Here we go. Bombs Away.

TaylorTRoom said:
The bombs were delivered by air.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to The NY Times article, it accuses the ISIS attacks launched by projectiles and accuses the Syrian Army attacks dropped via air.

As far as what happened in Ghouta Saturday, the scenario I suspect is that hostages were placed into a basement and then brutally murdered with chlorine gas by their captors. The cameras were at the ready to film the atrocity and then broadcast to give justification for war. Can I prove it? No, but the motive exists. The Russians predicted a false flag chemical attack was imminent on March 10th. The US destroyer armed with tomahawks moved into position prior to Saturday. This scenario makes more strategic sense than cutting lose a chemical attack when you have all but completed the objective of liberating the territory occupied by the US backed jihadis.
 
Musburger1 said:
Wrong again.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif

THE UNITED STATES

Biological Weapons

State declaration: The United States unilaterally gave up its biological weapons program in 1969. The destruction of all offensive BW agents occurred between 1971 and 1973. The United States currently conducts research as part of its biodefense program.

Allegations: According to a compliance report published by the Russian government in August 2010, the United States is undertaking research on Smallpox which is prohibited by the World Health Organization. Russia also accused the United States of undertaking BW research in order to improve defenses against bio-terror attacks which is “especially questionable from the standpoint of Article I of the BTWC.”

Chemical Weapons

State declaration: The United States declared a large chemical arsenal of 27,770 metric tons to the OPCW after the CWC came into force in 1997. Along with Russia, the United States received an extension when it was unable to complete destruction of its chemical stockpiles by 2012. A 2016 OPCW report declared that the United States had destroyed approximately 90 percent of the chemical weapons stockpile it had declared as the CWC entered into force; nearly 25,000 metric tons of the declared total of 27,770. The United States has destroyed all of Category 2 and Category 3 weapons and is projected to complete destruction of its Category 1 weapons by 2023.

Allegations: A 2010 Russian report alleged that the United States has legislation which could inhibit inspections and investigations of U.S. chemical facilities. Russia has also accused the United States of not fully reporting chemical agents removed from Iraq between 2003 and 2008 and sent to the United States for testing and subsequent destruction.
Click to expand...

Well, if Russia made this accusation, that certainly proves it happened.
 
A couple of years ago, we bought a house nearby for my MIL. The old guy that sold it left a lot of books behind. To my disgust, as I cleared them out, he turned out to be a Holocaust Denier. He had a lot of journals and books denying the Holocaust happened (or if it did, that the Nazis were behind it). I was morbidly curious enough to flip through a couple.

The two main arguments used by the Holocaust Deniers were-

1. Corrupt investigation- they focus on one claim against one Nazi, and if they detect a flaw- an overzealous prosecutor misapplying evidence, a witness changing their story- they seize upon that to invalidate the entire investigation. They argue that since the same body that screwed up o e case managed all the other cases, you cannot conclude their prosecutions were legitimate.

2. Incomplete evidence- they would seize upon a missing link in the chain- for example, the flexible hosing used to deliver the gas is now missing- and argue that this single piece of (missing) evidence shows the whole story is a fabrication (pay no attention to the bodies in the mass graves- “you can’t PROVE the Holocaust happened, so I will stop listening to you”).

These are the techniques Mus uses to advocate for Russia. Every independent body, every private Journalist is not to be trusted because they do not adhere to his standards for evidence and process. Russia? They can be trusted.
 
Oh, and my policy recommendation is to send a cruise missile to the location where our best intel says Assad is. He has it coming for a large number of reasons.
 
TaylorTRoom said:
Oh, and my policy recommendation is to send a cruise missile to the location where our best intel says Assad is. He has it coming for a large number of reasons.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you’ve thought ahead and calculated what the sequence of events would be afterward. Enlighten us.
 
Russia, Iran and Turkey only need for Assad’s puppet regime to win. They don’t need Assad. Let the final outcome be a policy that using WMD costs a despot personally.
 
TaylorTRoom said:
Russia, Iran and Turkey only need for Assad’s puppet regime to win. They don’t need Assad. Let the final outcome be a policy that using WMD costs a despot personally.
Click to expand...
Have we stopped using depleted weapons? I know they were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq and have caused massive increases in cancer and birth defects, not to mention the effect on US soldiers exposed to that **** that will stay millions of years. If we actually have ended this practice then perhaps we would have a leg to stand on. And that’s assuming the unlikely possibility that Assad committed the act rather than the murderous proxies we have supported to overthrow him.
 
TaylorTRoom said:
Straw man
Click to expand...
How so? Is Uranium not an element? Have we not used in battle? Is it not permanently a contaminant and is there not statistical proof that it has and does cause great damage to humans and living organisms in general? No, this is not a straw man. It’s a documented fact we’ve used it.
 
It is a straw man because it is a distraction.

By the way- I work in aerospace. We use depleted uranium all the time, for weight balancing reasons. It’s better than lead.

Why don’t you start a new thread about depleted uranium.
 
Musburger1 said:
At this time, is military action based on the allegations of a chemical attack which clearly is unproven as to what happened and who is responsible justified
Click to expand...

We've discussed this issue before. I'm not a fan of our "Assad must go" policy mainly because I haven't heard a convincing case that it's in our interests to pursue that policy. His use of chemical weapons doesn't change the game on that in my view. That's just emotional BS. It's not a real factor. Ultimately the people are dead, whether he gasses them or shoots them. My preference was always to destroy ISIS first, even if it meant having to play ball with Russia and Assad and even if it meant pissing off the Saudis. So I'm not going to be an easy sell on attacking the Syrian government either way.

However, this is a far cry from the false flag, tin foil hat stuff you peddle. You basically think the US is covertly supportive of the chemical attacks as a means to frame the choir boys, Assad and Putin. You like to talk about "logic." How much logical sense did that make with the first chemical attack? Barack Obama made his infamous "red line" bluff at the time. The last thing he wanted was for chemical weapons to actually get used, because he knew it was a bluff. That one move essentially destroyed his foreign policy from that point forward, because the entire world lost all respect for him. Plenty liked him still, but nobody respected him after that. We basically tripped over our dicks for the rest of his term, and our Syrian policy might have been the most incoherent policy toward a country in 240 years.

Is Trump more aggressive? Sure, but do I think he wants a major war in Syria? Hell no. The political risks are way too big, especially when we'd be entering the war with no clearly defined objectives and no easy way out. If he wants a war just for shits and giggles or to "feed the MIC," he'd have MUCH cleaner choices in Venezuela or North Korea. NK would be bloodier, but it would be much more clear cut.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not a fan of our "Assad must go" policy mainly because I haven't heard a convincing case that it's in our interests to pursue that policy.
Click to expand...

If the ouster of Sadam has shown us anything it's to be careful what you wish for. Things can get worse in the absence of a strong leader. That doesn't mean Assad deserves our support but taking him out may create a vacuum that results in groups like ISIS.
 
Mr. Deez said:
We've discussed this issue before. I'm not a fan of our "Assad must go" policy mainly because I haven't heard a convincing case that it's in our interests to pursue that policy. His use of chemical weapons doesn't change the game on that in my view. That's just emotional BS. It's not a real factor. Ultimately the people are dead, whether he gasses them or shoots them. My preference was always to destroy ISIS first, even if it meant having to play ball with Russia and Assad and even if it meant pissing off the Saudis. So I'm not going to be an easy sell on attacking the Syrian government either way.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this part.

Mr. Deez said:
However, this is a far cry from the false flag, tin foil hat stuff you peddle. You basically think the US is covertly supportive of the chemical attacks as a means to frame the choir boys, Assad and Putin. You like to talk about "logic." How much logical sense did that make with the first chemical attack? Barack Obama made his infamous "red line" bluff at the time. The last thing he wanted was for chemical weapons to actually get used, because he knew it was a bluff. That one move essentially destroyed his foreign policy from that point forward, because the entire world lost all respect for him. Plenty liked him still, but nobody respected him after that. We basically tripped over our dicks for the rest of his term, and our Syrian policy might have been the most incoherent policy toward a country in 240 years.
Click to expand...
You have made the false prerequisite that the 2013 attack was made by Assad. In fact, the forensic evidence - conducted at Porton Down - did not implicate Assad.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

Mr. Deez said:
Is Trump more aggressive? Sure, but do I think he wants a major war in Syria? Hell no. The political risks are way too big, especially when we'd be entering the war with no clearly defined objectives and no easy way out. If he wants a war just for shits and giggles or to "feed the MIC," he'd have MUCH cleaner choices in Venezuela or North Korea. NK would be bloodier, but it would be much more clear cut.
Click to expand...
All I can say is hope you are correct. But there are certainly a lot of deranged warhawks at his side and in his face demanding an escalation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
If the ouster of Sadam has shown us anything it's to be careful what you wish for. Things can get worse in the absence of a strong leader. That doesn't mean Assad deserves our support but taking him out may create a vacuum that results in groups like ISIS.
Click to expand...
Before the tide turned in Syria, refugees were pouring out of the country. Many have since returned. Deposing Assad could very well lead to a situation similar to Libya where Ghadaffi was replaced with ungovernable factions and has since turned into a terrorist haven.

There have been papers suggesting that if the US cannot replace Assad (Putin, the Ayatollah, etc) with a pro-Western puppet, the next best objective is to make the country into a failed state(s). As such, US policy cannot be opposed, and terrorism can then be directed from the failed state to regional countries that are competitors to the US.

Think about it. No opposition to US policy and another terror hub where chaos can be exported to Iran and Russia. Totally opposite to fighting terror. More like channeling terror; not necessarily to obtain geopolitical objectives, but to thwart competing nations (Russia, China, Iran) from obtaining their geopolitical and political objectives.

It's a sick policy, it demands destroying the lives of millions of innocent civilians, but I've no doubt there is a faction within the US government advocating something like this.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
If the ouster of Sadam has shown us anything it's to be careful what you wish for. Things can get worse in the absence of a strong leader. That doesn't mean Assad deserves our support but taking him out may create a vacuum that results in groups like ISIS.
Click to expand...

There are people in the neocon movement who desperately want to democratize the Islamic world. Some of them have good intentions, and some of them don't. Regardless, it's a fools errand. It's not because Muslims can't function in a democracy, but I don't think it can be forced on them. They have to want it, and though I think we can help them get it, they have to actively fight for it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There are people in the neocon movement who desperately want to democratize the Islamic world. Some of them have good intentions, and some of them don't. Regardless, it's a fools errand. It's not because Muslims can't function in a democracy, but I don't think it can be forced on them. They have to want it, and though I think we can help them get it, they have to actively fight for it.
Click to expand...
Deez, I think those people have shifted from trying to turn the Islamic world into functioning democracies, to simply destroying any vestige of sovereignty that hinders US hegemony. The neocon movement of democratizing the world went out the window with the failure in Iraq in my opinion. At the time, the theory played well with the American public. The public doesn't believe that's possible anymore nor do the neocons.
 
Musburger1 said:
Deez, I think those people have shifted from trying to turn the Islamic world into functioning democracies, to simply destroying any vestige of sovereignty that hinders US hegemony. The neocon movement of democratizing theworld went out the window with the failure in Iraq in my opinion. At the time, the theory played well with the American public. The public doesn't believe that's possible anymore nor do the neocons.
Click to expand...

But you basically buy into any theory of evil one can concoct about the United States. Creating failed states doesn't protect American dominance. It creates headaches with very little benefit. Most neocons would rather have Hussein in power in Iraq than perpetual bedlam. If it truly was about destroying any sovereign that hinders US hegemony, there's a lot lower hanging fruit than Syria, Libya, and Iraq. For example, Venezuela and Cuba would be easier to overthrow and dramatically easier to stabilize.
 
Mr. Deez said:
But you basically buy into any theory of evil one can concoct about the United States. Creating failed states doesn't protect American dominance. It creates headaches with very little benefit. Most neocons would rather have Hussein in power in Iraq than perpetual bedlam. If it truly was about destroying any sovereign that hinders US hegemony, there's a lot lower hanging fruit than Syria, Libya, and Iraq. For example, Venezuela and Cuba would be easier to overthrow and dramatically easier to stabilize.
Click to expand...
I can make the argument that the Syrian adventure was very much patterned after the Libyan topple. Same support groups of radicalized Sunnis were supported to overthrow a stable and somewhat sectarian government. Was this an accident or premeditated?

As far as taming Venezuela, don’t kid yourself. Anti-American sentiment there is extremely high. We are blamed for their economic disaster moreso than Maduro. US sanctions and corporate monopolies have played a big part in what’s happened down there in addition to government corruption and low oil prices.
 
Musburger1 said:
I can make the argument that the Syrian adventure was very much patterned after the Libyan topple. Same support groups of radicalized Sunnis were supported to overthrow a stable and somewhat sectarian government. Was this an accident or premeditated?
Click to expand...

A stable government? I suppose by Somali standards, it was stable. By most standards, Syria has been pretty unstable for quite awhile. Some of the opposition was Islamist. Some of it was not. Some of it wanted political reforms going back to the Damascus Spring back in the early 2000s. But the opposition was quite substantial - long before any Libyan involvement was even a consideration in the United States.

Musburger1 said:
As far as taming Venezuela, don’t kid yourself. Anti-American sentiment there is extremely high. We are blamed for their economic disaster moreso than Maduro. US sanctions and corporate monopolies have played a big part in what’s happened down there in addition to government corruption and low oil prices.
Click to expand...

Never said that stabilizing Venezuela would be easy, and I'm not saying it would be impossible to screw up. I'm just saying it would be much easier than stabilizing any Middle Eastern country. It's Westernized, Christian, has at least in the past had a respecable economy, is and generally sane. Much easier to work with and play ball with people who don't think they have a religious duty to murder anybody who doesn't accept their faith.
 
Mr. Deez said:
A stable government? I suppose by Somali standards, it was stable. By most standards, Syria has been pretty unstable for quite awhile. Some of the opposition was Islamist. Some of it was not. Some of it wanted political reforms going back to the Damascus Spring back in the early 2000s. But the opposition was quite substantial - long before any Libyan involvement was even a consideration in the United States.



Never said that stabilizing Venezuela would be easy, and I'm not saying it would be impossible to screw up. I'm just saying it would be much easier than stabilizing any Middle Eastern country. It's Westernized, Christian, has at least in the past had a respecable economy, is and generally sane. Much easier to work with and play ball with people who don't think they have a religious duty to murder anybody who doesn't accept their faith.
Click to expand...
Those are good points and very true. The majority of these people are Christian, socially conservative, hard working people. But our harsh treatment, sanctions, and history of exploitation has soured the people on the United States. Hezbollah has more pull in Venezuela than does America.

Look up Venezuelan Vice President, do some research, and consider the serious possibilities which lie ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top