The U.S. Launched 59 Cruise Missiles against an airfield in Syria .

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Yes. UN isn't doing what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't mean US has the right to take an initiative unilaterally. It's like if police doesn't help you what you perceive to be is right, you pick a gun and start doing your perceived "right" thing on your own.

 

The U.S. doesn't need the right to do anything...it only needs the will and means to do so.

[Charlie]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The U.S. doesn't need the right to do anything...it only needs the will and means to do so.

We have a fundamental difference of how we look at the world. Being an idealist, I would like the world to be a place where countries try to live peacefully, based on mutually defined rules. You believe in the clash of civilizations based on self interest of individual civilizations.

So sure, let's agree to disagree...  

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Charlie said:

So sure, let's agree to disagree...  

 

Agreed...I live in the real world and recognize its base foundations.....economics...and power.

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Yes. UN isn't doing what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't mean US has the right to take an initiative unilaterally. It's like if police doesn't help you what you perceive to be is right, you pick a gun and start doing your perceived "right" thing on your own.

What is "right to take action"?   That has no meaning in a corrupt world where many hostile powers exist and will do what ever they wish or what they think they can.  The reality is the countries that have the power, use it when and where they deem.  The U.S. doesn't report to some other power.  There are times they might try to get a coalition as for example with NATO to take some action, but they are not required by any law.

[DogOnPorch]

The frigate Admiral Grigorovich is going to play tough-guy? We'll see...

[DogOnPorch]

Passing through the Bosporus...or near Sevastopol...those secret Russians...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64qP5tT2fZI

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The frigate Admiral Grigorovich is going to play tough-guy? We'll see...

 

Finally...something interesting for a U.S. SSN to do.....Med patrols can be so boring !

[SpankyMcFarland]

The alt-righters are none too happy about this. There be a tweetstorm out there about cucks and globalists.

 

[DogOnPorch]

23 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The alt-righters are none too happy about this. There be a tweetstorm out there about cucks and globalists.

 

But little Mouse, you are not alone,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Go often askew,
And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!

[SpankyMcFarland]

The evidence is pretty strong that Assad's crowd did this and he deserves punishment. After six years of unspeakable atrocities and a flood of refugees across the world, he can hardly be considered a force for stability. 

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Finally...something interesting for a U.S. SSN to do.....Med patrols can be so boring !

I suppose the Cold War thing to do would be for that frigate to launch its own cruise missile attack on whoever the Hell happens to be the enemy du jour.

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The evidence is pretty strong that Assad's crowd did this and he deserves punishment. After six years of unspeakable atrocities and a flood of refugees across the world, he can hardly be considered a force for stability. 

I worry when any evidence is 'pretty strong'. We've been played as fiddles a lot as of late. But then...I'm not in the War Room lookin' at the Big Board.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Charlie said:

If Iraq having WMDs justifies war on Iraq by Americans, would US having WMDs (nuclear bombs) justify war by other countries on the US?  We have examples when US has even used chemical and nuclear weapons on other countries. Actually, US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on other countries. Do Americans feel any shame for their acts or only that Trump's conscience wakes up only when he sees Assad killing a few children? Any idea, how many children have died because of US invasions around the world. 

Boy it sure is warm outside now that spring is here. Hot enough for you guys?

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Charlie said:

We have a fundamental difference of how we look at the world. Being an idealist, I would like the world to be a place where countries try to live peacefully, based on mutually defined rules. You believe in the clash of civilizations based on self interest of individual civilizations.

So sure, let's agree to disagree...  

It isn't what he believes or what you want to believe. It is what is reality. And reality is that nations do whatever they feel they have the power to do. The only constraints are what their own population will allow (if democratic) or what other nations might step in against them. If you think that the Muslims of the middle east would not crush Israel and then invade Europe were they to possess the military power to do so you've read nothing of their history and know nothing of their values. 

Likewise, the Chinese would invade Taiwan and Japan if it weren't for the likelihood of intervention by the US and Russia, and there'd be a lot more fighting in Africa if clear border aggression and invasion wasn't so heavily frowned upon by westerners.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The alt-righters are none too happy about this. There be a tweetstorm out there about cucks and globalists.

 

Bound to further infuriate Banning in his battle with Ivanka and Jared Kushner. I don't think there's much question he would have been pushing to do nothing while Kushner would have been pushing for action.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Argus

[SpankyMcFarland]

43 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I suppose the Cold War thing to do would be for that frigate to launch its own cruise missile attack on whoever the Hell happens to be the enemy du jour.

I worry when any evidence is 'pretty strong'. We've been played as fiddles a lot as of late. But then...I'm not in the War Room lookin' at the Big Board.

It is hard to square this action with Trump's previous pronouncements on Syria. He could have waited for the evidence to come in and issued a warning this time. One curious aspect is how he mentioned the TV images of the children, moving no doubt but hardly the basis for a coherent policy. 

[marcus]

21 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Here's a question: What incentive would Assad or the Syrian army have to use chemical weapons? And why did they wait so many years before using them?

 

Which group benefits the most from using chemical weapons? Assad and the Syrian army? Or the 'moderate rebels'?

Agreed on this.

There is someone else who benefits as well.

This illegal military attack is to salvage Trump's own flailing presidency, distract from his own corrupt operations, sell and send more arms to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and all their GCC puppets, while on the domestic front dismantling any meager resistance the corrupt Democrats were willing to put up preventing a legal Neanderthal like Neil Gorsuch appointed to the US Supreme Court --all of that at the criminal cost of more death and destruction in Syria.

[Wilber]

I don't think Trump is a very good person and I think he will turn out to be a lousy president but he is not going to get everything wrong, regardless of his motives. Contrary to his previous positions or not, legal or not, I think a retaliatory strike against the base this chemical attack was made from is justified. The question is, what now?

[SpankyMcFarland]

22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

How do we know Assad did the gas attack and not the 'moderate rebels'?
Where is the evidence?

It will be a while before any definite determination can be made. There are some reasons to suspect Assad did it:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-nerve-agent-attack-why-it-made-sense-to-assad

 

[Wilber]

22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Here's a question: What incentive would Assad or the Syrian army have to use chemical weapons? And why did they wait so many years before using them?

 

Which group benefits the most from using chemical weapons? Assad and the Syrian army? Or the 'moderate rebels'?

The same incentive as any terror attack. A UN fact finding mission and a UNHRC commission of inquiry pointed at Syria as the source of the attacks in 2013 and that is why Russia was supposed to oversee the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons capability. Guess they missed some.

[capricorn]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The same incentive as any terror attack.

I heard one comment that dictators/tyrants use such terror attacks to bring their citizens to heel. It is one tool at their disposal to discourage said citizens from opposing their command over them. Purges have similar outcomes.

[Charlie]

Conflicting messages???

 

 

 

 

[Charlie]

And this is the only reason Syria was attacked:  (Just replace Obama with Trump and Libya/Iran with Syria)... What an asshole...

 

 

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, capricorn said:

I heard one comment that dictators/tyrants use such terror attacks to bring their citizens to heel. It is one tool at their disposal to discourage said citizens from opposing their command over them. Purges have similar outcomes.

Of course they do. Tyrants have a long history of using terror to keep their subjects in line. Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

It is hard to square this action with Trump's previous pronouncements on Syria. He could have waited for the evidence to come in and issued a warning this time. One curious aspect is how he mentioned the TV images of the children, moving no doubt but hardly the basis for a coherent policy. 

We assume there was no evidence to be had. Satellite surveillance isn't something we are generally privy to. I'm sure the sight of children gasping and dying from sarin in front of the cameras had some effect. Trump is human.

 

22 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Conflicting messages???

 

Do you think the entire population of Syria should be allowed into North America and then have their upkeep taken care of by taxpayers forever and ever?

Me neither...

Let's keep the "war-weary" over in the Middle East...much closer to their homes.

 

[Charlie]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

 

Do you think the entire population of Syria should be allowed into North America and then have their upkeep taken care of by taxpayers forever and ever

 

Agreed. Especially when our missiles have killed some of their relatives. And some of them will remember it even when they move to our country.