obama administration has presented so far to make the case for [strike]war[/strike] pro-democratic surgical intervention in Syria.

That is not an assertion I make lightly ... it is backed by a detailed "follow the money" argument which could fill volumes, but is deeply entwined with the financial/economic issues the MET threads have been devoted to these past 5+ years. A good starting point is to ask yourself the question, "how does the US fund its immensely bloated defense/national-security apparatus?"

To save time for the rest of the readership, the short answer is "massive debt issuance" - now, which major entities, public and private, are the key players in that? Once you have a list, compare it to the commonly compiled lists of "systemically important financial institutions" [a.k.a. TBTF banks], and follow the revolving door between those and governmental-side debt financing apparatus, and the trail of campaign financing which follows the major players in that "public/private partnership."

Do you think it is mere accident that the top-donor lists for (say) McCain and Obama in 2008, or Obama and Romney in 2012, had a rather remarkable amount of overlap? Or that a young state senator named Obama had much early campaign financing and connection-forging help from a fellow named Robert Rubin, who mysteriously appears in key roles in multiple recent administrations? Or that newly-elected president Obama picked a set of top economic advisors which was more or less indistiguishable from that of his predecessor? Or that both of the oh-so-distinct political parties in DC pay lip service to "fiscal discipline" [albeit with different emphases] but seem profoundly unwilling to actually take the measures needed to slow the flood of red ink?

--------------

[i]Edit:[/i] And, in a remarkable parallel with what candidate Obama had to say about domestic spying in 2007-2008 and what he is saying about the same issue now, check out [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/here%E2%80%99s-what-candidate-obama-said-about-military-intervention-2007]Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007[/url].

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351187][i]Edit:[/i] And, in a remarkable parallel with what candidate Obama had to say about domestic spying in 2007-2008 and what he is saying about the same issue now, check out [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-28/here%E2%80%99s-what-candidate-obama-said-about-military-intervention-2007]Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007[/url].[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree.

What a sad world we live in....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351171]I made my OP in the form of an obvious opinion with supporting logic,[/QUOTE]... so you implicitly admit that you presented no supporting [I]evidence[/I] ...

... and, look as I may, I don't see even your [I]claimed[/I] "supporting logic"!

You gave _no_ logic to support your title assertion that Obama is rushing to war.

[quote]whereas your "most" claim sounded very much like an assertion-as-fact.[/quote]But that's what you did! You learned that from Karl Rove (Accuse the opposition of doing what you're doing)?

[quote]The reason the above distinction[/quote][U]But there is no actual distinction![/U] Your OP is just [I]assertion-as-fact[/I], with no supporting evidence OR supporting logic!

[quote]is so crucial here is[/quote]- -

Folks,

Notice how Ernst claims that a [I]nonexisting[/I] "distinction" is "[U]crucial[/U]" here!

[I]Oh, wait -- now that I'm, once again, pointing out the logic holes in one of Ernst's political claims, he's going to ban my post to a different thread with some demeaning title because he prefers banning and assigning my post(s) a demeaning title (and using a belittling nickname in referring to me in his post above, as has been his custom when he wants readers not to pay serious attention to my criticism) instead of honestly admitting, and correcting, the flaws I've just pointed out. (Watch Ernst claim that my post was off-topic in some way, to justify his moderator action.)[/I]

So, what is "crucial" to Ernst's argument, [I]according to Ernst himself[/I] ... doesn't exist!

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351202]So, what is "crucial" to Ernst's argument, [I]according to Ernst himself[/I] ... doesn't exist![/QUOTE]

Meanwhile, people are dying....

Edit: And many more likely will before this game is over.

You've done well in this thread Richard. I tried to quote a bunch of posts and add commentary but it was too long and too hard. You made some good points and everyone has made good contributions to this thread. The distinctions drawn between facts and opinions sharpened the dialogue and had a positive result in drawing in supplementary information. Your comment about borders was good too. In short (too late), well done.

Here is an interesting letter in the newspaper that has been floating around the intertubes today (attributions in link): [url]https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/czD95r9Jp7b[/url]
[QUOTE][B]A short guide to the Middle East[/B]

[I]From Mr KN Al-Sabah.[/I]
Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
[B]K N Al-Sabah,
London EC4, UK[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351187]That is not an assertion I make lightly ... it is backed by a detailed "follow the money" argument which could fill volumes, but is deeply entwined with the financial/economic issues the MET threads [/QUOTE]

This is all a bit too much conspiracy theory for me. Why do banksters and other well-connected businessmen need to start a war to make money? As you've detailed in the MET thread, they already have a backdoor into the Federal Reserve, they've got enough politicians in their pockets to legalize any number of ripoffs of the average consumer. How much profit do you see being made on 3 days worth of cruise missles?