Kahedron, is there a reason you're not paying any attention at all to what I am writing?
Well since you have pretty much parrotted what everyone else has said, just using slightly different words. No you have not been ignored. The same things that are said to them apply to you as well.
If Assad was not the one who dropped chemicals from aircraft who else in the region has the capability to do so.
The only other people potentially on the list are the Russians.
He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.
So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.
The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on.
So you are agreeing with me that Assad didn't give a damn about the majority of the people that lived in the country just those of his tribe. Good to know
And yes, it comes from a russian, but if you dismiss me as a brainwashed propagandist, is this really the debate section?
Until you mentioned it neither did I know nor did I care that you are Russian. Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.
It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.
Assad has Chemical weapons + Assad also has aircraft, no one else has both apply occams razor, which is better than propaganda, = Assad dropped chemical weapons on the town.
Unless you can come up with another group that has both chemical weapons and aircraft you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone other than a conspiracy theorist that it wasn't Putins friend Assad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Just throwing it out their but America? America has special interests in Syria. It wouldn't the first time they invented a reason to attack. I won't underestimate Trump. I know some Syrian refugees and that's who they think did it.
It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.
You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?
Quote from Kahedron »
So you are agreeing with me that Assad didn't give a damn about the majority of the people that lived in the country just those of his tribe. Good to know
If by "his tribe" you mean the shia, the christians, the druze and even sunni who don't believe that power distribution should be based on religion, then yes.
Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.
It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.
Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).
The issue of authority aside, just as a matter of prudence, it seems like a pretty awful idea to start a war with the vassal of a major world power (who even has forces present within the borders of said vassal) without both international and congressional support, neither of which he has. We don't see any other state in the world (even in Europe) trying to do this, either. Hilariously, with this singular action, he's done more against Assad than anyone else has.
3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.
Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.
He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either.
Just throwing it out their but America? America has special interests in Syria.
Such as...? One of the most common accusations is that America has been sitting back and letting Syria go to hell for six years because we don't have significant interests there. And even if we did, if Trump really wanted to to increase our involvement in the Syrian civil war, he would not need to commit a false-flag crime against humanity to do it. In fact, he doesn't seem to want to increase involvement. As has already been noted, a Tomahawk strike is pretty much the minimal response he could take while still appearing "tough" and to be enforcing the "red line". Furthermore, all this comes just a week after Tillerson said it was no longer the U.S.'s goal that Assad step down. So by far the most likely chain of events is that (1) Trump wants to deescalate American involvement in Syria; (2) Assad murders dozens of people with an illegal weapon of mass destruction... again; (3) Trump is forced to do something in order not to appear as weak as Obama did, even though he'd rather not.
But you'll underestimate Assad? What about his special interests in Syria, since, y'know, he rules the country and the entire reason for this civil war is that he wants to continue to do so?
I know some Syrian refugees and that's who they think did it.
With all due respect to their situation, it does not seem likely that it grants them any special insight into American strategic capabilities and goals. Do they have a real and specific analysis of the whys and hows of alleged U.S. involvement, or is this just more America-the-Bogeyman?
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).
Legally? In a vacuum, yes, you're probably right. However, this is how presidents have used the War Powers Resolution for decades now. You can certainly complain about the constitutionality of the action, but it's not intrinsically any more political risk to him than, say, Clinton ordering air strikes in the Balkans.
He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal.
Which anti-war leftists exactly do you think were on Trump's side before but are against him now?
Again, probably nothing will come of this. I suppose the Dems hate him even more than usual so there's a chance they'll try to make hay here, but even if they wanted to, they're the minority party.
You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way.
Who exactly are you talking about here? Trump's base has proven that they'll believe anything that comes out of his mouth no matter how ridiculous. But when he tells them something that actually seems to be the truth, all of a sudden they think their "tells-it-like-it-is" champion is part of a conspiracy? No. Trump is throwing American weight around again in the Middle East! This is going to be wildly popular on the right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I toughly despise Trump and believe it will take decades for the country to recover from his presidency. That said, and as much as I hate to admit it, the attack on Syria was more than justified it was necessary. No nation should be allowed to use chemical weapons and, when we can, we should reinforce that ethic. I'm a die hard Democrat, but this is a decision I agree with the Trump Administration on. Whether or not he continues to act sensibly on the situation is to be seen, but he made a decent start.
It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.
You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?
Here you go. And before you attack the source the Guardian for all is spelling mistakes is one of the few news outlets that values proper investigative journalism.
Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.
It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?
With the exception of the Qataris the rest of the countries you mentioned are involved in other conflicts in the region and Chemical weapons have not been used in those. For the Qataris the Americans built their airbase and have been using it fairly consistently since the end of the First Gulf war so I doubt that any chemical weapons could have been snuck past them.
So again our option fairly quickly narrow to Assad or Assad. I get you still don't like the fact your country has thrown itself in with a mass murderer, but history and geopolitics don't really care what you think.
He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.
Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).
The issue of authority aside, just as a matter of prudence, it seems like a pretty awful idea to start a war with the vassal of a major world power (who even has forces present within the borders of said vassal) without both international and congressional support, neither of which he has. We don't see any other state in the world (even in Europe) trying to do this, either. Hilariously, with this singular action, he's done more against Assad than anyone else has.
The actions he has undertaken have done nothing to change the situation on the ground and there are portions of Congress attacking him for not going far enough. With the news that for all of the missiles sent against that one airbase having it back in operation less than a week after it was attacked. Those charges are valid.
3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.
Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.
He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either. [/quote]
You are reading the UK situation wrong. Pretty much everyone over here wants the bastard gone. But a large part of the polictal scene is still hung up over the Invasion of Iraq back in 2003 and how we should not have invaded then, and how Western Military intervention does not work So we should not ever intervene in the Middle east again.
Admittedly if we continue to insist on doing interventions on the cheap they have a point. But if we were to properly fund and plan the intervention including having plan for what happens afterwards then there would be a different outcome.
Unfortunately we appear to be wedded to the do it on the cheap approach, probably beacuase due to the way our societies have been set up our Lords and Masters don't think further ahead than the next election.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Here you go. And before you attack the source the Guardian for all is spelling mistakes is one of the few news outlets that values proper investigative journalism.
Thank you for the link. It's certainly interesting, and MSF are a reliable source (it's good that they're not quoting the White Helmets, for example), but there are still some points where they're not telling all. First, the doctors working in hospitals 100 kms from Khan Sheykhoun sound too assured about the geography of the attack than they could possibly be.
Second, the shelf life of sarin is short, that's right, but somehow the author of the article says nothing about the existence of numerous techniques that make the production process easier and cheaper and making the weapon more stable. I doubt that he or she is unaware, so that other pops to mind? Actually, the way to prolong the shelf life of sarin shells is to keep the ingredients in separate containters and mix them right before usage. Chemicals stored like that would react to impact exactly like that: partly evaporate, partly mix to create a deadly weapon.
Quote from Kahedron »
With the exception of the Qataris the rest of the countries you mentioned are involved in other conflicts in the region and Chemical weapons have not been used in those. For the Qataris the Americans built their airbase and have been using it fairly consistently since the end of the First Gulf war so I doubt that any chemical weapons could have been snuck past them.
Of course nobody uses the chemical weapons openly. It puzzles me why you're so eager to believe that Assad would do so numerous times. Also, why would anyone need to sneak weapon past the Americans? The US have been treating their allies mildly always, which usually results in hypocrisy: if the country tolerates the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia or the tyranny in Bahrain, I don't see why prohibited weapons that are kept in secret are so much of a different thing.
Quote from Kahedron »
So again our option fairly quickly narrow to Assad or Assad. I get you still don't like the fact your country has thrown itself in with a mass murderer, but history and geopolitics don't really care what you think.
History and geopolitics remember the country which resorted to use of the chemical weapons without feeling guilty afterwards, and it's the US. History and geopolitics also remember how the States invaded a country based on the claims of chemical weapons storage there just to find no evidence at all. The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.
The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.
He might be 'winning' but have you heard the term 'phyrric victory'?
At this point it is almost irrelevant that he is winning the civil war it has gone on for 6 years and has reduced large parts of the country to rubble. This is going to be very expensive to repair. Even if it were to end in his favour soon. His forces have also been fighting for that 6 year period with only very short breaks for the abortive cease fires.
Even if his victory is inevietable as some people might like to claim it isn't going to happen quickly so is going to result in a lot more damage to the infreastructure of Syria. Which in all likelihood he is not going to be able to afford to repair. So he ends up the ruler of a pile of dust. With the knowledge that he has got away with using Chemical weapons before. Again you can try to deny this but you have the same problem of finding someone else who can drop them from aircraft, good luck with that. And the fact that they are very good at terrorising civilian populuations. Yeah I can see why he might be tempted to use them again.
As for Iraq are you forgetting or ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussien used Chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iranian war and then was so concerned about using them that he used them against the Marsh Arabs after the first Gulf War. And after the first Gulf War Iraq was exactly co-operative when it came to the inspections of its weapon sites and manufacturing facilities.
This is of course ignoring the storys of convoys being sent from Iraq to Syria just after the Invasion in 2003.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Kahedron, do you not know that behind the lines of Assad's Syria, life is not all that bad?
I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is. Are you trying to claim that beacuse he is nice to the people he isn't dropping bombs on he can't possibly be behind the Chemical attack? Or because he is nice to some of his people we should ignore the fact that he is a mass murderer?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Such as...? One of the most common accusations is that America has been sitting back and letting Syria go to hell for six years because we don't have significant interests there. And even if we did, if Trump really wanted to to increase our involvement in the Syrian civil war, he would not need to commit a false-flag crime against humanity to do it. In fact, he doesn't seem to want to increase involvement. As has already been noted, a Tomahawk strike is pretty much the minimal response he could take while still appearing "tough" and to be enforcing the "red line". Furthermore, all this comes just a week after Tillerson said it was no longer the U.S.'s goal that Assad step down. So by far the most likely chain of events is that (1) Trump wants to deescalate American involvement in Syria; (2) Assad murders dozens of people with an illegal weapon of mass destruction... again; (3) Trump is forced to do something in order not to appear as weak as Obama did, even though he'd rather not.
Such as a Pipeline.
Look, just to be clear I think I my previous post was a bit confusing. I'm not nessissarily claiming that this was a False Flag on Trump's part. I'm just saying that we have no idea who it was. It could have been Assaud, or Saudi's or Isis or really anyone with special interests in Syria. We don't know for sure it was Assaud and I think there is enough reasonable doubt to wait for a completed investigation before attacking.
As for my Syrian friends you may be correct. There is a lot of antagonistic views of America over there.
Blinking Spirit, you have earned my respect in the past and I value your opinion quote highly. If you don't mind I'd love to hear your opinion on this article that my Syrian friends showed me. It's done by TYT Network and I usually value their reports highly as well. https://youtu.be/NjOr2YzrZDY According to my friends this is how most Syrians view this war.
Kahedron, do you not know that behind the lines of Assad's Syria, life is not all that bad?
I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is. Are you trying to claim that beacuse he is nice to the people he isn't dropping bombs on he can't possibly be behind the Chemical attack? Or because he is nice to some of his people we should ignore the fact that he is a mass murderer?
You're drawing conclusions based on things I did not say. But no, nevermind. You've repeatedly ignored statements made by several people. I'm obviously not the one to change your mind either.
No I am not drawing conclusions. I am asking a couple of questions as to the relevancy of your initial question. If you want an answer to your non sequiter. I sure that there are still some areas of Syria that have not been touched by the civil war where life might be very pleasant.
Now please tell me how that is relevant that is when looking to apportion blame for a chemical attack?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I have a very grim feeling this is going to lead to yet another costly military escapade in the Middle East.
At the very least, this is going to be another Iraq or Libya where the dictator in power is removed and the resulting power vacuum leaves the country in far worse shape. At the very worst, this will lead to a hot war with Russia. Which in turn will start a chain reaction leading to World War 3.
As for my Syrian friends you may be correct. There is a lot of antagonistic views of America over there.
And I'm not saying that attitude is totally unjustified. An awful lot of the mess in the Middle East can be laid at the feet of American screwups. But it does tend to lead to a thought pattern of "Whenever anything bad happens, America is directly responsible", which is inaccurate (and plays into the interests of many other parties who are also busily ruining the region).
Blinking Spirit, you have earned my respect in the past and I value your opinion quote highly. If you don't mind I'd love to hear your opinion on this article that my Syrian friends showed me. It's done by TYT Network and I usually value their reports highly as well. https://youtu.be/NjOr2YzrZDY According to my friends this is how most Syrians view this war.
I watched a few minutes of it, and I could dig into the details, but the fundamental problem is that it's from October of 2016, and is not talking about the Trump Administration at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I watched a few minutes of it, and I could dig into the details, but the fundamental problem is that it's from October of 2016, and is not talking about the Trump Administration at all.
I suppose, but Trump hasn't exactly drained the Swamp and the corporate interest in the pipeline probably still exists.
The revolution was manufactured, just like Panama, Iran, Venezuela, and many others. When there are billions of dollars at stake for the intrested parties theywill absolutely stoop so low. It's hard to imagine another human being being so cruel, but thats the truth of it. You don't become a billionaire without throwing the rest of the world under the bus. Any reasinable human would make maybe a million or two and think thats enough. Study history. If you are mindful to context, including what else was happening in the world, you will find that the vast majority of wars are over wealth and resources. Don't just ask why one might invade x country but also why not invade y country. You will find that the only thing differentiating the two is one will make some or many people more powerful, more wealthy. Now with that context ask "why we are in Syria?" Why not Serbia, Saudi Arabia, the list of contries and groups committing atrocities goes on and on. So why are we in Syria? Oil. Since the late 19th centry, every industrialized nation has been dependant on it. Just like water is what limits a plant's growth oil limits a contries growth. It also just so happens that Syria is not only the fastest route to get oil and natural gas to from Saudia Arabia, Qatar, etc to the Mediterranean sea, its also the only way for Iran to break into that market. Trillions of dollars rest on who wins the conflict. When stakes are that high we are bound to see false flags one way or the other. (Note: for clarification a false flag does not need to be a deliberate arrack or action, it can just be a misrepresentation of facts or an imcident). It happened with the USS Maine, in the spanish american war, It happened with the lusitania in WWI. Korea, etc etc. It happened with the the wmds in Iraq, and its happening again now. There is no reasin for a contry that has been attacked once in the past 100 years and never invaded in that time, has spent 90% of those years at war, and it's also no coincidence that it has become the wealthiest nation on earth. The same was true for England, for Spain, for the ottoman's, the romans, the monguls, and so forth for all of recorded history. As far as whether chemical weapins were used or not, its hardly even relevant. 80 people died vs the 200 the US coalition killed the week before. But even if we entertain the Idea that it is relevant how the people were killed, even the previous attack could not be shown as being the work of Assad, In fact the UN investigation showed that it was likely an attack from one of the other dozens of froups fighting for power in the region after weeks of investigation . So even if for some reason you believe in the oxymoron of a humanitarian war, there is no way of knowing who yoi should attack. Anyone who pretends to know who is responsible already had decided on who they wanted attacked. Bottom line war is and always has been one of the Biggest Businesses and we the comon people always the victims of it. It is your responsibility and duty to your fellow human beings to always be skeptical of calls for wars. Anything less and you have sold all of us out.
On the eve of a critical visit to Moscow at a time of high US-Russian tensions over Syria, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, appeared to go even further, saying his country would come to the defence of innocent civilians “anywhere in the world”.
The administration had initially stressed strictly limited objectives for a cruise missile strike last week on a Syrian air force base, saying it was intended to deter the repeat of a chemical attack on Tuesday against civilians and that the focus of US efforts in Syria remains combating the Islamic State (Isis).
On Monday, however, the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, widened the criteria for retaliation. “When you watch babies and children being gassed, and suffer under barrel bombs, you are instantaneously moved to action,” he said. “I think this president’s made it very clear that if those actions were to continue, further action will definitely be considered by the United States.”
On Tuesday diplomats gathered in Italy for a second day of G7 talks dominated by the war in Syria, as officials in Washington, the UK and elsewhere floated the possibility of new sanctions on the Syrian and Russian military.
US intelligence believes Assad carried out last week’s attack with the chemical agent sarin, killing dozens of civilians including children. But Spicer made the first mention of the use of barrel bombs – crude munitions that can cause indiscriminate casualties.
Pressed on whether chemical warfare as opposed to conventional warfare constitutes a red line, he replied: “I think the president’s been very clear that there were a number of lines crossed last week ... The answer is if you gas a baby, if you put a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from this president. That is unacceptable.”
The White House said later that Spicer was referring to barrel bombs carrying industrial chemicals like chlorine. But that would still represent a substantial expansion of the US rules of engagement in Syria. The regime is suspected of using chlorine gas in its attacks on dozens of occasions since 2013.
Tillerson made his remarks during a visit to the site of a 1944 Nazi massacre in Italy, but they clearly referred to the Trump administration’s decision on Thursday to launch missile strikes against a Syrian airbase from which the US said a regime chemical attack had been launched against civilians in a rebel-held town.
Tillerson is in Italy for a G7 foreign ministers’ meeting dominated by discussion of western policy towards Damascus and Moscow. The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, who cancelled his own planned visit to Moscow on Monday, said the ministers would be “discussing the possibility of further sanctions certainly on some of the Syrian military figures and indeed on some of the Russian military figures who have been involved in coordinating the Syrian military effort”.
The ministers met again early on Tuesday Morning before Tillerson flies on to Moscow. According to one G7 source, Tillerson plans to offer the Putin regime a bald choice, between cutting Bashar al-Assad loose and being rewarded with a thaw in relations with the west; or continuing to back him, and risking a Libyan-style outcome. The Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was violently deposed and killed in 2011 by rebels lent air support by Nato powers, including the UK.
Whitehall sources say Britain has been instrumental in helping to persuade the US to support the idea that Assad – and his family – must be removed from power before progress can be made. Johnson is pushing for the strongest possible conclusion, including the threat of targeted sanctions against Syrian and Russian military commanders – a proposal he judges more likely to win support than wider economic penalties against Moscow.
The decision to approve the missile strike on the Shayrat Syrian air force base marked a sharp change in direction for Donald Trump, who had furiously opposed any such intervention by the Obama administration, and had pledged an “America first” foreign policy that would focus on counter-terrorism and narrowly defined US national interests.
Trump emphasised the child victims of the poison gas in justifying the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at infrastructure at the Shayrat base, Spicer’s comments suggested the president’s concern for Syrian children extended to victims of conventional bombing too. Over half a million people have been killed in the six years of the Syrian war. Tillerson’s comments suggested that the administration was even open to humanitarian intervention elsewhere.
Speaking to journalists at the site of the 1944 massacre in the Tuscan village of Sant’Anna, the secretary of state said: “We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world.”
The remarks appeared to conflict with Tillerson’s own comments on Sunday in which he claimed the administration’s priority in Syria had not changed; it remained the defeat of Isis, and only after that could Syria’s political stability be considered. On the same today, the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, said “getting Assad out” was one of “multiple priorities” held by the administration.
There is more at the link.
Yet more Wag the Dog. Barrel bombs were bad when Assad first used them before the initial Chemical attacks and Trump was busy saying we should not get involved. What has changed in the region now to demand such an about face??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
As far as whether chemical weapins were used or not, its hardly even relevant. 80 people died vs the 200 the US coalition killed the week before. But even if we entertain the Idea that it is relevant how the people were killed, even the previous attack could not be shown as being the work of Assad, In fact the UN investigation showed that it was likely an attack from one of the other dozens of froups fighting for power in the region after weeks of investigation .
War and conflict is inevitable. Its the standard. Peace on earth is a pipe dream, so how we conduct ourselves in that conflict is the only remaining measure of decency. It is relevant how they were killed, and who. Perhaps Sarin is more humane than tomahawk missiles - but wiping out women, children and the elderly in the process is unacceptable. That's what Sarin does.
As far as your overall post, I fully agree. But don't forget that Americans weigh the economy and the current administrations competency based on the price of gas. When gas hits $4/g at the pump, the sky starts falling. While most believe "war and conflict is bad" and protest against it, they sure panic and complain when they feel it at the pump. They can't have it both ways.
I wonder how high it could go before you see fights and riots at the gas station. $8? $10 maybe?
Global oil is a big game indeed; so big most of us can't fully wrap our heads around every facet of the oil economy. Its worth noting that in the last decade we've drastically reduced our imports from OPEC, but we're still in the global oil game.
My thoughts on the issue.
1. It was probably ISIS just like it was back in 2013 when there were accusations of a gas attack by assad but after further investigation it was found to be ISIS, what reason does assad have to gas his own people?
2. Whoever it was, the US shouldn't get involved. Military conflict is costly in lives and money and it just makes things worse in the region it is fought in.
3. Attacking Syria makes ISIS stronger, the syrian government is currently fighting isis.
4. if the us is going to fight anyone, it should fight isis which has done and has the potential to do more damage than the syrian government or any other national government in the area.
My thoughts on the issue.
1. It was probably ISIS just like it was back in 2013 when there were accusations of a gas attack by assad but after further investigation it was found to be ISIS, what reason does assad have to gas his own people?
It was not found to be ISIS. Russia and Syria claimed it was the Syrian Opposition. Everybody else said it was Assad.
Assad is fighting an opposition and the wants to use shows of force to rebels to try and reduce the impact they are already having, whilst denying it to the rest of the world and his followers.
2. Whoever it was, the US shouldn't get involved. Military conflict is costly in lives and money and it just makes things worse in the region it is fought in.
I'm not sure about this. It could be true, but then again, military intervention might be what's necessary if done well.
3. Attacking Syria makes ISIS stronger, the syrian government is currently fighting isis.
Potentially of concern, but that's part of doing intervention right- to deal with such things.
4. if the us is going to fight anyone, it should fight isis which has done and has the potential to do more damage than the syrian government or any other national government in the area.
I'm not sure that's true. What are your sources on this?
It was not found to be ISIS. Russia and Syria claimed it was the Syrian Opposition. Everybody else said it was Assad.
Assad is fighting an opposition and the wants to use shows of force to rebels to try and reduce the impact they are already having, whilst denying it to the rest of the world and his followers.
How do you know that's what went down? I can completely accept that it was the opposition. It seems more likely to me. Do you have a source?
It was not found to be ISIS. Russia and Syria claimed it was the Syrian Opposition. Everybody else said it was Assad.
Assad is fighting an opposition and the wants to use shows of force to rebels to try and reduce the impact they are already having, whilst denying it to the rest of the world and his followers.
How do you know that's what went down?
For one, it's inherently suspicious that only Russia and Syria itself said that story, and how that story so directly supports the affects of doing of Assad doing the attack.
It also makes more sense for Assad to be able to do it effectively compared to the opposition.
Do I really know this is true? No, but nobody here is really in that position. We place some amount of trust in our leaders. And all of the western world has been clear that they think Assad was responsible for both attacks. Even if there's some conspiracy trying to blame Assad, do we really think ALL of these countries are affected? If it's true, then we are talking a very big issue. That's not a small claim to make that this is happening.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
Well since you have pretty much parrotted what everyone else has said, just using slightly different words. No you have not been ignored. The same things that are said to them apply to you as well.
If Assad was not the one who dropped chemicals from aircraft who else in the region has the capability to do so.
The only other people potentially on the list are the Russians.
So you are agreeing with me that Assad didn't give a damn about the majority of the people that lived in the country just those of his tribe. Good to know
Until you mentioned it neither did I know nor did I care that you are Russian. Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.
It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.
Assad has Chemical weapons + Assad also has aircraft, no one else has both apply occams razor, which is better than propaganda, = Assad dropped chemical weapons on the town.
Unless you can come up with another group that has both chemical weapons and aircraft you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone other than a conspiracy theorist that it wasn't Putins friend Assad.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?
If by "his tribe" you mean the shia, the christians, the druze and even sunni who don't believe that power distribution should be based on religion, then yes.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
Quoting wiki here just for ease:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).
The issue of authority aside, just as a matter of prudence, it seems like a pretty awful idea to start a war with the vassal of a major world power (who even has forces present within the borders of said vassal) without both international and congressional support, neither of which he has. We don't see any other state in the world (even in Europe) trying to do this, either. Hilariously, with this singular action, he's done more against Assad than anyone else has.
He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either.
But you'll underestimate Assad? What about his special interests in Syria, since, y'know, he rules the country and the entire reason for this civil war is that he wants to continue to do so?
With all due respect to their situation, it does not seem likely that it grants them any special insight into American strategic capabilities and goals. Do they have a real and specific analysis of the whys and hows of alleged U.S. involvement, or is this just more America-the-Bogeyman?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which anti-war leftists exactly do you think were on Trump's side before but are against him now?
Again, probably nothing will come of this. I suppose the Dems hate him even more than usual so there's a chance they'll try to make hay here, but even if they wanted to, they're the minority party.
Who exactly are you talking about here? Trump's base has proven that they'll believe anything that comes out of his mouth no matter how ridiculous. But when he tells them something that actually seems to be the truth, all of a sudden they think their "tells-it-like-it-is" champion is part of a conspiracy? No. Trump is throwing American weight around again in the Middle East! This is going to be wildly popular on the right.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Here you go. And before you attack the source the Guardian for all is spelling mistakes is one of the few news outlets that values proper investigative journalism.
With the exception of the Qataris the rest of the countries you mentioned are involved in other conflicts in the region and Chemical weapons have not been used in those. For the Qataris the Americans built their airbase and have been using it fairly consistently since the end of the First Gulf war so I doubt that any chemical weapons could have been snuck past them.
So again our option fairly quickly narrow to Assad or Assad. I get you still don't like the fact your country has thrown itself in with a mass murderer, but history and geopolitics don't really care what you think.
The actions he has undertaken have done nothing to change the situation on the ground and there are portions of Congress attacking him for not going far enough. With the news that for all of the missiles sent against that one airbase having it back in operation less than a week after it was attacked. Those charges are valid.
He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either. [/quote]
You are reading the UK situation wrong. Pretty much everyone over here wants the bastard gone. But a large part of the polictal scene is still hung up over the Invasion of Iraq back in 2003 and how we should not have invaded then, and how Western Military intervention does not work So we should not ever intervene in the Middle east again.
Admittedly if we continue to insist on doing interventions on the cheap they have a point. But if we were to properly fund and plan the intervention including having plan for what happens afterwards then there would be a different outcome.
Unfortunately we appear to be wedded to the do it on the cheap approach, probably beacuase due to the way our societies have been set up our Lords and Masters don't think further ahead than the next election.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Thank you for the link. It's certainly interesting, and MSF are a reliable source (it's good that they're not quoting the White Helmets, for example), but there are still some points where they're not telling all. First, the doctors working in hospitals 100 kms from Khan Sheykhoun sound too assured about the geography of the attack than they could possibly be.
Second, the shelf life of sarin is short, that's right, but somehow the author of the article says nothing about the existence of numerous techniques that make the production process easier and cheaper and making the weapon more stable. I doubt that he or she is unaware, so that other pops to mind? Actually, the way to prolong the shelf life of sarin shells is to keep the ingredients in separate containters and mix them right before usage. Chemicals stored like that would react to impact exactly like that: partly evaporate, partly mix to create a deadly weapon.
Of course nobody uses the chemical weapons openly. It puzzles me why you're so eager to believe that Assad would do so numerous times. Also, why would anyone need to sneak weapon past the Americans? The US have been treating their allies mildly always, which usually results in hypocrisy: if the country tolerates the human rights violations in Saudi Arabia or the tyranny in Bahrain, I don't see why prohibited weapons that are kept in secret are so much of a different thing.
History and geopolitics remember the country which resorted to use of the chemical weapons without feeling guilty afterwards, and it's the US. History and geopolitics also remember how the States invaded a country based on the claims of chemical weapons storage there just to find no evidence at all. The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.
Visit my best/worst cards by collector's number thread!
Stardust Siggies! Wonderful graphics:D
Another article for you here.
He might be 'winning' but have you heard the term 'phyrric victory'?
At this point it is almost irrelevant that he is winning the civil war it has gone on for 6 years and has reduced large parts of the country to rubble. This is going to be very expensive to repair. Even if it were to end in his favour soon. His forces have also been fighting for that 6 year period with only very short breaks for the abortive cease fires.
Even if his victory is inevietable as some people might like to claim it isn't going to happen quickly so is going to result in a lot more damage to the infreastructure of Syria. Which in all likelihood he is not going to be able to afford to repair. So he ends up the ruler of a pile of dust. With the knowledge that he has got away with using Chemical weapons before. Again you can try to deny this but you have the same problem of finding someone else who can drop them from aircraft, good luck with that. And the fact that they are very good at terrorising civilian populuations. Yeah I can see why he might be tempted to use them again.
As for Iraq are you forgetting or ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussien used Chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iranian war and then was so concerned about using them that he used them against the Marsh Arabs after the first Gulf War. And after the first Gulf War Iraq was exactly co-operative when it came to the inspections of its weapon sites and manufacturing facilities.
This is of course ignoring the storys of convoys being sent from Iraq to Syria just after the Invasion in 2003.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is. Are you trying to claim that beacuse he is nice to the people he isn't dropping bombs on he can't possibly be behind the Chemical attack? Or because he is nice to some of his people we should ignore the fact that he is a mass murderer?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Look, just to be clear I think I my previous post was a bit confusing. I'm not nessissarily claiming that this was a False Flag on Trump's part. I'm just saying that we have no idea who it was. It could have been Assaud, or Saudi's or Isis or really anyone with special interests in Syria. We don't know for sure it was Assaud and I think there is enough reasonable doubt to wait for a completed investigation before attacking.
As for my Syrian friends you may be correct. There is a lot of antagonistic views of America over there.
Blinking Spirit, you have earned my respect in the past and I value your opinion quote highly. If you don't mind I'd love to hear your opinion on this article that my Syrian friends showed me. It's done by TYT Network and I usually value their reports highly as well. https://youtu.be/NjOr2YzrZDY According to my friends this is how most Syrians view this war.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
No I am not drawing conclusions. I am asking a couple of questions as to the relevancy of your initial question. If you want an answer to your non sequiter. I sure that there are still some areas of Syria that have not been touched by the civil war where life might be very pleasant.
Now please tell me how that is relevant that is when looking to apportion blame for a chemical attack?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
At the very least, this is going to be another Iraq or Libya where the dictator in power is removed and the resulting power vacuum leaves the country in far worse shape. At the very worst, this will lead to a hot war with Russia. Which in turn will start a chain reaction leading to World War 3.
I watched a few minutes of it, and I could dig into the details, but the fundamental problem is that it's from October of 2016, and is not talking about the Trump Administration at all.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
There is more at the link.
Yet more Wag the Dog. Barrel bombs were bad when Assad first used them before the initial Chemical attacks and Trump was busy saying we should not get involved. What has changed in the region now to demand such an about face??
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
As far as your overall post, I fully agree. But don't forget that Americans weigh the economy and the current administrations competency based on the price of gas. When gas hits $4/g at the pump, the sky starts falling. While most believe "war and conflict is bad" and protest against it, they sure panic and complain when they feel it at the pump. They can't have it both ways.
I wonder how high it could go before you see fights and riots at the gas station. $8? $10 maybe?
Global oil is a big game indeed; so big most of us can't fully wrap our heads around every facet of the oil economy. Its worth noting that in the last decade we've drastically reduced our imports from OPEC, but we're still in the global oil game.
My Buying Thread
1. It was probably ISIS just like it was back in 2013 when there were accusations of a gas attack by assad but after further investigation it was found to be ISIS, what reason does assad have to gas his own people?
2. Whoever it was, the US shouldn't get involved. Military conflict is costly in lives and money and it just makes things worse in the region it is fought in.
3. Attacking Syria makes ISIS stronger, the syrian government is currently fighting isis.
4. if the us is going to fight anyone, it should fight isis which has done and has the potential to do more damage than the syrian government or any other national government in the area.
It was not found to be ISIS. Russia and Syria claimed it was the Syrian Opposition. Everybody else said it was Assad.
Assad is fighting an opposition and the wants to use shows of force to rebels to try and reduce the impact they are already having, whilst denying it to the rest of the world and his followers.
I'm not sure about this. It could be true, but then again, military intervention might be what's necessary if done well.
Potentially of concern, but that's part of doing intervention right- to deal with such things.
I'm not sure that's true. What are your sources on this?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
For one, it's inherently suspicious that only Russia and Syria itself said that story, and how that story so directly supports the affects of doing of Assad doing the attack.
It also makes more sense for Assad to be able to do it effectively compared to the opposition.
Do I really know this is true? No, but nobody here is really in that position. We place some amount of trust in our leaders. And all of the western world has been clear that they think Assad was responsible for both attacks. Even if there's some conspiracy trying to blame Assad, do we really think ALL of these countries are affected? If it's true, then we are talking a very big issue. That's not a small claim to make that this is happening.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice