That the US President fits in well with the tradition of being inherently superior in dropping nearly 60 bombs on a Syrian airbase continues the tradition.
The UN has stated that there is no definite proof as to what actually happened. I did see one report that showed Syrian soldiers entering the place where it is said the chemicals were stored by the IS lot. President Trump as is the tradition makes a big play about the innocents killed by the "bombing by chemicals." Makes bit play of the would-be high moral standing but only a week or so ago the US had to slovenly admit the bombing of civilians and a leading Los Angeles newspaper has said about 200.. Is there a big play on that? Nope so maybe the Russians should act the same way and bomb the 2 US ships that sent to the rockets??
American led West because it can get blocked in the UN Security Council goes and bombs with NO damn proof and should have waited to see if the opposite view that the planes did not droop the chemicals but exploded what was stored in the building. Kind of hypocritical of the US which killed legions in Vietnam years ago with their Orange gas and kids still being killed by it today. The UN Council is the same place where the US vetoes anything on their Israeli Zionist pals. The added guff that the airport the US bombed is where the supposed stuff came from is a head shaking thing. If that was the case why no gas effecting people on the base, eh?
The propaganda is again something Dr Goebells would smile and clap hands on. No waiting for a proper check just do what the US always does and be so full of itself wanting to control the world that anything goes.
As always,
RJ, your ignorance precludes anyone from taking you seriously. But -of course- your animosity towards Jews returns, as your immediate fixation.
The UN has stated that there is no definite proof as to what actually happened.
The only
war the UN authorized is the Korean War, which still remains unresolved… It's been a while! Almost 65 years… What good does the UN do?
Well, it provides a great deal of money to its functionaries…
But you seem to be okay with corruption, if there's any way to spin it against the U.S. or Israel.
When -I ask you- did the UN ever proclaim "definitive proof" of
anything?
If they
proclaimed a sunrise, I'd be tempted to doubt it.
The perils of reckless intervention are well known, but less thoroughly studied are the dangers of non-intervention. In Syria, the norm prohibiting the battlefield use of WMD has died along with nearly half a million civilians. Millions are displaced. The risk of great-power conflict looms over its decimated cities, and American credibility is on the line. The U.S. has made many sacrifices in Syria, even if America’s soldiers were based thousands of miles away. There are no painless options in Syria any more, but America’s non-intervention is untenable. When we act, we will do so at a time and place not of our choosing and amid suboptimal circumstances. It’s a costly lesson to learn, but one Americans seem doomed to regularly repeat. […]
(source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446509/syria-non-intervention-carries-steep-price-then-now))
Indeed, the circumstances are "sub-optimal"
– that's the nature of war.
Some
provincial and "girly-guys" prefer to hunker down in their burrows.
Not everyone can do so…
The reaction is predictable, to retweet:
The Left today are genuinely more outraged by attack on air base that killed no civilians than they are Trump bombing a mosque with kids in.
(and of course in this case "The Left" is interchangeable with "The Right")
Of all events that have taken place in Syria,
this is the one to be upset about?
Does nobody remember Obama's "Red Line"?
Our military and Russia's and Syria's know where the chemical attack came from: Shayrat airfield. It won't be used for more such attacks...
A bombed airfield will be out of commission for days, weeks, months, but not forever. That's a reason cluster bombing is popular against airfields. Not only do they make many nice little craters, the undetonated ordinance is a danger to cleanup crew and civilians alike.
There is no indication that any critical component of Assad's war machinery has been crippled (then again, if they could do that, those Tomahawks would have flown long ago). This is an empty gesture, a symbolic act (except to those in harm's way, for those the act would have been very real). It has two purposes:
- Second to a strongly worded communiqué, this is as close to doing nothing without actually doing nothing towards a country on war footing as you can get (in a military/strategic sense).
- It marks that president Trump is in the game, with no commitments what is going to be done next.
It is, in short, a call. The (2) is more important than (1), and the one to pay attention to.
Don't we all know what happened to Saddam's WMDs? :) He very convincingly concocted most of them, to keep his generals and his neighbors in line. He managed to convince the intelligence services of France, Great Britain and the U.S., didn't he?
They were hardly convinced, rather the opposite, but kept contingencies open. That is a problem in the process, with no sign of being solved, perhaps with no desire to being solved. "Saddam Hussein has WMD" was not an unreasonable hypothesis. After all, he had had them, and had used them in Halabja, and while his capacity for waging war had been severely degraded over the years, he might still keep, or possibly extend, his mass destruction capability.
But these hypotheses were not tested against the null hypothesis, or any alternative hypothesis. Instead we got the dossier, a study in cherry-picking. The people who actually did real testing, Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors from your maligned UN, were ignored, and when they came to an inconvenient conclusion, they were actively smeared by US and UK politicians.
BTW: Andy McCarthy, writing at the National Review, agrees with you (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446546/us-airstrikes-syria-bashar-al-assad-donald-trump-intervention-foreign-policy-error) – mostly.
Partially but definitively
not mostly.
WTF, is that article trying to pave another US aggression in breach with international law? Iran to get bombed next?
Are there to be no consequences for the use of chemical weapons?
There should be consequences as soon as sound proofs are on the table. Don't mix up fishy speculations or lies with sound proofs.
Don't we all know what happened to Saddam's WMDs? :)
For sure we know.
Lies as pretext for a military aggression in breach with international law.
He managed to convince the intelligence services of France, Great Britain and the U.S., didn't he?
Bullshit! He didn't manage anything. The whole world knew that it's a farce.
Parroting US lies. That's what vasalls are good for. At least the French had the decency not to be part of an aggression based on lies.
"Saddam Hussein has WMD" was not an unreasonable hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not a proof, let alone a reason to invade a sovereign state and to turn an entire region into hell.
After all, he had had them, ...
And guess where did he get the germs from...
The perils of reckless intervention are well known, but less thoroughly studied are the dangers of non-intervention. In Syria, the norm prohibiting the battlefield use of WMD has died along with nearly half a million civilians. Millions are displaced. The risk of great-power conflict looms over its decimated cities, and American credibility is on the line. The U.S. has made many sacrifices in Syria, even if America’s soldiers were based thousands of miles away. There are no painless options in Syria any more, but America’s non-intervention is untenable. When we act, we will do so at a time and place not of our choosing and amid suboptimal circumstances. It’s a costly lesson to learn, but one Americans seem doomed to regularly repeat. […]
First, it wouldn't hurt to give also the source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446509/syria-non-intervention-carries-steep-price-then-now) you are quoting from.
- The dangers of non intervention
Healing the world with bombs and shaping it according to US interests.
Imagine the USA wouldn't have invaded Iraq, no bombs over Libya, not staging up and heading the civil war in Syria.
No hundreds of thousands (that number is an understatement) of victims and no millions displaced. Imagine if you can.
That article is a blow in the face of every human being with a minimum of dignity and brain.
"Saddam Hussein has WMD" was not an unreasonable hypothesis.
A hypothesis is not a proof, let alone a reason to invade a sovereign state and to turn an entire region into hell
Proof is only required in mathematics. Outside that field we're left with hypotheses and partial information. Our duty is to test and strengthen those hypotheses, gather outside information, give our best effort and follow best practices. Afterwards, when we have as much knowledge as we ever will, we evaluate with our perfect hindsight. The latter has shown in practice to be an as error-prone process as the initial hypotheses, but we can give it our revised best effort.
The process that led to the invasion of Iraq was faulty, in part by intention, but there wouldn't have been much reflection on that if it hadn't also been a failure.
Turning the "entire region into hell" was a collaborative process, it didn't have to end up that way.
Intervention, from the most benign to the most brutal, is risky. There are many more ways to fail than to succeed, and if an interventionist fails, he will have to own it. Even if he succeeds he will have to own it. On the other hand there are cases where the intervention is worth the risk, an ounce of prevention can stop an avalanche of horror, but it is only obvious when that prevention fails.
Intervention, from the most benign to the most brutal, is risky. There are many more ways to fail than to succeed, and if an interventionist fails, he will have to own it. Even if he succeeds he will have to own it. On the other hand there are cases where the intervention is worth the risk, an ounce of prevention can stop an avalanche of horror, but it is only obvious when that prevention fails.
However, in case of Iraq, the West was not doing prevention of anything. The UN investigators had already been there and confirmed in every possible way that there were no WMDs. By launching the attack in this situation, the West was unleashing an avalanche of horror, knowingly. In this sense the intervention was a ravishing success.
It marks that president Trump is in the game, with no commitments what is going to be done next.
Assad and Putin have been playing the tango for a long time, no room for a third dancer.
I agree that, basically, Trump made the only thing he could do closest to doing nothing. The usual, a lot of noise with absolutely no effects. Even worst, the joke will cost a high price to the US in what regards to Russia.
No surprise about the EU position and a typical Chinese reaction.
However, in case of Iraq, the West was not doing prevention of anything. The UN investigators had already been there and confirmed in every possible way that there were no WMDs.
Sure. At that point the US administration was looking for a casus belli, and was inconvenienced where there was none. There was intent before that within, an intent enabled by the attack in 2001 into becoming a plan. That's pretty obvious based on that the attack had links from arguably Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, but the US attacked Iraq. George W. Bush seems to have been fairly late into signing in on it.
By launching the attack in this situation, the West was unleashing an avalanche of horror, knowingly. In this sense the intervention was a ravishing success.
That was never the intent. Hubris and incompetence, sure. A willingness to suck US resources too. I can't think of a case where the US spent so much and got so little. A lack of a Plan B and glaring deficiencies in Plan A would be to blame. The resulting situation was not to the US advantage, and though many US actors made good mint out of it, these would have made more if they had a great success. For one thing they wouldn't stop with Iraq.
A strong motivation for Iran to work for a spectacular failure, and not only Iran. Practically every outside actor had a stake in the US failing, very few in it succeeding. Europe did to some extent, as sooner or later it would become their mess, but for the rest it was either a small investment with great violent returns, or just to wait for the situation to deteriorate and bog down the US might.
Syrian jets take off from Shayrat airbase hours after it was pummeled by US bombs, reports suggest
The US Navy fired 59 cruise missiles at the base, killing at least seven people and causing what was described as extensive damage.
But within hours it was back in use according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
You can slag me off as much as you like Oakdale but in practical terms you give America a bad name but unfortunately there ARE millions like you over there that thinks America is some divinely right nation that can do what it damn well wants in the world while millions of your own citizens have little democracy, homes or are poverty struck.
I have no time for Israel and entitled to my opinion (not ime for North Korea either dear child mind). Although i have to accept it's existence the present government there IS Zionist and I have little time for such a corner. The US virtually worships that lot and they finance and keep Israel afloat because of the financial power of Jews in America, etc. Anyway I am not going to be deflected by your redcued grey cells on the Syria question. he West led by the US condemns and v=berates Syria's regime but sooks in with a country like Saudi Arabia/ Why/ Big money making selling weapons to that lot of religious nutters. Two police forces. Ordinary and religious. The way women are treated and the violent regime is okay due to big business so where is the morality sonny. At least in Syria Christians had rights but not in Saudi. So grow up.
There is no damn proof yet of the accusation that the Syrian airforce dropped the chemical stuff at all. Yes the building had bombs dropped on it and it is likely that broke up the dangerous stuff the terrorists had stored there. Instead you totally ignore that potential possibility. You also ignored the hard fact that when you lot attacked the air force base destroying planes and building there was no gas released to effect anyone. That garbage that the base was where the chemicals came from is mythology. In Syria you lot waxed liberally on Russian/Syrian planes would probably kill civilians but somehow your bombing doesn't/ What about the recent killings by US planes, eh? You support any dictatorship that knuckle heads to your interference or financial control etc and act so stupid when found out to be hypocritical. For decades supported and financed military dictatorships across South America, killed legions on Vietnam with Agent Orange fund your Zionist pals in the ME and do a body swerve to the obvious that I indicated.
Instead try and fall back on slagging but do a dance on the issues. But then you come from somewhere that is a superficial democracy full of mental kid minds when it comes to the obvious. I am glad that Russia has a warship at the Syrian coast and hope that is just a start because America is not a principled place. I do certainly hope that the UN does find out the truth and Russia draws a line because you lot think you have some God given right to control the world.
First, it wouldn't hurt to give also the source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446509/syria-non-intervention-carries-steep-price-then-now) you are quoting from.
No, it wouldn't have hurt — but I got distracted; I've added the link. (I note, you had no trouble finding it… :) )
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
I am glad that Russia has a warship at the Syrian coast and hope that is just a start because America is not a principled place.
Don't concern yourself,
RJ: Russia guaranteed that Assad's chemical weapons were destroyed… You remember that, right? :)
Please note well: The Russian-supplied antimissile defenses weren't used. Can you explain why?
(Myself, I don't know. But I expect, sooner or later, we'll find out.)
The Russian frigate is likely not the harbinger you think it is. But the Guardian has more (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/08/russia-sends-warship-syrian-coast)…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
Just thought I'd add a little (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/04/07/new-snivel-left-syrian-airbase-attack-failure-video/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl) about the effectiveness of the strike…
Nice try boy with the "Russian supplied" defensive missiles Syria has. Can I remind you that your arrogant lot fired 59 missles and only 33 did anything. Try using military men instead of Boy Scouts. There needs to be a definitive investigation by the UN on the nonsense that Syria despatched the poison stuff instead of what is more likely to be a terrorist centre that got hit. A bit nearer the factual and Syria is getting to the top in the warfare so why would they want to single out one place for such a thing?? You choose to ignore your own country's history in using such horrible stuff years ago. No apology and people still dying decades later so a much more lethal thing. More died also by US bombing in that recent incident I mentioned but that doesn't count. No answer. The Vietnamese mass orange infections another no answer, Indiscriminate bombing in Serbia = no answer. The lies about Sadaam (proved) but no answer and all standard.Who does your country think it damn well is? It sooks in with Israel on just about anything and blocks anything negative about that rogue country at the UN Council. You are good at dancing but not at the factual.
Internally on democracy, fairness, freedoms mass poverty all negative but don't count and instead march around the world trying to boss it. Spending half the total global expenditure on military while mass numbers of Americans at home are poor, homeless, get phones, electronics spied on and 16 spy agencies?? Whoever created the expression two-faced could have suggested the statement be stuck on that flag you have everywhere in your super nationalism.
Can I remind you that your arrogant lot fired 59 missles and only 33 did anything.
Certainly you can: What telly program is your source? :)
(The rest of your blather goes without comment, beyond remarking that it's your usual rabid anti-Americanism… Oh, the Joos!)
according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
I'd take stories from that London based one-man organisation advertised as "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", with a large pinch of salt.
The Dirty War on Syria (http://www.worldfinancialreview.com/?p=4900)
In this case, the news about the Shayrat airbase being active again is correct and was confirmed by several sources.
But, of course, Tim Anderson is an unimpeachable source... :)
BTW, the same applies for the White Helmets.
Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria (http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria)
How the White Helmets Became International Heroes While Pushing U.S. Military Intervention and Regime Change in Syria (http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military)
You insult your own intelligence Oakdale by falling back on that nonsense you piffle on. Using an anti-American stance to body-swerve all I have said on the US killing multitudes with that orange stuff in Vietnam the other week killing nearly 200 civilians (more than in the latest stuff). Denying that 59 rockets were sent to that Syrian air base. That those that died at it were not killed due to chemicals being released as in the major incident. Have watched the base where a whole raft of your missiles did nothing and the places is functional right now and seen to be. The long practiced US stuff about keeping in with Israel is also factual.
Instead you ignore the obvious and even the matter of this latest incident guffed on by US led nonsense is yet to be proved. Trump is no different from these before him he yakked about. Easy just to come out with rubbish instead of answering my charges. It is okay for America to practice hypocrisy because the brains are so indoctrinated to the point of farcical. It is fine for that country to bomb, gas and create wars since 1945 and accuse others of the same history it practices. Even when the "bombing" deliberately by Syria is NOT proved the US as usual in it's paranoia of it's own importance does what it likes and the West goes with it like puppets. And as usual (yawn) the US has included in it's routine keech about having to do what it did for it's security - eh? Slag me off as much as you want but you only make it obvious to people who do not have their grey cells controlled you cannot face the truth or the answers. :headbang:
You sure do prattle on, boy! :)
(Seriously, krake, AlterNet??)
Hm... (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-nerve-agent-attack-why-it-made-sense-to-assad)
RJ, you'll appreciate this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-bees-vs-the-butterflies-the-ecology-of-politics_us_58e50a73e4b09dbd42f3dc4e) (well, you would and could, if you'd learned to read!)— it uses the word "imperialism," which you obviously don't know the meaning of…
Bee strong, Orangeman! Hate with all your heart, and know nothing beyond what your telly tells you and your prejudices tilt you towards! :)
(I'd take you a little more seriously, if you'd learn to speak and write English… :) )
Hate? how definitively pathetic. You cannot answer the obvious. Oh and by the way the White Helmets are not all as innocent either dear partly educated ex-colonist. That London group is no middle of the road innocent thing. Try answering direct points instead of dancing. To make it easier in the hope you might be passingly sober I will make it easier.
- The US and Agent Orange in vast quantities and repeated with people still dying.
- The recent US bombing of civilians reaching an estimated 200 dead (more than this anti-Syrian accusation.)
-Remember the Iraq accusations that were false and made up causing that country to become the mess it is.
-The Syrian base bombed is active again and the US made a codswallop of the 59 rockets.
-The time the Serbian capital bombed and a mess made including the Chinese embassy mess.
-Moaning from America at the UN Council but has a long list of blocking Israeli action at that corner.
-US going on about principles when it does not practice such a thing itself in the world or internally.
-Why was bombing the Syrian airfield part of the "defence of the US?"
-Hate. When it comes up with the US it is against any country that does not give in to it's corporates or take-over.
- Why does the country need 16 security organisations and spend half the Earth's military bill?
See how easy I am giving you a list so might be able to get your mind to work on something instead of the childish nonsense in your corner? Hardly surprising that US governments are concerned about education standards as you falkl well into their worries. Instead of daft and immature stuff trying to face things and the definite points....... :wait:
The US and Agent Orange in vast quantities and repeated with people still dying.
Agent Orange was a
defoliant which did the job… The Ho Chi Minh Trail was costing a lot of lives! (Your little boys' weekend excursions were something different; you always stayed away from dangerous situation…)
The recent US bombing of civilians reaching an estimated 200 dead (more than this anti-Syrian accusation.)
I've not really heard of this: Would you provide a link? (But I won't guarantee that I'll engage in a "tit-for-tat" argument…)
Remember the Iraq accusations that were false and made up causing that country to become the mess it is.
Oh, I certainly do! Saddam doesn't, for obvious reason.
The Syrian base bombed is active again and the US made a codswallop of the 59 rockets.
You're an astute military analyst,
RJ! I bow to your obvious expertise!
The time the Serbian capital bombed and a mess made including the Chinese embassy mess.
The 30-years War!
Moaning from America at the UN Council but has a long list of blocking Israeli action at that corner.
How many times has Israel attacked its neighbors, compared to how many times its neighbors have attacked it?
US going on about principles when it does not practice such a thing itself in the world or internally.
Huh?
You of all people trying to bring up hypocrisy!
Why was bombing the Syrian airfield part of the "defence of the US?"
For one thing, the U.S. has almost 1,000 troops in Syria… The "message" that Obama didn't send is simple: No chemical weapons! Trump means it. Our soldiers should not be subjected to such — nor should anyone else; indeed, they will not be, without dire consequences.
(For you,
RJ, that means you'll post some mean stuff… For us, it means something else.)
Hate. When it comes up with the US it is against any country that does not give in to it's corporates or take-over.
Incomprehensible babble… Knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
Why does the country need 16 security organisations and spend half the Earth's military bill?
First,
your country (and many others…) have as many…
We have so much, because the rest of you spend so little! (I think Trump mentioned this, during the campaign…)
Your points are -as always- your prejudices. Good luck, boy-o! But, of course, you won't have to suffer from or deal with the Caliphate…
What, BTW, is Britain or Europe doing… ? (I mean, besides importing jihadis)
What, I wonder, will you say when the facts come out about the poison gas attack in Syria?
You'll kiss Putin's ass, because that's what you do! :)
————————————————————
Feel free to respond in the Infrastructure or Urban Affairs thread…
BTW, the same applies for the White Helmets.
Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria (http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria)
How the White Helmets Became International Heroes While Pushing U.S. Military Intervention and Regime Change in Syria (http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military)
You sure do prattle on, boy! :)
(Seriously, krake, AlterNet??)
I can serve more.
BTW, don't expect to find this in 'trusted' sources like the NYT or the WaPo. Only someone birdbrained would. :)
- The White Helmets are Funded by the United States
- The White Helmets Were Involved With Depriving Five Million Civilians of Water Supplies in Aleppo
source (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-20/us-supported-syrian-white-helmets-involved-war-crimes-committed-rebel-groups)
White Helmets Funded By US, UK, EU and Qatar governments (http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/10/white-helmets-funded-by-us-uk-eu-and-qatari-governments/)
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAaReVn2I4[/video]
The White Helmets - al Qaeda with a facelift
They are meant to be answers Oakdale? Duh.
That Agent Orange thing was a great thing really shows the disgusting hypocrisy, It was sprayed in vast amounts over large territory and the US did not care a damn or that the results would effect children and future families - even effected some US military, There is no proof that Syria dropped chemical bombs and I did see one tv report that showed Syrian soldiers going into that building and showing what was found to be in the place. America and the West just immediately jumped on an excuse that Assad was to blame and not prepared to wait for an investigation. Not very mature or sensible at all. As for not being fully aware of the recent US bombing in Syria I watched a news report that had senior US military at first trying to act daft then doing a little bodyswerve when pushed on it. But there again the media over there is far from being professional or as informative except when strings are pulled.
As for your pal Israel you fund the damn place and it's military. Time after time when dodgy Israeli action takes place when it comes to the UN Council the USA does an immediate block. Mossad about a decade ago was after an Arab in the Middle east they reckoned was a terrorist leader and stole British and Australian passports to use as cover for Mossad agents who then killed the man. Israel has stolen large amounts of land and it does not belong to them and build more and more houses. The present governing coalition led by that mad git is Zionist to the point of intellectual embarrassment. What Israel does on it's expansion is little different from what Hitler did stealing land in Europe. America is so tied up with Zionist Israel due to deep and silly evangelical leanings and the hard fact that Judaism is such a big think in the corporate corner and that is what runs America not the Congress as such. Oh and as a passing note each time a new President comes in at some point it is almost routine for him to go and speak at a national Jew conference in America. hhhmmm.
Instead of thinking you have some inbuilt right to control or run the world instead of looking after the sad and depressing lives of many inside your country that contradict the nationalist guff shows the hypocrisy. Get yourself a white helmet. :rolleyes:
(You'll find my answer here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2527.msg71515#msg71515)… :) I guess it doesn't matter to you: You say the same thing in every thread!)
That is because you do the same thing all the time and don't answer properly at all. As I once said a while ago that it is good in sense that the head shrinking industry is so big over there as brain dead is a sad thing for so many. Must now get round to organising my wee visit to Ulster by plane although takes me slightly nearer nutjobland!
That is because you […] don't answer properly at all.
Your questions are almost always of the form: "When did you
stop beating your wife?" :)
Have fun in Ulster, I guess. (Be forewarned: There might still be some Catholics lurking in the shadows…)
What intrigues me is the simple question: What does Russia get out of it?
The speculation that I find most appealing is that Putin has decided that Assad is more of a liability than an asset…
And, BTW, if Russia takes control of Syria — that's not such a bad thing. It's not good; but there are a few worse alternatives.
… (Are you listening, Trump State Department?)
(Does nobody else see the hypocrisy of a "Great" Britain railing and ranting against imperialism? :)
Of course, RJ is immune to charges of hypocrisy: He doesn't know the meaning of the word; it's., after all, English — a foreign language.
There's an outside chance that Russia has an ace up it's sleeve:
If it's time for Assad to go, will the U.S. acquiesce to Russia taking control of Syria? I think we will, and that we should. (The so-called Iranian-Russian comfort zone is not sustainable…)
But what do I know? :)
If it's time for Assad to go
Ah... an if before. An improvement.
Two things are obvious: Russia needs warm-water ports; and the U.S. -outside of the ISIS presence- has no national interest in the Syrian civil war.
(I'd argue that Obama's "red line" comment and then his vacillation and inaction (politically) required the Trump administration's action. Putin will understand this…)
Would U.S. military planners prefer that Russia not have a big presence in the middle East? Sure. But we survived the '60s and '70s… You don't get the world you want; you get the world that previous actions have shaped.
(You can take that as an admission, Bel. So can Putin.)
Russia is back, big-time, in the middle East… Our goal -the U.S. "position"- should be focused upon separating Russia from Iran.
But what do I know? :(
the U.S. -outside of the ISIS presence- has no national interest in the Syrian civil war.
At least this is the official mantra we are told. ;)
Leme tell you - there is no spot on this planet the U.S. doesn't have 'national' interest.
(I'd argue that Obama's "red line" comment and then his vacillation and inaction (politically) required the Trump administration's action. Putin will understand this…)
Obama's "red (rat) line" was based on fishy assumptions at best or a false flag operation at worst.
We are witnessing the same farce now. It's naive to think that Putin has much understanding for it.
Our goal -the U.S. "position"- should be focused upon separating Russia from Iran.
It seems that you lost focus many years ago.
In your continuous and reckless attemt to impose the world
your own 'rules' and to choke Russia, you managed to weld Russia and China together.
Compared to this fantastic achievement, Iran (whom btw you did a great favor by invading Iraq) is almost nonsignificant.
Isolating Iran is no longer a viable strategy, if it ever was. Even though you have the entire Arab world with you, as you had even before Iran got into power in Iraq, it never got to a North Korean or even Cuban level of isolation, and both those regimes are still there.
If on the other hand, as it seems, you fear Muslims more than you fear Iran, you should be thrilled, as they are deeply divided Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs "clan Muslim Brotherhood", and as Iran gets stronger, so does the division.
The division between the rulers and people of Iran is strong as well. The priests are not good at governing, and they are not popular, but they know how to stay in power. Over the decades their propaganda has taken great strides as well. It was North Korea level amateurish, but now they frame stories widely believed (or maybe people are just getting more gullible, or both).
Unlike NK and Cuba Iran is very attractive. Not only Russia, but India and China, even the EU are courting them. Pakistan tries to be on the good side of both the Iranians and the Saudi. The only thing to stop Iran from greatness is incompetence, something they got plenty of.
You got an affixation about RC's Oakdale? Perhaps more of an excuse to cover the hard truth of my list.
Your list of half-facts match your half-wits, RJ; which explains why you repeat it everywhere… What, pray-tell, did you intend to spell when you typed "affixation"? (I have a good idea; but I'd like to see your interpretation! :) )
Another thing about Russia's reaction:Apparently all 50 Tomahawks struck home. Assuming that to be true, several deductions are possible.
First, those are slow missiles. Top speed, about 500 miles per hour. They are very accurate, but they are slow. They were in the air for at least half an hour. They went past areas defended by Russian missiles of SA-6 and newer, any of them capable of shooting down a slow cruise missile like a Tomahawk. It is unlikely that the fleet of 50 Tomahawks, fired in a time on target pattern, were not observed; but so far as I know, not one was intercepted.
(This, from Jerry Pournelle… You can find his stuff easily.)
Whoever Jerry Pournelle is, the above quoted part from his article is plain garbage.
- It weren't 50 but 59 Tomahawks, according to the Pentagon at least.
- Those Tomahawks are anything except accurate.
- Why those Tomahawks weren't got intercepted: Russian Air Defense and the US Strike on Al-Shayrat (https://jamestown.org/program/russian-air-defense-us-strike-al-shayrat)
Half facts. How utterly stupid as you know fine well all happened and in proper use of grey cells can deny it. Patter all you like smarty but they were all true.
On the Syrian situation yet again we in the West jump feeling we have sole use of principles and righteousness and that includes at the UN Security Council. The comments for example by both the US and UK ambassadors were stupid and out of sense. There should be a proper and effective investigation by the UN and with Syria's co-operation. That the US goes on and bombs before such is arrogance, What one wonders is what if an investigation shows that Syria was right and Trump, etc wrong? No chemicals at the air base by the way and the bombing was so brilliant that the base was operational the next day! We got this attitude regarding Hussein and all the dead and destruction on jumping the gun and lies. We would if follow the West's nonsense end up with a mess just like Iraq and Libya for good examples.
What a clever world we have in that if in the general picture Syria in the bombing kill occasional civilians but somehow that does not happen with the US/Allies?? Regularly the US bombed and killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan and the so wonderful marines guilty of mayhem. For now i will stick by the assertion that the Syrian air-force in it's bombing was not aware of what might be stored by the evil terrorists and that is the situation until prove otherwise. The UIS is doing the same guff as it did with the Russians invading the election. Yak and yak but not a bit of damn proof so I will wait and that Syria will co-operate with any UN look.
Is the UN or Russia (…or even Syria) actually "investigating"…?
I'll wait, too. (They're still trying to determine the culprit of the 2013 attack…)
Syria war: Anger after Russia vetoes resolution at UN (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39585071)
Russia has vetoed a draft resolution at the UN Security Council that would have condemned last week's alleged chemical attack in Syria and demanded that Damascus cooperate with investigators.
The resolution was presented by the US, UK and France, who reacted angrily to Russia's decision.
It was the eighth time Russia has protected its ally at the council.
The suspected chemical attack on rebel-held Khan Sheikhun on 4 April killed more than 80 people.
Western allies blamed the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and US President Donald Trump ordered missile strikes against a Syrian air force base in response.
The proposed resolution would have backed an investigation on the ground by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Syrian government would have been told to provide military information, including flight logs, from the day of the alleged attack, and provide access to air bases.
Maybe it would be fair to know the reason why Russia has vetoed that draft resolution.
So let's also see Russia's take on the issue:
“The main objection to the resolution is that it apportioned blame prior to an objective outside investigation of the incident... The outcome of the vote was predestined, because we disagreed categorically with a document that was fundamentally misconceived,” said Vladimir Safronkov, Russia’s deputy envoy at the Security Council, who also accused other states and international organizations of making “no effort” to inspect the site of the alleged attack.
source (https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/)
BTW, the request to provide access to military bases reminds me of a similar request made to Saddam (which he agreed). We all know how it ended...
Actually the resolution called for the Syrian government to cooperate with the investigation, without placing prior blame. The problem (for Russia and Syria) is that any independent investigation would squarely place the blame on Assad. Everybody knows this. The solution (for Russia and Syria) is to blame everyone for placing the blame prior to "objective investigation", knowing full well that there can be no investigation without Assad's cooperation.
The problem (for Russia and Syria) is that any independent investigation would squarely place the blame on Assad.
Any
independent investigation would squarely place the blame on Assad?
What's the rationale of your above statement, except your Russophobia?
And what's the rationale for blocking investigation?
Sure, the situation is not easy. If Assad commanded the country better, he would be more permissive. The West knows that he is not in position to allow more interference than he has already been subjected to, but he is still being pressured for more.
And what's the rationale for blocking investigation?
Don't mix up
independent investigations of that incident with giving a carte blanche for free access/spying to Assad's military bases.
No sane person would agree to the latter.
The same lame allegations like those three years ago. (The Red Line and the Rat Line (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line))
Cui bono?
A series of chemical weapon attacks in March and April 2013 was investigated over the next few months by a special UN mission to Syria. A person with close knowledge of the UN’s activity in Syria told me that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack, on 19 March in Khan Al-Assal, a village near Aleppo. In its final report in December, the mission said that at least 19 civilians and one Syrian soldier were among the fatalities, along with scores of injured. It had no mandate to assign responsibility for the attack, but the person with knowledge of the UN’s activities said: ‘Investigators interviewed the people who were there, including the doctors who treated the victims. It was clear that the rebels used the gas. It did not come out in public because no one wanted to know.’
Don't spend your time with "investigations". There's no "investigations" at war.
Too superficial due to the way the West has went daft and very ridiculous. It is kind of overlooked what the West does led by America which thinks it is in charge of the planet.
As opposed to RJ Howie, who -although he isn't in charge of the planet- thinks that he should be… :)
If he actually were, that would explain a lot.
Oh, sooky two-shoes. Remember and be routine and stick your nose in the air.
For people who know how to use their brains away from the mirror if I was in charge of this world you would all need to see a doctor to stop mouths dropping open in wonder....... :cheers:
Howie never disappoints! :) (I still wish he had, and wonder why he never learned to speak English. Perhaps he could have had something to say… As it is, who can tell? :) )
Of course, we're talking about the recent poison gas attack in Syria. RJ contends that -until "international" bodies determine the "actual" culprit– nobody knows what really happened.
(Did NAZI Germany gas 6 million Jews to death? Well, it might only have been 3 or 2 million; that's not so bad. Right?)
U.S. military sources determined what happened. And the U.S. responded.
People like RJ only understand why most everyone else finds them inconsequential; and it irks them.
Thankfully -from RJ's point of view– there's nothing in Scotland worth going to war over. He can remain a pacifist!
A joint BRICS statement says military action in Syria without authorization from the UN Security Council is dangerous and unacceptable.
I couldn't find any reference to that joint BRICS statement in German media.
Than I thought to fire up Google-search to see what major Western media outlets worldwide have to comment on that statement.
Guess what! Nothing, nil, nada.
Ignored as if it simply didn't happen.
If nothing else, those BRICS states stand for rawly 42% of the whole world population!
A joint BRICS statement says military action in Syria without authorization from the UN Security Council is dangerous and unacceptable.
I couldn't find any reference to that joint BRICS statement in German media.
Than I thought to fire up Google-search to see what major Western media outlets worldwide have to comment on that statement.
Guess what! Nothing, nil, nada.
Why don't you say what BRICS is? It's the club of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. They are about as irrelevant to the West as ASEAN is. They are irrelevant to Syria too.
If nothing else, those BRICS states stand for rawly 42% of the whole world population!
If you don't trust G20 (which I hope you don't), then be skeptical of BRICS also.
I could of course ignore the silly stuff from Oakdale and is difficult with that latest utter guff he has come out with. On the Syrian gas thing he comes out with this nonsense that the US military said whgat was right hence the US government dropping the bopmbs on the base. Eh? If the US military says it then that is Gospel dopey man?? Like you lot came out with on Saadam and the secret weapons lies? There is no proof yet at the real story just like the nonsense that Moscow helped decide the US election result. Now I know many of you lot are as simple as they come and just accept anything your government propagandists come out with (so easy with 16 "security agencies" to gang up and brain you lot). Your only passing positive note was on the Nazi terror time and the six million originally came from a Soviet general who didn't even have facts before him yet.
Seems the mental thinking is that in the Syrian civil war if the US led bombing doesn't kill any civilians but Syria/Russia does then that is quite clever. Your record in Afghanistan is a shocking one regularity killing innocents either from the air force or those mental marines you always boast about. But then the bags of dollars are dished out to families so that makes it okay. Time after time there have been things done by the West that make the Syrian President look like an amateur. What has went on in Yemen especially by Saudi Arabia is disgusting. You moan about Syria and look how Saudi Arabia is run. An evil dictatorship and no freedoms. For all it's faults regular things like Christians and Muslims having rights in syria was standard but try outside of Islam in Saudi and see what happens. So why is it principled to strongly support some dictatorships - oh nearly forgot the corproates are involved. Ah that makes it principled by US and West standards eh?
Your government offices should have a picture of Dr Goebells up on offices.
Why don't you say what BRICS is? It's the club of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. They are about as irrelevant to the West as ASEAN is.
Irrelevant?
Don't make a fool of yourself
ersi.
Let's take China, India and Brasil (I'll let Russia out, with respect to your psychotrauma) and compare their relevance to those of let's say Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. :)
BTW, it's not a matter of relevance but one of filtering news. Those which don't fit the agenda get dropped.
Irrelevant?
Don't make a fool of yourself ersi.
[...]
BTW, it's not a matter of relevance but one of filtering news. Those which don't fit the agenda get dropped.
Doesn't it occur to you that news just might be filtered according to relevance? I happen to be a professional of this field. I do it every day.
Irrelevant?
Don't make a fool of yourself ersi.
[...]
BTW, it's not a matter of relevance but one of filtering news. Those which don't fit the agenda get dropped.
Doesn't it occur to you that news just might be filtered according to relevance? I happen to be a professional of this field. I do it every day.
Indeed, your professionalism is fabulous. One has only to read your posts. :lol:
Geopolitics may look like an agenda to you, and sometimes it is, but most of the time it is a pretty objective criterion for relevance.
Brazil, China and India may be big, but they have nothing to do with Syria. Russia is relevant, because it is involved in Syria and in the Security Council, but when it comes to a joint announcement of BRICS, it's geopolitically irrelevant again.
If madam Dalia Grybauskaite farts and it smells like Russia bashing than her brainfart makes it into Western media outlets. Of course it's because her village country is of an exceptionally geostrategic importance to the world. :)
So far about selective relevance and your professional drivel.
Le ministre des affaires étrangères, Jean-Marc Ayrault, a soutenu mercredi 19 avril que le gouvernement syrien avait « sciemment utilisé l’arme chimique » le 4 avril dernier à Khan Cheikoun, lors d’une attaque qui a fait 87 morts, dont 31 enfants.
« C’est une question de jours, mais nous apporterons la preuve que le régime a bien organisé ces frappes avec des armes chimiques. J’exprime une conviction, dans quelques jours je pourrai vous apporter des preuves », a déclaré le chef de la diplomatie française lors de l’émission « Question d’info » LCP-Franceinfo-Le Monde-AFP.
Do you understand, krake, why this is above news threshold?
Yawn. Of course I do.
Because it's in line with Trump's and B. Johnson's baseless accusations. It fits perfectly the agenda.
Wonder how long it would still take to fabricate some silly evidence as it already happened in the past.
BTW, you don't inform in advance the USA like Russia did, exposing the location of your next strike if you intend to use chemical weapons.
On the other hand by doing so you gave the other side time to stage a false flag operation which this chemical attack likely was.
krake, you're straying into Alex Jones territory… :)
krake, you're straying into Alex Jones territory… :)
Me - a far right? That's funny. :lol:
Yawn. Of course I do.
Because it's in line with Trump's and B. Johnson's baseless accusations. It fits perfectly the agenda.
Wrong. Regardless of agenda, anything that Trump or B. Johnson (or important ministers of important EU countries) say is above the threshold. Trump can tweet whatever and it's in the news, nevermind if there's content or not.
Then there are finer criteria for further filtering, but I won't bother you with those. Agenda comes in too there at some point, but it's far from as primary as you think.
Me - a far right? That's funny. :)
No: You, a conspiracy theorist. You have a way of looking at the world and events in it that
have to agree with your understanding, and support the outcomes you prefer.
When reality doesn't provide that you will accept almost anything in its place as explanatory…
Do you think
I take such a clown as Alex Jones
seriously?
@
ersi and all those others interested: I'd like to know -for a fact- who used poison gas in Syria… Is the UN willing to investigate?
Or will Russia prevent it?
You, a conspiracy theorist.
I'll take that as a compliment. :)
How the CIA Invented and Promoted 'Conspiracy Theories' to Discredit Controversial Views (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-cia-invented-and-promoted-conspiracy-theories-discredit-controversial-views)
Do you think I take such a clown as Alex Jones seriously?
Neither have I his site among my bookmars nor do I visit or make references to it.
What I do know is that your beloved president (Donald Trump) praised Alex Jones', the notorious right-winger's "amazing" reputation. :)
Newtown officials demand President Trump denounce 'amazing' Sandy Hook massacre denier Alex Jones (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/newtown-demands-trump-denounce-amazing-alex-jones-article-1.3077764)
I'd like to know -for a fact- who used poison gas in Syria… Is the UN willing to investigate?
I doubt that you really want to know -for a fact- who used poison gas in Syria.
Only thing you'd like to see confirmed is the Western (CIA) propaganda narrative that baby-killer-monster Assad was it.
A series of chemical weapon attacks in March and April 2013 was investigated over the next few months by a special UN mission to Syria. A person with close knowledge of the UN’s activity in Syria told me that there was evidence linking the Syrian opposition to the first gas attack, on 19 March in Khan Al-Assal, a village near Aleppo. In its final report in December, the mission said that at least 19 civilians and one Syrian soldier were among the fatalities, along with scores of injured. It had no mandate to assign responsibility for the attack, but the person with knowledge of the UN’s activities said: ‘Investigators interviewed the people who were there, including the doctors who treated the victims. It was clear that the rebels used the gas. It did not come out in public because no one wanted to know.’
source (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)
What's next? Is Seymour M. Hersh also a conspiracy theorist? :)
Furthermore:
This one is more recent: Australian soldiers caught up in Islamic State chemical attack in Mosul (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-19/australian-medics-treated-iraqis-hit-by-is-chemical-attack/8452144)
It's just another proof that 'moderate' head choppers own chemical weapons.
Last but not least:
MIT Expert Claims Chemical Weapons in Syria Staged (https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mit-syria-chemical-weapons/)
@ersi and all those others interested: I'd like to know -for a fact- who used poison gas in Syria… Is the UN willing to investigate?
Or will Russia prevent it?
Russia already prevented it. This is what veto means. Jax quoted the relevant news item https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2666.msg71634#msg71634
And I quoted a news item where French minister of foreign affairs promised to publish some relevant proof in a few days.
Don't discuss wars. There's nothing to discuss at war.
Fight your wars, the real ones, the ones you die fighting for. That's enough.
You can't post after dead.
You can't post after dead.
Are you
sure you're Catholic? :)
You can't post after dead.
Are you sure you're Catholic? :)
Are you following the steps of Allan Kardec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec)? Have good luck..
Oh I think Oakdale that the UN should be in an investigation process.
…Russia won't allow it… :)
…Russia won't allow it… :)
Russia won't allow it? Are you sure?
The US and its Western partners have rejected an impartial investigation into the alleged 'Sarin' attack in Khan Sheikhun, Syria, earlier this month.
Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council on the Voting Results, The Hague, April 20, 2017 (https://www.therussophile.org/remarks-by-permanent-representative-of-the-russian-federation-to-the-opcw-ambassador-alexander-shulgin-at-the-54th-special-meeting-of-the-opcw-executive-council-on-the-voting-results-the-hague-april.html/)
The UN have a Portuguese leader. A traitor from the new "democrat" regime. A clown working for the lousy English or even worst, the Americans.
There's no UN.
Everybody can bomb the world. It's called "entrepeneurship".... Long Live Trump.Long live the power of the rich.
Fantastic times we live.
A clown working for the lousy English or even worst, the Americans.
I usually get the gist of your posts… But I've had enough of this egregious grammatical lapse: Do you not -does not your native language- know the difference between a
comparative and a
superlative?
If you don't, consider this: Portuguese is the
worse language in which to discuss any matter of import… But only compared to all the others. :)
Odd, that someone who speaks a language that is extensively inflected doesn't know the difference.
Russia won't allow it? Are you sure?
The US and its Western partners have rejected an impartial investigation into the alleged 'Sarin' attack in Khan Sheikhun, Syria, earlier this month.
See here (http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-iran-bid-to-sideline-syria-gas-attack-findings-with-fresh-probe/)…
Read the whole article, of course. But pay careful attention to the 4th to last paragraph…
It can be even wurst (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wurst).
See here (http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-iran-bid-to-sideline-syria-gas-attack-findings-with-fresh-probe/)…
... pay careful attention to the 4th to last paragraph…
Are you indeed so short of memory? :left:
We have been already through that. See here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=28a67e67fcefa8f53d4fa2eefd10734d&topic=2666.msg71634#msg71634) and here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=28a67e67fcefa8f53d4fa2eefd10734d&topic=2666.msg71642#msg71642).
Well Oakdale your country is tops for not allowing things.
We have been already through that. See here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=28a67e67fcefa8f53d4fa2eefd10734d&topic=2666.msg71634#msg71634) and here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=28a67e67fcefa8f53d4fa2eefd10734d&topic=2666.msg71642#msg71642).
But you seem to have missed the important part: Russia had only to submit a resolution for the investigation without any assertion of blame… It didn't do so.
One wonders why… :) Well, now they want non-independent investigators (…sort of like the IPCC, where the conclusion is a given and the various member nations appoint scientists that will support it! :) ) to — do what? Why, absolve the Assad regime of course! But, politically, what else could they do?
I suppose, in the end, the story from a great many sources will be: The Jews did it! (
Howie will
seem to quibble, because -as much as he'd like to blame Israel- he's pretty keen on blaming American Jews…)
Well, now they want non-independent investigators ...
Is the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) according to you an independent organization?
Either you are ill-informed or naive to say the least.
Take for instance the Director-General, the highest authority of its Secretariat.
Ahmet Üzümcü is a Turkish career diplomat who also worked as a staff member for the NATO.
Keep in mind that both Erdogan (Turkey) and the USA (NATO) are pursuing own interests (regime change and balkanization) in Syria.
Is the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) according to you an independent organization?
Either you are ill-informed or naive to say the least.
Then why did my country, yours, and Russia and Syria sign on to their regime? Treaties mean a lot, no? :)
You really are a laugh Oakdale. Especially when you see how the USA deals with things and inside the UN.