[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In International News See other International News Articles Title: Trump Launches Missile Strikes on Syria After Chemical Attack Source: [None] URL Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti ... as-expectations-of-strike-grow Published: Apr 13, 2018 Author: Jennifer Jacobs, Donna Nabu-Nasr, Daniel Post Date: 2018-04-13 21:29:24 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 7770 Comments: 82 President Donald Trump said he launched missile strikes on Syria in retaliation for an apparent chemical attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad on a rebel town. Trump said the missile strikes, which were focused on chemical weapons sites, would be carried out in coordination with France and the U.K. and he made clear that the U.S. is prepared to sustain the strikes until Syria stops using chemical weapons. The president also blasted Iraq and Russia for supporting Assad’s regime, particularly in the wake of the chemical attack. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-42) not displayed.       .       .       . #43. To: Operation 40, paraclete (#38) Assad didn't get the job by being smart How many interviews of him have you seen? I THINK the point he was making is that Assad's IQ is irrelevant as he is the hereditary ruler of a police state. He had an established system in place and running when he took over. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-04-15   8:46:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: A Pole, paraclete, Vicomte13, sneakypete, Pinguinite (#39) (Edited) Assad didn't get the job by being smart, like Kim he took over from his daddy and has succeeded in pissing off his people, not smart, devastating his country, not smart Assad was not expected to take over the regime, his brother who got killed was groomed for the role, much as Joe Kennedy Junior was the son that old Joe wanted to run for prez. When he got killed in the remote-controlled bomber over England, JFK was his father's pick to run for prez. Assad did become a qualified ophthalmologist after medical training in Britain. I never read any complaints about his professional qualifications so he must have been fairly bright and had basic competence. And he does seem to be pretty intelligent, maybe a little on the autism scale. Something about his appearance and behavior makes me think that when I do see him on TV, despite how carefully they control any video of him that we can see in the West. However, Assad is the figurehead of his country's military/political elite. Exactly as Kim Jong-Il is. In either case, even if we drove the "dictator" from power, the (primarily) military regime would simply select another figurehead as ruler. There is no other way to rule a country that is so culturally and religiously divided as Syria is. In some respects, Putin plays the same role in Russia. He just didn't inherit the role from Daddy. If you want an American example of this, look at how Rand Paul mostly inherited his father's political base. And Rand is, like Assad, an ophthalmologist. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-15   13:49:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Tooconservative (#44) Assad was not expected to take over the regime, his brother who got killed was groomed for the role, much as Joe Kennedy Junior was the son that old Joe wanted to run for prez. When he got killed in the remote-controlled bomber over England, JFK was his father's pick to run for prez. Assad did become a qualified ophthalmologist after medical training in Britain. I never read any complaints about his professional qualifications so he must have been fairly bright and had basic competence. And he does seem to be pretty intelligent, maybe a little on the autism scale. Something about his appearance and behavior makes me think that when I do see him on TV, despite how carefully they control any video of him that we can see in the West. However, Assad is the figurehead of his country's military/political elite. Exactly as Kim Jong-Il is. In either case, even if we drove the "dictator" from power, the (primarily) military regime would simply select another figurehead as ruler. There is no other way to rule a country that is so culturally and religiously divided as Syria is. In some respects, Putin plays the same role in Russia. He just didn't inherit the role from Daddy. If you want an American example of this, look at how Rand Paul mostly inherited his father's political base. And Rand is, like Assad, an ophthalmologist. Why is America involved with Syria? buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-15   13:55:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: buckeroo (#45) It's...complicated. Trump wants out. But he also doesn't want to look weak. He isn't the first prez with exactly this problem. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-15   14:00:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Tooconservative (#46) It's...complicated. How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there? buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-15   14:08:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: buckeroo (#47) How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there? We abolished the Department of War after WW II and replaced it with the Department of Defense. Ipso facto, anything we do with our military is defensive. You're old enough to know this, Buck. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-15   14:46:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Tooconservative (#48) Typical government DOUBLE-SPEAK. I have no reports that Syria launched a missile towards the USA or much less attempted to invade the USA. buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-15   14:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: buckeroo (#47) How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there? questions that no one wants to answer, but you can bet Israel and jewish influence is in there somewhere. Before the current shamoozle Syria was an active enemy of Israel and now Iran is closer to Israeli borders than they were before paraclete  posted on  2018-04-15   17:58:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: buckeroo (#47) They slaughter their own people and support terrorism against our allies. Therefore, their government needs to go. Also, if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American, the Russian base there can be closed - and that is the only Russian naval anchorage in the Mediterranean. Poor Russians. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-15   21:50:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Vicomte13 (#51) Also, if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American, the Russian base there can be closed - and that is the only Russian naval anchorage in the Mediterranean. Poor Russians. The poor Russians have enough nukes to virtually destroy the entire USA and probably Europe too, so they are not that "poor". Best not to attempt to back a nuke power into a corner. And they have the Crimea back, so they still have Met access. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-04-15   21:58:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13 (#51) if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American Like in Libya? A Pole  posted on  2018-04-16   3:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: Pinguinite (#52) The poor Russians have enough nukes to virtually destroy the entire USA and probably Europe too, so they are not that "poor". Best not to attempt to back a nuke power into a corner. And they have the Crimea back, so they still have Met access. As I said: their military option is to blow up the world, including themselves. Sure, they can commit suicide (and wake up in Hell after doing it), but they don't have any option. As far as Med access goes, take another look at the map. Sevastopol is on the Black Sea. To get to the Med they have to steam through the Dardanelles inside of NATO ally Turkey. And once they get to the other side, in the NATO-ally Greece's private lake called the Aegean, with Syria gone they have nowhere to base, nowhere to refuel, nowhere to repair. Their underway replenishment capability is very weak. So sure, they can send a fleet past Istanbul, in peacetime, and float around in the Med until they run out of fuel and food. They can't stay there very long, and in a war scenario, they can't get their fleet out of the Black Sea, or back into it if it's in the Med. The loss of Syria would be a massive blow to their strategic position. They need to negotiate. I'm sure that leaving them a Guantanamo Bay type of arrangement regarding their Syrian base can be worked out that doesn't require Assad to sit there. But maybe not. Poor Russia has nuclear weapons - and that's all they've got. Nuclear weapons give them the option of being a suicide bomber - blowing up the whole world, themselves included - in a tantrum. They would do that if armies were closing in on Moscow. So would the French is armies were closing in on Paris. But over Syria? Nah. The Russians will not commit suicide over Syria. They'll take their lumps and be angry and move on. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   7:48:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: A Pole (#53) Like in Libya? Sure. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   7:50:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: Vicomte13 (#54) inside of NATO ally Turkey. Lol. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-16   7:52:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: A K A Stone (#56) Turkey has all sorts of difficulties getting along with us, with Greece, etc. But Russia is a permanent enemy of the Turks, and the Turks know it. Let's suppose Turkey goes inert and lets the Russians through the Dardanelles during a war. They steam into the Aegean, through the middle of Greece, a NATO ally, where they would be blown out of the water by airstrikes if it came down to it. Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   7:57:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: Vicomte13 (#57) But over Syria? Nah. The Russians will not commit suicide over Syria Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria. Seems contradictory. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-16   8:27:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: Vicomte13 (#57) Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria. I really have to think you don't know how small and unimportant that "base" really is. They can't even put any except the smallest battleships in to dock. If their big missile cruiser (they've only got the one) needed shipyard work of any kind, they have a kind of floating machine shop that they can float out to it. Otherwise, it's just a smallish fuel depot and a transshipment point for parts like electronics, possibly a place you could (but wouldn't want to) use to replenish perishables and depleted ordinance. People really make too much of that base. And the fact that it is the only Russian base considered active around the world makes it clear how limited Russia's reach is a naval power. They do still have basing rights in Cuba but that place really is in mothballs. And Russia explored but never concluded any agreement with a willing Vietnam to re-open that large and ambitious naval base in Cam Ranh Bay. That was a real naval base and the one in Cuba would count as one too (though it mostly hosted Russian spy ships disguised as trawlers). Not the one in Syria because it's too small and has such limited capabilities. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-16   9:14:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#54) As I said: their military option is to blow up the world, including themselves. Sure, they can commit suicide (and wake up in Hell after doing it), but they don't have any option. When you "corner"someone, that's when they run out of options. Turkey is not exactly a foe of Russia. Russia is selling them S-300 systems, much to the chagrin of the US. The loss of Syria would be a massive blow to their strategic position. They need to negotiate. Putin WANTS to negotiate. But it's the west that is completely refusing to do so. Putin instead simply being push and shoved, again and again and again. The west doesn't care at all about anything Putin has to say. According to the west, "negotiation" means only one thing: Shut up, get back in the fucking line and do what we say! And you *know* that's true. Latest word on Skripal case: The chem used was not Novichok. It was instead something called "BZ", which was known to be developed only in NATO countries and the USA. That bolsters Russia's claim of non-involvement, and compromises the west's decision to expel the 120 or so diplomats by not only the US & UK, but a dozen or more other western allies that are at risk of being severely embarrassed as having been proven to be mere puppets of the USA. And we'll see what the International inspectors will say about Douma. Russia has boldly claimed there is no evidence any chem attack even occurred. What's in the videos we've all seen could have been merely a hysteria response, if not staged outright. The "disturbing" video doesn't even show a single person or child suffering any effects of any chemical agent. It shows only a few adults and kids getting watered down and administered eye drops and inhalers. Poor Russia has nuclear weapons - and that's all they've got. That's not exactly true. It seems to me Russia has focused their much smaller military budget on strategic offensive weaponry and tactical defensive weaponry, mainly in missile and torpedo tech. They may well be leading the world in such areas. And that's to be expected as they simply don't have the budget to spend money on boondoggle projects as the US is doing with the F-35 program. The US invests in military areas they believe will help them push their influence offensively worldwide. New carriers, big fleets. The Russians instead are investing in tech that can sink fleets, which is much cheaper than the fleets themselves. Will they use it? Doubtful. Just as the USA will, doubtfully, attack Russia outright. But you know what Vic? Maybe the best advantage Russia has is, is in the so-called "propaganda" war. Russia is gaining sympathy and the US is losing it. I'll use myself in this example. I'm pissed off. I'm pissed at Trump. I was his supporter. Whereas before I was enthusiastic about Trump beating Hillary, I'm now taking a "what can be salvaged" type view of Trump. I find myself instead viewing Putin and Assad as underdogs and victims of a huge misinformation campaign and war promoted by a very real Deep State that has successfully taken Trump down. I, as an American citizen who has never set foot in Russia, on an emotional level have almost completely sided with Russia and Putin, that based on my sickening disappointment with the absolute injustice dispensed on Putin and Assad with with what I see as non-credible accusations of their using chem weapons in the UK and now Douma, both accusations not making any sense whatsoever for their complete lack of credible motive. And while I don't believe that there is a large segment of Americans that feel the degree of sympathy for Assad and Putin as I do right now, there's no question that Trump has disappointed a great many of his supporters with this Syrian strike as it violated everything he passionately broadcast as a candidate. In my view, this stike on Syria did more damage to Trump's support base than it did to Syria. What's happening is that Trump's support base is changing and I'll use TooConservative here as an example, without his permission and in accordance with my own recollection. TC hated trump with an absolute passion. He didn't vote for him. He could not say enough things here on this very forum about how disgusting he was. After Trump won, TC did a flip on these negative sentiments, and I gather from his posts that he approves of the strike on Syria and is probably now a dedicated fan. I think TC represents more of the traditional Republican Bush-supporter type base, as perhaps you do as well, and I represented the base that was opposed to the Deep State, the swamp and all it represents. But it was my base that put Trump in office, not TC's. And now Trump has traded his original support base that won him the presidency for the Bush-era base that failed against Obama. As I see it, you two are cheering for the Deep State swamp, Bush era war mongering, and I by contrast, have virtually transferred all sympathy I once had for US interests to Russia. How many more are like me? That's a good question, but I know I'm not alone. Putin still has his naysayers here on this very forum who simply write off Putin as a former KGB agent who will perpetually be up to Soviet era domination for as long as he lives. I would speculate that there's not 1 American in 100 who hates Putin who has ever heard a single word the man has had to say. But that's changing. I do believe Putin is, in spite of his history, a reasonably good guy, that based on what I have taken the time to actually hear him say (translated of course). He does not want world war. He does not want confrontation with the west. He is doing the best he can against a juggernaut of fake news and an American Deep State beast that has conscripted even the defiant Trump into it's array of swamp minions. So when one tallies up the strengths & weaknesses of Russia vs the USA, do take public sentiment into consideration along with all that goes with it, and not just military capability. So I'll have a toast to Putin and Assad. May they prevail. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-04-16   11:07:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: Tooconservative (#59) Those limited capabilities are important. It's a staging area. The larger ships can ride at offshore anchorage and be resupplied. Without that resupply ability, the Russians are completely at the mercy of littoral nations to let them come in and restock. It's a bigger deal than you think, even if they can't repair ships there, and they have to have them ride at anchor. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   11:10:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#61) Those limited capabilities are important. It's a staging area. The larger ships can ride at offshore anchorage and be resupplied. Without that resupply ability, the Russians are completely at the mercy of littoral nations to let them come in and restock. It's a bigger deal than you think, even if they can't repair ships there, and they have to have them ride at anchor. I don't really disagree but I just wanted to point out that this is their only "base" (in their own words a "Material-Technical Support Point"). They have had these "bases" in other places as well, like Egypt, but those closed decades back. My real point is that Tartus simply cannot be compared to a real full-service overseas naval base like the ones America has in (too great) abundance around the world. Admittedly, the 50-year lease they signed with Assad a year ago to expand this base significantly and given their own forces immunity within Syria do indicate that in the future, this base could become a linchpin of Russian naval force projection. But it has not been and still is not a real "base" as we think of them. It overstates their capability considerably to call Tartus a real naval base. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-16   12:01:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#60) What's happening is that Trump's support base is changing and I'll use TooConservative here as an example, without his permission and in accordance with my own recollection. TC hated trump with an absolute passion. He didn't vote for him. He could not say enough things here on this very forum about how disgusting he was. After Trump won, TC did a flip on these negative sentiments, and I gather from his posts that he approves of the strike on Syria and is probably now a dedicated fan. I think TC represents more of the traditional Republican Bush-supporter type base, as perhaps you do as well, and I represented the base that was opposed to the Deep State, the swamp and all it represents. I am not advocating that Trump get more involved in Syria. I think Assad will remain the figurehead of the Syrian military regime and that Iran/Russia have both already won a major victory to keep that regime in power. Trump's actions to destroy ISIS do, day by day, reduce any justification for our remaining in-country with a small army of "special forces" (capable non-female soldiers). OTOH, I do think Trump needs to finish off ISIS as a force in-country and keep Turkey/Iran/Syria from massacring our Kurd allies. I think you are making me out to be a much bigger neocon than any of my posts would warrant. Not that I'm all upset and ready to stomp off in a huff but you perceive my overall position incorrectly. You can look back at all the threads and posts I made here against the neocon positions of full-blown war of conquest such as what the neocons/Pentagon generally favor. I know a straw man is a handy item but I'm not your guy. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-16   12:06:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: Pinguinite, sneakypete, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, Deckard (#60) Every policy has some social base. And it means a mindset, interests, concrete people. I am speaking not about followers or believers, but about movers and inside supporters. In this case it is few particular allied groups. The one who sets the tone is this part of upper class which is convinced that are the topmost, smartest people in the world and the privilege and world hegemony is their birthright. Anyone who opposes it, they perceive as uppity malicious and ignorant troublemakers who are not only an enemy of them but also of the whole humanity, not deserving any respect or fair game. There are only three ways it can end: 1. They will win and discover that what will come is not what they wanted. 2. That they will get wiser and humbler to acquire self-restraint. Yes it is possible as it happened in the history more than once. 3. Their irresistible striving will meet with unmovable resistance from the others or from outside reality. Nothing new under the Sun. A Pole  posted on  2018-04-16   12:08:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative (#60) As I see it, you two are cheering for the Deep State swamp, Bush era war mongering, and I by contrast, have virtually transferred all sympathy I once had for US interests to Russia. I will let TC speak for himself, and he has. As for me, if you're seeing a Republican here, you're misreading me. I'm not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm not an independent by cussedness - I would happily join a party that stood for the things I think are important, but neither do. So my voting reflects a "best on offer" approach. Usually that's the Republicans, though when Ross Perot ran the first time, he was. The things I think are important cut across party lines, and some of them are supported by neither party. Both parties pay lip service to some of them. The majority of Americans do not agree with most of them, so I recognize that I am not going see political victory on several of these them, and maybe any of them, in my lifetime, and maybe not until the end of the world. If there were another country where I could have these things, I would consider emigrating. One of the things that is important to me relates to foreign policy and killing people. As my own views are not the policy purpose of any of the parties or players, there's no point in my elaborating. Suffice it to say that I am in favor of removing murderous dictators, for a variety of reasons, and I think that the current state of Iraq and Libya are both preferable to what existed there under their strongmen. To me, it has nothing to do with the Deep State. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   12:42:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13, TooConservative, ALL (#60) I've read your post and agree in large part with your logic and observations. Yes it was indeed YOUR "base" that elected Trump, not TC's. Or to be fair, more than a few posters here opposed Trump for President. In defense of Trump and some of the moves/non-moves he has made (especially regarding the military -- and of which you and others may or may not disagree with), Donald Trump is a "President" IN NAME ONLY. I have claimed this before and I would claim it forevermore. Moreover, can it be anymore obvious that Jeff Sessions is a Deep State tool? What kind of AG recuses himself from defending the same President who appointed him? The entire "RUSSIA!!" Witch Hunt hinged on Sessions backing off and allowing Clinton sycophant Rod Rosenstein to appoint Mueller to conduct his never-ending Witch Hunt. The PTB, Deep State, Hitlery, Dems and Neocons (R) have ALL been clamoring for a war and dog-whistling "PUTIN!!!....RUSSIA!!" I concur -- Putin is just a necessary Boogie Man that globalists need to rev up the Military-Industrial Complex... ...It seems obvious to me that the "RUSSIA!!/PUTIN!!" dog whistle also serves as convenient Wag The Dog distractions/deflections away from the REAL "war"; That is the War on Truth, and War on Trump, and revelations that the Deep State, FIB, NSA, and BOTH Parties colluded to frame Donald Trump and electing Hitlery Klintoon while (STILL) committing High Crimes against Trump and against the Constitution. The evidence strongly suggests that Trump has been squeezed hard from the PTB, given "guidelines" with respect to IF, WHEN, and HOW to act from WHOMEVER pulls the strings. It seems clear to me that he had reluctantly given a Green Light on this muddled Mission to appease certain Neocon-Globalist elements. Whether Trump getting pressed on NOT vetoing that monstrous Congressional Budget or this military action against Syrian, I don't believe for a millisecond that Trump's will was to permit either. The intent of both was to undemine continued support for Donald Trump -- and to THAT end the ruse of the PTB is working. I'd be interested -- how many posters on this board fundamentally agree with this assessment? Liberator  posted on  2018-04-16   13:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#65) ...and I think that the current state of Iraq and Libya are both preferable to what existed there under their strongmen. You're dead wrong and I can't see why you don't perceive it. Both Iraq and Libya are human rights disasters and failed states. Despite the police-state tactics, what has followed has been much worse than the dictators. For that matter, the same is true in Egypt but to a lesser degree. And we've seen Turkey descend into a more religious state with a neo-Ottoman dictator but who is yet considered to be a valid ally of NATO. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-16   13:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: Liberator (#66) In defense of Trump and some of the moves/non-moves he has made (especially regarding the military -- and of which you and others may or may not disagree with), Donald Trump is a "President" IN NAME ONLY. I have claimed this before and I would claim it forevermore. In a certain sense, that is true of every prez. It's what Ike called the military-industrial complex. Their attitude is generally, "You voters can elect who you want but this is the real establishment and the actual elite governing consensus, whether voters like it or not". And a lot of policy gets enacted on just that basis. Like various dirty federal deals on highway funding. Or the nakedly corrupt food stamps and farm subsidies and crop insurance programs. And the entire government is shot through with these things that are so construed as to make it almost impossible to repeal these unholy alliances within the federal government, no matter who you elect. We should not expect the election of a single prez to completely alter the way business is done or the entire federal agencies, the Pentagon, the lobbyists, the donors and how they are twisting the arms of pols to do their will in the House/Senate. And it doesn't matter what Trump wants if they can successfully twist enough arms in Congress. The best he can do is put a brave face on the result, like he did with the recent disastrous budget "compromise", a.k.a. Porkulous Extreme. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-16   13:18:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Tooconservative (#67) You're dead wrong and I can't see why you don't perceive it. Both Iraq and Libya are human rights disasters and failed states. Despite the police-state tactics, what has followed has been much worse than the dictators. Do you WANT to understand how I perceive it? I don't imagine it being a very pleasant conversation, at least not for me. You're SURE of your views on this. So am I, but my views are a balance of factors. In essence, these places were terrible before, and they're terrible now, but the nature of the terrible is more diffuse and less controlled. Now, that sounds worse - except that before, under the dictators, the dictators used the power and coordinated unity and wealth of their nations to DO specific things - and those specific things were often directly opposed to the United States, and resulted in the deaths of our servicemen in various places to terror, or in supporting terror attacks on our allies, or hiding the terrorists, or the direct shooting at our planes (in the case of Iraq). Had the dictators contented themselves to rule their countries and NOT shoot at our planes, or mess with us and our interests, I would be inclined to agree that a thug who was quiet when it came to things that matter to US, was probably slightly better for his people than anarchy and chaos (though by all means not good). However, once you shoot missiles at our planes, or blow up a Berlin nightclub in Berlin, or bring down an airliner over Scotland, You Must Die. Period. However long it takes. If you strike directly at the United Statss, then you must not die in bed of old age. You must die a violent death, and you must understand that the United States "got you" - so that every other dictator in the world sees and understands that we are a much greater power, we WILL invade countries, that Russia is NOT powerful enough to save you or stop us. If you attack the United States, you have to die. That means breaking your country. So be it. Libya is broken. And Iraq went through hell. And that mess is better than the dictators, because in the mess, the whole might of a nation cannot be mustered to give the finger, in front of the international community, to the United States. Those countries, through their dictators, gave the finger to the US and killed our people and our allies. Therefore, they now lie in ruins, the dictators are dead, and the people of those countries themselves are the ones doing the suffering and the dying. There is a lesson in that - a very important one to the Kim Jong Uns of the world. Fidel Castro actually got that message. He used words, but he didn't shoot at the USA, and he didn't send terrorists to blow up American airplanes. I don't like the government of Belarus much, but as long as the Belarussians keep the peace with us and our allies, their dictator can sleep at night. If they blow up a Paris nightclub and bring down a British Airways jetliner over Nepal, then sooner or later we will break Belarus. That's the way it goes, and I think it is very, very important. You don't get away with blowing up Americans and our allies. If you think you are going to, then the lesson has to be taught again and again and again. Some people do get it. I recognize that you don't agree with the logic. But that is why I think what I think. Libyans suffering in a trashed Libya, if that's what it takes to take out Khadafi, is preferable to letting a guy who blew up a jetliner, killed US soldiers in a nightclub, and set up fighters to fight our planes flying in the ocean, sit there comfortably amassing power and using it as he pleases. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   13:50:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: Tooconservative (#68) I guess the other thing I'd say is that Muslims are Muslims, which is to say, medieval barbarians, and even the best Muslim dominated state is going to have an ugly underbelly of human rights violations and authoritarianism. As long as they are not actively fighting against the United States we just have to "respect" their culture...which means understanding that the Muslim religion is by its nature bent towards violent dictatorship, and the people's religious programming bends that way, because "God". Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-16   13:54:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: Vicomte13 (#65) I think that the current state of Iraq and Libya are both preferable to what existed there under their strongmen. You must be kidding A Pole  posted on  2018-04-16   15:33:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Vicomte13 (#69) take out Khadafi, is preferable to letting a guy who blew up a jetliner He didn't. It was Persians who took revenge for their airliner. Persians have long memory, as do Chinese. A Pole  posted on  2018-04-16   15:39:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Tooconservative (#68) In a certain sense, that ["President" IN NAME ONLY] is true of every prez. I don't think we're close to being on the same page. At all. NORMALLY, Congressional Leaders strongly support their President's policies instead of defiantly leading a mutiny against him. You also convenient ignore McConnell's and Ryan's public hostility to this President; They both openly flout defeatist attitudes in the mid-terms just to undermine Trump; And they openly and publicly attempt to embarrass and sabotage this President whenever they can. Same of several so-called "Republicans", who are far more aligned with DEMOCRATS. The only context of my assertion regarding Trump and the military-industrial complex was as a matter of recent policy that Trump obviously had no heart in doing. It is clear his arm was again twisted on the Syria strikes and out-voted by his hive of Globalist neocons swarming his admin. Trump's MAGA agenda is obviously being obstructed and throttled by globalist REPUBLICANS (D). Liberator  posted on  2018-04-16   20:04:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: Vicomte13 (#69) Vic, you went on a tangent that I wasn't exactly veering toward... But be that what it may, if your position is to react with superior force against our enemy, I'm with you. The problems are many; First you must identify the "Enemies"; In the case of defining the "Enemy" as "Terror", I'm afraid Dubya Bush's BS doesn't cut it. Neither does declaring "war" on Muzzie splinter cults. Qaddafi paid the price for his aggression and had been cooperative if not at peace with the US for several years. The Libyan people seemed content and relatively sedate (as a bunch of Muzzies could be.) Saddam was a murderous SOB, as were his sons, but he governed more secular. Christians' rights were observed. The responsibility for removing him was with...The Iraqi People. It was NOT Iraq who started any war with or on the USA; THAT would be Dubya Bush and 0bama's best friends, the SAUDIS who declared war on the USA. And you'll notice that NO war was declared on Saudi Arabia after 911, despite 15 of 19 ID'd terrorists were Saudi. Why was the full invasion and destruction reserved for IRAQ? (Could it be for financial considerations of US firms rebuilding Iraq?) The US had NO justification in invading Iraq; Just as 0bama's US Monkey Business operatives had NO business fomenting "Arab Spring" revolutions. BOTH Iraq and Libya were far more stable wit their respective strongmen at the helm. Now? Those voids WILL be filled, likely by radical Islamic Cult groups. Liberator  posted on  2018-04-16   20:19:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: Liberator (#73) (Edited) NORMALLY, Congressional Leaders strongly support their President's policies instead of defiantly leading a mutiny against him. Yes,and normally they are all cogs in the same machine,playing the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". Now there is a guy in the top position that didn't work his way up in the system by kissing the "right" rings and who doesn't play by their club rules,and they can't stand it.It's contrary to everything they have believed their whole lives. Think "A "scab" walks in off the street and becomes the head of every union in America,and you won't be far off the mark. The truth is the better he does,the more they hate him. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. sneakypete  posted on  2018-04-16   20:46:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: Liberator (#73) And they openly and publicly attempt to embarrass and sabotage this President whenever they can. Same of several so-called "Republicans", who are far more aligned with DEMOCRATS. No, they're aligned with the True Republicans, who are the multimillionaires who sit in country clubs and who understand that the PURPOSE of the Republican Party is to provide them with favorable government regulations, tax breaks and an international structure that benefits their interests. Trump not only rallied the rabble to elect him, but has actually tried to enact policies that run contrary to the interests of the True Republicans. Therefore, he must be weakened and punished, and the Republican Party is the vehicle by which that is to be done - because the GOP belongs to THEM, not to Trump, or to "The People". That the People are too duped and too dumb to figure it out is GOOD...for the True Republicans. If you're reading this on this site, you are not a True Republican, no matter what you think you are. No truly wealthy man bothers with this sort of irrelevant shit. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   10:45:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: A Pole (#72) He didn't. It was Persians who took revenge for their airliner. Our intelligence says otherwise. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   10:45:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: Liberator (#74) BOTH Iraq and Libya were far more stable wit their respective strongmen at the helm. Now? Those voids WILL be filled, likely by radical Islamic Cult groups. No. Iraq will be governed by Shi'ites, who are religiously oriented towards their equivalent of the Pope, the Grand Ayatollah in Iran. This will mean Iraq skews naturally towards Iran. Iran is a stable country, as was Iraq under Saddam (as you have pointed out). So, Iraq will be a Muslim republic, like Iran is, and it will be aligned in sympathies with Iran. And US planes will be able to overfly, and to base there, and they won't be shooting at our planes or slaughtering their people internally. Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam, both for the majority of the people there, and for us. Libya is far to the west and exposed. We can control that place if we need to. Syria...well, we need to come to a deal with Russia. The Russians can keep their port. If Assad stays, he has to (a) fight terror, (b) not sponsor terror against us or Israel. That about tidies it up. All of our pre-war enemies have been broken, and a lot has changed. Radical Islam lost. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   10:50:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: Vicomte13 (#77) He didn't. It was Persians who took revenge for their airliner. Our intelligence says otherwise. The same intelligence and MSM that worked on Iraq? BTW, Iran had a motive and they believe in getting even. One example report: " The Lockerbie bombing was ordered by Iran and carried out by a Syrian-based terrorist group, a former Iranian intelligence officer has admitted. Abolghassem Mesbahi, a defector to Germany, said Pan Am flight 103 was downed in 1988 in retaliation for a US Navy strike on an Iranian commercial jet six months earlier, in which 290 people died. He claims the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was Iran’s Supreme Leader, ordered the bombing “to copy exactly what happened to the Iranian Airbus”. Previously unseen evidence gathered for the aborted appeal hearing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing, supports Mr Mesbahi’s claim and suggests that the bombers belonged to the extremist group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). Documents obtained by Al Jazeera television for a documentary called Lockerbie: What Really Happened? name key individuals said to be involved in the bombing, including the alleged bomb-maker, the alleged mastermind and the man who may have put the bomb on the doomed Boeing 747. " https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10688067/Lockerbie-bombing-was-work-of-Iran-not-Libya-says-former-spy.html A Pole  posted on  2018-04-17   11:21:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: Vicomte13 (#78) (Edited) Syria...well, we need to come to a deal with Russia. The Russians can keep their port. Very generous of you. Especially that Russians are not going to give up anything. A Pole  posted on  2018-04-17   11:22:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: sneakypete (#75) Now there is a guy in the top position that didn't work his way up in the system by kissing the "right" rings and who doesn't play by their club rules,and they can't stand it.It's contrary to everything they have believed their whole lives. Think "A "scab" walks in off the street and becomes the head of every union in America,and you won't be far off the mark. The truth is the better he does,the more they hate him. +100. Excellent breakdown of what's happened. Trump *was* akin to a "Scab" who not only shoved his way through the picket line, but "didn't pay his dues"...and wound up President of the AFL-CIO. Liberator  posted on  2018-04-17   13:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: A Pole (#80) Very generous of you. Especially that Russians are not going to give up anything. We shall see. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   15:37:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com