|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On April 11 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group. Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point.
Wut?
This isn't the result of Republicans run amok, Democrats have supported this stuff too.
Democratic Senators Christopher Coons, Catherine Cortez Masto, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse each voted against debating whether to exercise Congress’s war powers under the Constitution.
The outcome was similar to a vote on a resolution introduced by Republican Senator Rand Paul to oppose the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. It failed by four votes, and if five Democrats had not voted to preserve the arms deals, the effort to block $500 million worth of weapons would have prevailed.
The NYT and Democrats are cheering this on and practically goaded Trump into it constantly calling him Putin's bitch. To act like this lay at the feet of Republicans and Trump voters is disingenuous to say the least.
|
On April 11 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group. Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point.
Yes.I can clearly remember Hillary being very pro Russia during the campaign.
The US Government is run by the military industrial complex, not a puppet president.Personally i think the Syria action may relate to the greater Israel project.If you want to make up your own theories (Assad being behind the attack is such a theory, and a very unlikely one) go ahead.I think we could be close to WW3 but hopefully not.
|
On April 11 2018 09:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group. Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point. Yes.I can clearly remember Hillary being very pro Russia during the campaign. The US Government is run by the military industrial complex, not a puppet president.Personally i think the Syria action may relate to the greater Israel project.If you want to make up your own theories (Assad being behind the attack is such a theory, and a very unlikely one) go ahead.I think we could be close to WW3 but hopefully not.
Tell me about this Israel Project?
|
On April 11 2018 09:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group. Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point. Yes.I can clearly remember Hillary being very pro Russia during the campaign. The US Government is run by the military industrial complex, not a puppet president.Personally i think the Syria action may relate to the greater Israel project.If you want to make up your own theories (Assad being behind the attack is such a theory, and a very unlikely one) go ahead.I think we could be close to WW3 but hopefully not.
While I'm pretty sure we're completely different in most political observations I agree with you here. To your point about the alternative administration P6 and others supported, Hillary wanted MORE aggressive escalation in Syria earlier.
The notion this is some inevitable outcome of simply Republicans and Trump is damagingly myopic.
EDIT: No idea what "Project Israel" is, but I'd imagine our near unconditional support despite egregious human rights violations has something to do with whatever (I'm guessing Alex Jones style) thing that term represents.
EDIT2: I'm being unfairly presumptive about what you mean.I guess you very well could be referencing the idea of Israel being an ally in an otherwise brutal world (as if they aren't brutes) and are going to slowly spread democracy across the region and all the other non-sense out of that school of thought.
|
On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region?
|
On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region?
Of course there is surveillance?
|
On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it.
Good.
|
On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Show nested quote +Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good.
So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what?
I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some.
EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'.
|
On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation.
|
On April 11 2018 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation.
I honestly don't get the misinterpretation?
|
On April 11 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation. I honestly don't get the misinterpretation? If you want to make the point that there was no attack or that someone else attacked or something else happened and this is being used as a cover by the US, UK and France to attack Assad then say that.
Speak plainly.
|
On April 11 2018 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: BRITISH and French forces could launch an imminent missile strike on Syria within a matter of hours, aviation monitors have revealed.
A coalition force could fire “air-to-ground or cruise missiles” in the wake of a horrifying chemical attack on innocent civilians in Syria last week.
Aviation experts AirLive have reported this evening a “rapid alert notification” warning aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean to be wary of a sudden missile strike.
AirLive said the alert was issued by Eurocontrol this evening for a “possible launch … within the next 72 hours”.
AirLive said: “According to reports, British forces are mobilising at their bases in Cyprus and Rafale fighter jets could takeoff from St Dizier airbase in France for possible strikes against Syria.”
The Eurocontrol alert said: “Due to the possible launch of air strikes into Syria with air-to-ground and/or cruise missiles within the next 72 hours, and the possibility of intermittent disruption of radio navigation equipment, due consideration needs to be taken when planning flight operations in the Eastern Mediterranean / Nicosia FIR area.”
The UK has said military intervention is a possibility following the chemical attack in Douma. Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation. I honestly don't get the misinterpretation? If you want to make the point that there was no attack or that someone else attacked or something else happened and this is being used as a cover by the US, UK and France to attack Assad then say that. Speak plainly.
I was making the point that we aren't so much as even going through the motions that of pretending this is justified, though my previous posts on the topic demonstrate I wouldn't think it justified if it was exactly what some are claiming.
More specifically, that we should at least confirm the attacks happened and as reported before we drop more totally not chemical weapons inevitably killing civilians in retaliation.
|
On April 11 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the Brits and French may be taking the lead on this one: [quote] Source. Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation. I honestly don't get the misinterpretation? If you want to make the point that there was no attack or that someone else attacked or something else happened and this is being used as a cover by the US, UK and France to attack Assad then say that. Speak plainly. I was making the point that we aren't so much as even going through the motions that of pretending this is justified, though my previous posts on the topic demonstrate I wouldn't think it justified if it was exactly what some are claiming. More specifically, that we should at least confirm the attacks happened and as reported before we drop more totally not chemical weapons inevitably killing civilians in retaliation.
Who should confirm? The intelligence agencies say it's confirmed. The press has photos of people in misery. Who, exactly, should confirm this (the OPCW investigation?), and how long should we wait with reacting while this confirmation happens?
|
On April 11 2018 20:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 20:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 20:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:53 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:43 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 18:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 18:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2018 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described?
Also what comes after Russia shoots one down? Do you honestly think there is no active surveillance of a warzone, especially by countries active in the region? Of course there is surveillance? So your comment of Shouldn't they at least confirm the attacks even happened, let alone as described? is pointless and you knew it. Good. So you're suggesting they know for a fact that it was what some are alleging and are just choosing not to confirm it? Or what? I mean obviously the US intelligence community is somewhat notorious for outright lying, especially when there's a war on the horizon, but best I can tell they confirmed Israel hit Syria, but not that the chemical attack is what it's purported to be by some. EDIT: It's almost a tangential issue though when the solution from the west is conventional bombs instead of 'chemical weapons'. Thank you for explaining. But try saying what you obviously mean instead of something else that can easily be misinterpreted. It helps a conversation. I honestly don't get the misinterpretation? If you want to make the point that there was no attack or that someone else attacked or something else happened and this is being used as a cover by the US, UK and France to attack Assad then say that. Speak plainly. I was making the point that we aren't so much as even going through the motions that of pretending this is justified, though my previous posts on the topic demonstrate I wouldn't think it justified if it was exactly what some are claiming. More specifically, that we should at least confirm the attacks happened and as reported before we drop more totally not chemical weapons inevitably killing civilians in retaliation. Who should confirm? The intelligence agencies say it's confirmed. The press has photos of people in misery. Who, exactly, should confirm this (the OPCW investigation?), and how long should we wait with reacting while this confirmation happens?
Did they? The same report I read with US officials confirming the Israeli strike referred to them as alleged chemical attacks.
As to reacting, the US should react immediately, just not by trying to start a war with Russia.
|
On April 11 2018 09:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 09:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 11 2018 09:02 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2018 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Russia likes to buzz national gatherings of its neighbors with war planes. Just to keep them honest. That was remarkably vacuous. But we need to be leaving not sending an attack group. Bolton is the national security adviser now. Republican leadership killed every attempt to even debate reigning in the powers granted to the executive branch post 9/11 since Trump took office. The country voted in a man that openly admires dictators and strong men. This was always going to be the result at some point. Yes.I can clearly remember Hillary being very pro Russia during the campaign. The US Government is run by the military industrial complex, not a puppet president.Personally i think the Syria action may relate to the greater Israel project.If you want to make up your own theories (Assad being behind the attack is such a theory, and a very unlikely one) go ahead.I think we could be close to WW3 but hopefully not. Tell me about this Israel Project?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
(History)
I think hardcore Zionists are trying to fulfil the biblical prophecy of greater Israel.In a little over a month Trump is moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the same day that marks the 70th anniversary - https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20180224-jerusalem-usa-embassy-may-israel-70th-anniversary-palestinian-conflict-trump-diplomacy
Fact : Trump is the most pro Israeli leader in US history (prove me wrong?) What exactly is so far fetched about the idea he is doing the bidding of hardcore Zionists? Moving the embassy on that date to uproar of Palestinians proves that no?
By the way, just because i oppose Zionists does not make me an antisemite.Many jews are also against Zionism. ( truetorahjews.org )
Now, tell me your theory.You think Assad gassed these people despite the fact he has basically won the war?
BTW am i the only one here that finds it ludicrous the US is taking some moral high ground on chemical weapons when their depleted uranium shells have caused so many birth defects and cancer especially in the Falloujah (sp?) region of Iraq? Please....
|
I really don’t see the reason for distinguishing between chemical and conventional attacks in this case. Far more people are being slaughtered with conventional weapons in Syria and around the world. It’s not even really close. Why these very limited chemical weapon attacks warrant a response when the conventional attacks don’t makes little sense. If Assad was wiping out cities and towns with chemical attacks, that might warrant a response. But these isolated attacks don’t really move the needle.
|
Oh for fucks sake. This is all about preception and it isreally not that hard to understand. Trump is a strong man and at some point set the red line at chemical weapons. And unlike Obama, he will not be fucked with. It doesn't matter that the attack killed only some 50 people, but that it was done that way. That the outrage over it is higher is another reason. Then you can simply argue from a moralist standpoint.
Deploying chemical weapons is outlawed and therefor you have to punish where it happens. It was just a little bit of gas is not a reason for not punishing it. Obviously reality is not as categorical in deciding how to react to a violation of the rules but they should be.
And i can totally see a person like Assad using the gas even after he won, as a middlefinger to everyone else or as a means because he knows he will not be punished for it. What does he care if the States and France are firing a few more rockets into his infrastructure. He has turned the most developed country of the region into Chechnya, he clearly does not care.
|
Just a reminder of what is going on here:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
Some of the important parts:
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of
Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in
Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack,
which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its
proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The
end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease
Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold.
(my comment: Iran will be invaded next, after Syria is taken down).
Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and
military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces.
This is not Assad's doing. Anyone who actually believes that he was behind any of these chemical attacks is a low-info moron.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 11 2018 23:52 xDaunt wrote:
I really don’t see the reason for distinguishing between chemical and conventional attacks in this case. Far more people are being slaughtered with conventional weapons in Syria and around the world. It’s not even really close. Why these very limited chemical weapon attacks warrant a response when the conventional attacks don’t makes little sense. If Assad was wiping out cities and towns with chemical attacks, that might warrant a response. But these isolated attacks don’t really move the needle.
dauntless, this is not 'nam. this is war. there are rules.
|
This being an excuse to further Israeli aims does seem plausible in my opinion. Even if we don't believe it is an outright expansionist move, Israel and the US most certainly would see the toppling of the Assad regime and weakening of Iran's influence in Syria/Lebanon as a major victory. The threatened responses to these alleged atrocities are far out of proportion to what we would see if this were another country/region. The US has quite a history of justifying the excessive expansion and (ab)use of its military as being somehow humanitarian and righteous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
