The major tops are always excruciatingly painful patsfan.. for those that can see through the smoke and see all clear bubbles..
its a bubble clear as day the challenge as always is the timing.,
heres a nice graph showing fed and boj balance sheets..
https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/849973573821370368
its a bubble clear as day the challenge as always is the timing.,
heres a nice graph showing fed and boj balance sheets..
https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/849973573821370368
Not unusual at all the status quo bush/Clinton heavy interventionist response:. Hillary said prior to strike if she was POTUS she would take out assads air..
lot of the pro trumpers (America first.. stop meddling in affairs in ME pissed) .. trump a false prophet for the right.. just like obama was a false prophet for the left.. as I've been saying for a while now.. he's a status quo puppet elected on bullshit that he was "hope and change" "drain the swamp" .. electorate so easily fooled..
Trump and GOP majority really allowing Rand Paul to shine.. when they go the status quo/establishment route..
---------
[h=1]Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional rush to war[/h]Published April 07, 2017
Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying. It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.
It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.
Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.
RAND PAUL DISCUSSES SYRIA ISSUE WITH FOX NEWS' BRIAN KILMEADE
I believe that nothing about this situation has changed. Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.
There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator. But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next. Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS. Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed? Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.
Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria. This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.
But no matter your view of the merits of engaging in Syria, every member of Congress should stand up today and reclaim our Constitutional authority over war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act – a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.
That’s it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.
No president is above the law or the Constitution. I said so when it was Barack Obama, and I will say so when it is Donald Trump.
Our Founding Fathers had this right, and we should heed their wisdom about allowing the president to have war powers. They were concerned the president could rule like a king.
Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.
Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.
In Syria – what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?
I will hold accountable and oppose the actions of any president who takes military action without proper legal authority and congressional consent.
Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.
---------
[h=1]Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Trump and another unconstitutional rush to war[/h]Published April 07, 2017
Every American condemns the atrocities in Syria, and we cannot help but be shaken by the images of innocent women and children dying. It is also true that often in foreign policy, things are not as simple as they appear, and actions often have consequences well beyond the obvious.
It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.
Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.
RAND PAUL DISCUSSES SYRIA ISSUE WITH FOX NEWS' BRIAN KILMEADE
I believe that nothing about this situation has changed. Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.
There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator. But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next. Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS. Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed? Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.
Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria. This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.
But no matter your view of the merits of engaging in Syria, every member of Congress should stand up today and reclaim our Constitutional authority over war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act – a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.
That’s it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.
No president is above the law or the Constitution. I said so when it was Barack Obama, and I will say so when it is Donald Trump.
Our Founding Fathers had this right, and we should heed their wisdom about allowing the president to have war powers. They were concerned the president could rule like a king.
Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates – that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.
Before any act of war, we should have a serious and thoughtful debate over the ramifications.
In Syria – what is our goal? What happens if we depose Assad? Will the Islamist rebels, as they have threatened, turn their weapons and attention elsewhere, including Israel next door?
I will hold accountable and oppose the actions of any president who takes military action without proper legal authority and congressional consent.
Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate.
Never an easy thing to predict. If it were everyone would be rich.
Always good to be aware of the headwinds rather than believe what the cheerleaders on tv tell us. But even the experts have trouble getting this stuff right.
Hell, Greenspan is smarter than all of us combined when it comes to economics/monetary policy and he's as responsible for the recent messes as anyone IMO.
Always good to be aware of the headwinds rather than believe what the cheerleaders on tv tell us. But even the experts have trouble getting this stuff right.
Hell, Greenspan is smarter than all of us combined when it comes to economics/monetary policy and he's as responsible for the recent messes as anyone IMO.
Huh obviously I've said some wrong things on here and I lean bearish..
but this thread started back in 2007 before we topped and that obvious bubble burst..
the Feds heavy interventionism made this "boom" last a lot longer than expected... I haven't been fighting it that much on the way up.. currently I have the largest short position on (I always have longs) since last time shot hit the fan..
we are currently in an obvious bubble once again as we were back in 2007..market will be much lower than it is now in the not too distant future that's pretty much a given IMO.. when is the tough part..
And for most I wouldn't suggest shorting etc..
rather would simply suggest people have a high % cash position vs heavily invested.. historical valuations risk/reward wise it makes little sense to be heavily long the markets right now.. very high chance u can buy it back at a steep discount at some point in the not too distant future..
rather would simply suggest people have a high % cash position vs heavily invested.. historical valuations risk/reward wise it makes little sense to be heavily long the markets right now.. very high chance u can buy it back at a steep discount at some point in the not too distant future..
You are right-on, I was referring to "elected know-it-alls" and those who are in a position to pull the delicate strings; When someone speaks with keen insight such as Tiznow, I always listen carefully. I am glad I found this thread.....Good luck Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. EDT. I hope you all are on he right side.
It's always tough to say how long the "growth" can last. The guys from "Big Short" movie started shorting in '04-05 thinking MBS was a mess. Even though market started going down from highs last month of '07, didn't even crater until 9 months later.
Maybe the flip side is it lasts 5 more years? Who knows, it's atleast fair to consider the possibility. New Prez could mean there is a lot of low hanging fruit to take out and fix and it will go off without a hitch. Obviously lower taxes/regulation is gonna spur something but I don't think you can put bandaids on it really.
My post above #28677 a lot of that stuff just looks at the end of its cycle. Then you got boomers retiring in droves, millennials not spending as much as previous generations, decent amount of gridlock in DC (obamacare repeal failure already)
On any given day of the last 50 years you could list a bunch of reasons why economy could struggle, but just seems like a lot of shit converging right now.
Maybe the flip side is it lasts 5 more years? Who knows, it's atleast fair to consider the possibility. New Prez could mean there is a lot of low hanging fruit to take out and fix and it will go off without a hitch. Obviously lower taxes/regulation is gonna spur something but I don't think you can put bandaids on it really.
My post above #28677 a lot of that stuff just looks at the end of its cycle. Then you got boomers retiring in droves, millennials not spending as much as previous generations, decent amount of gridlock in DC (obamacare repeal failure already)
On any given day of the last 50 years you could list a bunch of reasons why economy could struggle, but just seems like a lot of shit converging right now.
Expansion of Ww3 their only hope to bubble it much longer IMO.. wars very bullish.. spend and debt to blow things up!
----------
ISIS Attacks US-Led Base In Southern Syria, As Assad Said To Use White Phosphorus
With the US now engaged in military conflict with, and targeting Syrian army forces, what the Trump administration has (un)wittingly done is provide support to Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra and other terrorist forces, all of which have been engaging with the Assad regime in a fight in which the Syrian president has gradually seen the tide of war turn in his favor. At least until last Friday's US cruise missile attack that is.
Which is why it should probably come as no surprise that, emboldened by US actions, moments ago the WSJ reported that Islamic State militants attacked a US-led coalition base (at least we now have official confirmation that there are US military bases in Syria) in southern Syria on Saturday, "triggering a fierce fight that required coalition airstrikes to repel, U.S. military officials said Sunday."
Luckily, there was no word of any American fatalities in the attack, although next time the US forces on the ground may not be so lucky, and the resulting media storm would prompt a full reappraisal of Trump's action which by weakening Assad implicitly and directly is boosting the relative strength of the Islamic State.
The Islamic State attack comes as the U.S. military is deepening its presence in Syria as part of an intensifying campaign to drive the extremist group from its de facto capital in Raqqa. For weeks, the U.S. military has been strengthening its presence along the Jordan-Syria border, according to U.S. and Jordanian officials.
Sharethrough Placement Integrated
Click button for next steps
Next Steps
* * *
Meanwhile, confirming that the US is not nearly close done bombing Assad, on Sunday the Qatar-owned (the country which at long last hopes to have its gas pipeline cross Syria to Europe) Al Jazeera, reported that Syrian jets have bombed the town of Idlib using White Phosphorus.
One almost wonders what must have gone through the head of the Al Jazeera producers when told to report on such a story.
One thing we can imagine, however, is sequence of thoughts inside Assad's head: "Well, I just got bombed by the US and I will surely get bombed even more at even the slightest additional provocation that can be splashed across the front pages of western newspaper. So... yes, brilliant idea - I will use a banned, toxic substance - White Phosphorus - and hope it appears on all media channels around the developed world, just to make sure the next US airstrike aims right for my palace."
Sure, why not.
Expect to hear much more about white phosphorus in the coming days: it will be the "catalyst" for the next round of Syrian airstrikes.
----------
ISIS Attacks US-Led Base In Southern Syria, As Assad Said To Use White Phosphorus
With the US now engaged in military conflict with, and targeting Syrian army forces, what the Trump administration has (un)wittingly done is provide support to Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra and other terrorist forces, all of which have been engaging with the Assad regime in a fight in which the Syrian president has gradually seen the tide of war turn in his favor. At least until last Friday's US cruise missile attack that is.
Which is why it should probably come as no surprise that, emboldened by US actions, moments ago the WSJ reported that Islamic State militants attacked a US-led coalition base (at least we now have official confirmation that there are US military bases in Syria) in southern Syria on Saturday, "triggering a fierce fight that required coalition airstrikes to repel, U.S. military officials said Sunday."
The complex attack began on Saturday when Islamic State fighters detonated a vehicle bomb at a base in al-Tanf, a town in southern Syria along the Jordan border used by American special operation forces and Syrian rebels working with the U.S. coalition, the officials said.
Between 20 and 30 Islamic State fighters, including some with suicide vests, then attacked the base, which is a staging ground and training facility for the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels.
As the WSJ adds, Coalition forces and Syrian rebels engaged in firefights with the attackers and then called in airstrikes to repel the attack, officials said.Between 20 and 30 Islamic State fighters, including some with suicide vests, then attacked the base, which is a staging ground and training facility for the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels.
Luckily, there was no word of any American fatalities in the attack, although next time the US forces on the ground may not be so lucky, and the resulting media storm would prompt a full reappraisal of Trump's action which by weakening Assad implicitly and directly is boosting the relative strength of the Islamic State.
The Islamic State attack comes as the U.S. military is deepening its presence in Syria as part of an intensifying campaign to drive the extremist group from its de facto capital in Raqqa. For weeks, the U.S. military has been strengthening its presence along the Jordan-Syria border, according to U.S. and Jordanian officials.
Sharethrough Placement Integrated
Click button for next steps
Next Steps
* * *
Meanwhile, confirming that the US is not nearly close done bombing Assad, on Sunday the Qatar-owned (the country which at long last hopes to have its gas pipeline cross Syria to Europe) Al Jazeera, reported that Syrian jets have bombed the town of Idlib using White Phosphorus.
One almost wonders what must have gone through the head of the Al Jazeera producers when told to report on such a story.
One thing we can imagine, however, is sequence of thoughts inside Assad's head: "Well, I just got bombed by the US and I will surely get bombed even more at even the slightest additional provocation that can be splashed across the front pages of western newspaper. So... yes, brilliant idea - I will use a banned, toxic substance - White Phosphorus - and hope it appears on all media channels around the developed world, just to make sure the next US airstrike aims right for my palace."
Sure, why not.
Expect to hear much more about white phosphorus in the coming days: it will be the "catalyst" for the next round of Syrian airstrikes.
[h=1]Syria’s Assad Drops White Phosphorus On Villages: Report[/h]3 hours ago
[h=1]Syria’s Assad Drops White Phosphorus On Villages: Report[/h]
therealheisenberg
3 hours ago
Ok, so regular readers know how we feel about Bashar al-Assad and chemical weapons.
Simply put: the contention that Assad wouldn’t dare deploy poison gas just when the regime is i) on the verge of sealing the deal in terms of regaining complete control of “useful Syria” (thanks almost completely to Hezbollah, the IRGC, and Russian air power) and ii) making progress in and around Deir Ezzor, is absurd for two reasons.
Having said that, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has a lot to gain from bombing Assad. You need only look at the reaction on Capitol Hill to last Thursday’s airstrikes for proof that one way to deflect criticism and unite lawmakers is to put on your “protecting beautiful babies” face on the way to lobbing 59 Tomahawks in the direction of a dictator.
Relatedly, it seems awfully convenient that Trump just happened to bomb a Russian client state right when the investigation into his administration’s ties to Moscow looked to be on the verge of uncovering something damning. “See, I told you I’m not a Russian puppet, I just bombed Putin’s ally in Damascus.”
So given all of that, the following (via Bloomberg, citing al-Jazeera) seems like it might (and we emphasize “might”) be a bit specious:
So the point isn’t to say that white phosphorous wasn’t used.
And the point isn’t to suggest that it wasn’t the Russians and/or Assad using it.
Rather, the point is that it seems like someone might be looking for an excuse to keep this Trump vs. Assad spectacle going. And again, this whole thing was really, really convenient in terms of timing for Trump. We’ll leave it to readers to decide just who would be interested in perpetuating this and why (there are all kinds of possibilities there, some of which support the narrative you read in these pages and some of which support a competing narrative you’ll read elsewhere).
One thing’s for sure: you can expect plenty of Dave Chappelle-ish “yellow cake” and “aluminum tubes” pressers this week…
Advertisements
Categories: assad, Trump
Leave a Comment
[h=1]Syria’s Assad Drops White Phosphorus On Villages: Report[/h]
3 hours ago
Simply put: the contention that Assad wouldn’t dare deploy poison gas just when the regime is i) on the verge of sealing the deal in terms of regaining complete control of “useful Syria” (thanks almost completely to Hezbollah, the IRGC, and Russian air power) and ii) making progress in and around Deir Ezzor, is absurd for two reasons.
- Assad doesn’t think he has much to fear from the international community because he’s backed by the Kremlin and Tehran
- the conflict in Syria is an absolute bloody free-for-all and no one is thinking too far ahead in terms of consequences
The argument that Assad wouldn’t be so stupid as to gas a bunch of people and risk enraging the international community just when it looks like everyone has acquiesced to the inevitable conclusion that ousting him from power is going to be well nigh impossible assumes there’s a whole lot of deep strategizing going on over there. This is a melee. Keep in mind the sheer number of combatants involved. There’s the Alawite government and its forces. There’s Russia. There’s the IRGC. There’s Hezbollah. There’s ISIS. There’s any number of Sunni factions ranging from Fateh al-Sham Front (the band formerly known as al-Nusra) to more “moderate” rebels. There’s the Kurds. There’s US spec ops. There’s Turkey. You get the idea.
No one is sitting around thinking really hard about what the next move should be. This ceased to be a chess game a long time ago. And even if you’re inclined to think that Assad is thinking two or three steps ahead, one plausible answer to the question “why would he risk it?” is this: because he’s backed by Moscow and Tehran and so far, nobody has been real keen on crossing the Kremlin aside from Erodgan which isn’t surprising because he’s out of his mind.
Basically, Assad probably did gas those folks. And it seems at least possible that Russia might have tried to cover up evidence after the fact.No one is sitting around thinking really hard about what the next move should be. This ceased to be a chess game a long time ago. And even if you’re inclined to think that Assad is thinking two or three steps ahead, one plausible answer to the question “why would he risk it?” is this: because he’s backed by Moscow and Tehran and so far, nobody has been real keen on crossing the Kremlin aside from Erodgan which isn’t surprising because he’s out of his mind.
Having said that, it’s important to remember that Donald Trump has a lot to gain from bombing Assad. You need only look at the reaction on Capitol Hill to last Thursday’s airstrikes for proof that one way to deflect criticism and unite lawmakers is to put on your “protecting beautiful babies” face on the way to lobbing 59 Tomahawks in the direction of a dictator.
Relatedly, it seems awfully convenient that Trump just happened to bomb a Russian client state right when the investigation into his administration’s ties to Moscow looked to be on the verge of uncovering something damning. “See, I told you I’m not a Russian puppet, I just bombed Putin’s ally in Damascus.”
So given all of that, the following (via Bloomberg, citing al-Jazeera) seems like it might (and we emphasize “might”) be a bit specious:
- Syrian Jets Bomb Idlib Town, Using White Phosphorus: Jazeera
- Town of Saraqb in Idlib suburbs was hit with white phosphorus, al-Jazeera television says, citing its reporter in Syria.
- No immediate casualty estimates were provided by al-Jazeera
So the point isn’t to say that white phosphorous wasn’t used.
And the point isn’t to suggest that it wasn’t the Russians and/or Assad using it.
Rather, the point is that it seems like someone might be looking for an excuse to keep this Trump vs. Assad spectacle going. And again, this whole thing was really, really convenient in terms of timing for Trump. We’ll leave it to readers to decide just who would be interested in perpetuating this and why (there are all kinds of possibilities there, some of which support the narrative you read in these pages and some of which support a competing narrative you’ll read elsewhere).
One thing’s for sure: you can expect plenty of Dave Chappelle-ish “yellow cake” and “aluminum tubes” pressers this week…
Categories: assad, Trump
Leave a Comment
Also note an expanded war in the region would be good for Russia (oil price bullish)...
and helpful for trump near term economically spending on military action .. after health care tax cuts etc looking tough..
wars/external enemies always helpful for those who currently in charge to distract the easily fooled populace..
and helpful for trump near term economically spending on military action .. after health care tax cuts etc looking tough..
wars/external enemies always helpful for those who currently in charge to distract the easily fooled populace..
Skeptical how much oil could fluctuate based on ME instability right now though. The region isn't exactly oozing peace and prosperity right now and we're at 52/barrel.
But after 2.5 years of dirt cheap oil and everyone loading up on SUV's (huge portion of that car bubble is SUV's w/ cheap oil) then Trump would get shit on bigtime if gas prices were to rise like 50% or so. He definitely doesn't have the political capital for that.
Nobody does really. Americans rally around the flag until it hurts their wallet. Ask Bush about that 1.
But after 2.5 years of dirt cheap oil and everyone loading up on SUV's (huge portion of that car bubble is SUV's w/ cheap oil) then Trump would get shit on bigtime if gas prices were to rise like 50% or so. He definitely doesn't have the political capital for that.
Nobody does really. Americans rally around the flag until it hurts their wallet. Ask Bush about that 1.
And this doesn't sound like this is it.. administration clearly stating they want Assad out.. not that it was a one and done to simply say stop using chemical weapons..
the establishment loves ME chaos.. great for military industrial complex and there is a huge ocean separating us from them..
what amazes me is the european people haven't turned on their leaders yet to stop being supportive of the status quo interventionism in the ME as they are the ones most greatly influenced by it.. UK only one so far..
-----------
(CNN)The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has told CNN that removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power is a priority, cementing an extraordinary U-turn in the Trump administration's stance on the embattled leader.
the establishment loves ME chaos.. great for military industrial complex and there is a huge ocean separating us from them..
what amazes me is the european people haven't turned on their leaders yet to stop being supportive of the status quo interventionism in the ME as they are the ones most greatly influenced by it.. UK only one so far..
-----------
(CNN)The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has told CNN that removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power is a priority, cementing an extraordinary U-turn in the Trump administration's stance on the embattled leader.
?
Link shows Tillerson/Haley acknowledging Assad going nowhere. Which was obviously dumb, even if you are generally OK with him, you don't give him that type of comfort.
Another thing that is weird to me is pretty much everyone acknowledges that Putin is a mastermind with this shit. And I can't imagine Assad does anything ballsy without his approval, so why would Putin/Assad be OK with the heat chemical weapons would bring when they pretty much had Syria tied up and the rebels chances to mount anything significant had greatly faded. I don't buy that Assad wasn't in on it, he was. I mean he is going right back to bombing the places that the chemical attacks were in before, it was him.
Seems like Putin is possibly trying to take advantage of US instability right now. Actually seems pretty obvious more I think about it. Given media hammering Trump/Russia ties, he knows this will really mindfuck and throw us for a loop.
Link shows Tillerson/Haley acknowledging Assad going nowhere. Which was obviously dumb, even if you are generally OK with him, you don't give him that type of comfort.
Another thing that is weird to me is pretty much everyone acknowledges that Putin is a mastermind with this shit. And I can't imagine Assad does anything ballsy without his approval, so why would Putin/Assad be OK with the heat chemical weapons would bring when they pretty much had Syria tied up and the rebels chances to mount anything significant had greatly faded. I don't buy that Assad wasn't in on it, he was. I mean he is going right back to bombing the places that the chemical attacks were in before, it was him.
Seems like Putin is possibly trying to take advantage of US instability right now. Actually seems pretty obvious more I think about it. Given media hammering Trump/Russia ties, he knows this will really mindfuck and throw us for a loop.
