It's on

[Joe Fan]

Reducing European dependence on Russian energy is in the US national interests. While the US is the largest natural gas producer, we are are a very minor player in the LNG export market right now but that will likely change. Even still, we could never service the European market as economically as the Russians given their proximity and that LNG is inherently more expensive to produce.....

You've articulated a potentially good reason for the Europeans to act on Syria........ But from the US perspective, its one group of countries far away from us wants a gas pipeline through another country also far away from us. I just dont see how that's a legitimate justification for the US to start a war. Doubt the Congress would either

 

[Joe Fan]

.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Struck a nerve? It's all good Deez. No need for name calling.

I didn't actually call you a name. I told you not to commit the acts that would justify calling you a name.

Obama drew a red line and it was crossed. He didn't announce his plan. Oh yea, he didn't have one so he did nothing. Or he remembered that he doesn't have any cujones. I agree 100% with what President Trump did with out hearing his plan of the "Basics". He is sure of what his belief is and did something about it. So I trust his judgment, which I never got to do under Obama.

Obama isn't the standard by which we should follow, and again with the talk about genitals in what's supposed to be a serious topic (Americans being put at risk of death and serious bodily injury). What the hell?

Well we know exactly what plane did it and from what airbase with the tracking. Did Assad give the order? I'm guessing he did because he's a moron and believes that he has Putin protecting him. Either way, we hit the airbase from where the plane came from and not the individual who we think ordered that. But Assad does have a history gassing his people.

We're as sure of it as we were that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Our intel people are almost 100% sure what aircraft did the bombing and exactly the track that they flew. The information came directly from US radar monitoring the flight of the fixed wing aircraft that was associated with the timing of the chemical drop. There are also aerial photos from satellite images as well. We also know where the chemicals are being stored, which is within a 30 minute transport of the airport where the flight originated and that was destroyed by our missiles.

From the interviews I heard, Assad is definitely being labeled a narcissist. I suspect that he just became accustomed to what he believed the USA would do based on the last eight years of Obama and his "red line". I feel sure that he thought he would have plenty of time to read the debate that would follow the chemical attack and have time to disperse the aircraft at the airport that was bombed. It was key that we surprised him within 48 hours of his attack and destroyed the aircraft in those hangars.

Yes, our intel is almost 100 percent sure. They get things wrong. (See Iraq.) What I'm looking for is a motive that makes some sense. Nobody has provided one.

"While we're at it, are we also going to destroy ISIS?"
If I am correct that we have new plans that we have started to execute, then it is the other way around. We have got to destroy those chemical weapons because we have to protect our troops attacking within Syria. As long as we have soldiers on the ground in Syria, you will not be told by Trump what are his clear objectives until tactically we have our troops positioned. The key to understand what is happening is knowing what type of US forces are being moved into Syria. We have more than doubled US boots on the ground in Syria in the last 30 days. It seems logical to me that we have to move in more troops in order to protect the 1000 US lives that are at stake now. We are no longer acting as "advisors". The recon missions of our soldiers have turned into active forays. We have moved heavy artillery into place to choke off Raqqa. We are no longer just doing bombing raids. This link references the impending change in our tactics in Syria.
Here also.

And we may have a plan, but the point is that I'm not going judge the action favorably until I know what it is. Speculating that Trump has a more impressive package than Obama has isn't quite enough for me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've been accused of being a Russian troll. I just laugh it off.

Your comments probably lead some to believe you are a neocon troll. I'm sure you are not that. I think you are representative of the majority of the population whose bias stands in the way of critical thinking. God help us.

If the neocons are paying him to troll, they're pretty desperate. A Facebook troll can just spout gibberish. However, a troll on a real discussion forum has to give the illusion that his views are back up by reason (even if it's a false reason). It has to be supported by more than just "pussification" or who has a bigger nutsack.

You have the accusation thrown at you, because you're frankly pretty good at it. If Putin's not paying you, he should be - maybe not high six-figures but something. You make his case about as well as it can be made.

 

[UTChE96]

You've articulated a potentially good reason for the Europeans to act on Syria........ But from the US perspective, its one group of countries far away from us wants a gas pipeline through another country also far away from us. I just dont see how that's a legitimate justification for the US to start a war. Doubt the Congress would either

I certainly agree that the reasoning for the strikes was not clear and no strong justification for a hot war exists. However, I do think we have several indirect national interests at stake in the Syrian crisis - one of those being to reduce Russian energy dependence (and thus leverage) in Europe.

 

[Brad Austin]

Well it looks like the winds have shifted again. This is exactly what I expected to happen. The strike made a bold statement and soon it'll be back to business as usual in Syria.

Trump officials say no new U.S. focus on ousting Syria's Assad.

After last Tuesday's chemical attack, President Donald Trump said his attitude toward Assad "has changed very much" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson even said "steps are underway" to organize a coalition to remove him from power. But in a television interview that aired Sunday, Tillerson said the priority "really hasn't changed."

Defeating the Islamic State group remains the top focus, Tillerson said. Once that threat "has been reduced or eliminated, I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We're hopeful that we can prevent a continuation of the civil war and that we can bring the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions" between the Assad government and various rebel groups.

The hope, he said, is that "we can navigate a political outcome in which the Syrian people, in fact, will determine Bashar al-Assad's fate and his legitimacy."

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said "getting Assad out is not the only priority" and that countering Iran's influence in Syria was another. Still, Haley said the U.S. didn't see a peaceful future Syria with Assad in power.

"Regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria," Haley told CNN's 'State of the Union."

The comments from Tillerson and Haley suggested that the airstrikes Trump ordered punishing Assad for using chemical weapons would not lead to any immediate change in U.S. strategy toward Syria.

 

[Musburger1]

Well it looks like the winds have shifted again. This is exactly what I expected to happen. The strike made a bold statement and soon it'll be back to business as usual in Syria.

Trump officials say no new U.S. focus on ousting Syria's Assad.

After last Tuesday's chemical attack, President Donald Trump said his attitude toward Assad "has changed very much" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson even said "steps are underway" to organize a coalition to remove him from power. But in a television interview that aired Sunday, Tillerson said the priority "really hasn't changed."

Defeating the Islamic State group remains the top focus, Tillerson said. Once that threat "has been reduced or eliminated, I think we can turn our attention directly to stabilizing the situation in Syria," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We're hopeful that we can prevent a continuation of the civil war and that we can bring the parties to the table to begin the process of political discussions" between the Assad government and various rebel groups.

The hope, he said, is that "we can navigate a political outcome in which the Syrian people, in fact, will determine Bashar al-Assad's fate and his legitimacy."

Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said "getting Assad out is not the only priority" and that countering Iran's influence in Syria was another. Still, Haley said the U.S. didn't see a peaceful future Syria with Assad in power.

"Regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria," Haley told CNN's 'State of the Union."

The comments from Tillerson and Haley suggested that the airstrikes Trump ordered punishing Assad for using chemical weapons would not lead to any immediate change in U.S. strategy toward Syria.

The statements about bringing the parties to the table and bringing about a political solution is bull. At least they were a few months ago when Obama was President. The last time talks were scheduled, the US broke a ceasefire and "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces paving the way for an ISIS advance. This happened maybe 5 or 6 months ago.

This time, a chemical attack happened just prior to talks. Funny how every time Assad and his allies arrange discussions that potentially would lead to a breakthrough, something always comes up to which messes up the plan.

Zero Hedge reported this morning that Russia and Iran have now stated that if the US launches another attack against Syria, it will be met with force.

I believe either Trump, or more likely the people influencing his decision making, are batsh_t crazy.

 

[Brad Austin]

Zero Hedge reported this morning

Zero Hedge's business model is hell bent on pushing controversy, conspiracy, and impending catastrophe. 6 of the top 7 headlines there now...

Michael Savage Turns on Trump, Says Syrian Gas Attack Was False Flag Operation

False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

Russia, Iran Warn U.S. They Will "Respond With Force" If Syria "Red Lines" Crossed Again

"Guccifer 2.0" Chat With Nude Model Sparks New Conspiracy Theories About Seth Rich Murder

Government Shutdown Odds Are Rising, Goldman Warns

Hedge Fund CIO: "Expect Enormous Losses In The Next Correction As There Is No Price Discovery In Index Investing"

 

[Joe Fan]

Zero Hedge's business model is hell bent on pushing controversy, conspiracy, and impending catastrophe. ...

While that's true, they also get it right sometimes.

FWIW, Tyler Durden is a composite. And the different writers can have wildly different takes.

 

[I35]

We're as sure of it as we were that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program.

I believe our intelligence that testified Saddam did have WMD. We found a lab on wheel just like the intelligence testified. We found the shells that would be used for those bombings (give me your email on private message me I'll send the pics that my best friend standing on them in Iraq who is a Lt Colonel in the USAF. The problem is these things we found were after the fact from when testified.). So there were but not by the time we got there. He said CNN was even there to see it but never reported it. Anyway, are you saying that our administrations of the Bush and Trump era are lying the the American people? Because we found the proof in a lot of ways that they did have them. We were just too late getting there.

Obama isn't the standard by which we should follow, and again with the talk about genitals in what's supposed to be a serious topic (Americans being put at risk of death and serious bodily injury). What the hell?

.

Obama is the current standard unfortunately. A ton of new standards set by Obama including his over stepping with his executive orders.

I didn't actually call you a name. I told you not to commit the acts that would justify calling you a name.

Ok then if that's the case then quit being such a butt hurt.

 

[Joe Fan]

There is a lot of chatter out there about McMaster solidifying control at NSA, and that he has a plan drawn for 150k US troops in Syria

 

[Musburger1]

Zero Hedge's business model is hell bent on pushing controversy, conspiracy, and impending catastrophe. 6 of the top 7 headlines there now...

Michael Savage Turns on Trump, Says Syrian Gas Attack Was False Flag Operation

False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

Russia, Iran Warn U.S. They Will "Respond With Force" If Syria "Red Lines" Crossed Again

"Guccifer 2.0" Chat With Nude Model Sparks New Conspiracy Theories About Seth Rich Murder

Government Shutdown Odds Are Rising, Goldman Warns

Hedge Fund CIO: "Expect Enormous Losses In The Next Correction As There Is No Price Discovery In Index Investing"

Brad, ZeroHedge exists because the mainstream news is an echo chamber which marches lock step with the "Deep State" elements. With the rare exceptions of a Ron Paul and a handful of others, alternative views aren't put forth. If it weren't for cites such as ZeroHedge and DrudgeReport, public brainwashing would be even greater than what it is.

 

[Musburger1]

There is a lot of chatter out there about McMaster solidifying control as NSA, and that he has a plan drawn for 150k US troops in Syria

If true, this is insanity.

 

[Musburger1]

Most of you consider Greenwald to be a gay socialist that abetted that evil Putin-loving traitor Edward Snowden. Well, he writes some great articles. Here's the latest.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07...edia-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/

 

[Joe Fan]

Most of you ...

This is dangerous ground upon which you tread

 

[Musburger1]

How about...Many of you

 

[Joe Fan]

If true, this is insanity.

With Petraeus heavily involved in the planning

 

[Musburger1]

I'd ask for my vote back if there had been a real choice.

 

[Joe Fan]

There is a lot of chatter out there about McMaster solidifying control as NSA, ....

The Washing Times wrote back in February that Susan Rice (of all people) advised McMaster to purge the NSC of Trump loyalists. It does seem to be happening or perhaps already happened.

"Former Obama national security adviser Susan E. Rice on Monday urged her new counterpart in the Trump White House, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, to get rid of a national security wing led by presidential strategist Stephen Bannon....."​

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/20/susan-rice-urges-hr-mcmaster-get-rid-stephen-banno/

 

[Joe Fan]

I'd ask for my vote back .....

Not sure you have fully thought that through. For example, if you could turn back the clock and change things, then the Senate would have just confirmed the Death of the Constitution. Is that really what you would rather have happening right now?

In addition, Hillary would probably have been even more aggressive towards Assad.

 

[Joe Fan]

There is a lot of chatter out there about McMaster solidifying control as NSA, and that he has a plan drawn for 150k US troops in Syria

Here is some of McMaster's precise language from the Sunday shows

“We need to do everything we can. We need some kind of political solution to that very complex problem.”

“I’m not saying we are the ones to effect that change."

Russia and Iran -- "somehow think it’s OK to align with a murderous regime.”

On the idea of taking out ISIS while removing Assad at the same time -- “There has to be a degree of simultaneous action with some sequencing.”

Pointing a finger at Obama -- “This is the first time that the U.S. has acted to the atrocities of the Assad regime. The president will make whatever decision he thinks that is best for the American people.”​

Does this read to you like he is laying a case for US ground troops?

 

[Musburger1]

Here is some of McMaster's precise language from the Sunday shows

“We need to do everything we can. We need some kind of political solution to that very complex problem.”

“I’m not saying we are the ones to effect that change."

Russia and Iran -- "somehow think it’s OK to align with a murderous regime.”

On the idea of taking out ISIS while removing Assad at the same time -- “There has to be a degree of simultaneous action with some sequencing.”

Pointing a finger at Obama -- “This is the first time that the U.S. has acted to the atrocities of the Assad regime. The president will make whatever decision he thinks that is best for the American people.”​

Does this read to you like he is laying a case for US ground troops?

For several weeks at least, we have been increasing the number of troops in the region including within Syria. I don't know if the immediate goal is the removal of Assad or merely the partition of Syria.

Russia and Iran -- "somehow think it’s OK to align with a murderous regime.”​

This is propaganda. We have supported an "opposition" which includes horrendous murderers beyond even what Assad is suspected of perpetrating. This statement was purely for public consumption and not based in reality.

 

[Joe Fan]

...This is propaganda. We have supported an "opposition" which includes horrendous murderers beyond even what Assad is suspected of perpetrating. This statement was purely for public consumption and not based in reality.

This is also propaganda

 

[Musburger1]

This is also propaganda

But true.

 

[Brad Austin]

Brad, ZeroHedge exists because the mainstream news is an echo chamber

I understand this quite well. I exited the echo chamber long before election day. MSM collusion left many of us no choice.

There are many other sites besides ZeroHedge to find facts based reporting. Not to say they don't have credibility on some stories, just they overuse the 'throw mash potatoes at the wall and hope some of it sticks' approach. Not my thing.

I frequent Drudge, Townhall, Breitbart, and a few others. None of which closely resemble the way ZH does things. Even at those sites, I steer clear of opinion pieces. Not fond of being told what conclusions to make after we all have the public facts.

 

[Joe Fan]

But true.

lol

 

[Musburger1]

I understand this quite well. I exited the echo chamber long before election day. MSM collusion left many of us no choice.

There are many other sites besides ZeroHedge to find facts based reporting. Not to say they don't have credibility on some stories, just they overuse the 'throw mash potatoes at the wall and hope some of it sticks' approach. Not my thing.

I frequent Drudge, Townhall, Breitbart, and a few others. None of which closely resemble the way ZH does things. Even at those sites, I steer clear of opinion pieces. Not fond of being persuaded what conclusions to make after we all have the public facts.

Zerohedge probably puts out 30 to 40 articles per day. I agree much of it is to tantalize and generate eyeballs, but at the same time I appreciate what they do. It's up to the viewer to discern for themselves what makes sense and what is over the top.

Many times what they do is take an article or bit of news and put their own spin on it. I'm fine with that. That is what blogs are for. That's what we do here to some degree.

 

[Joe Fan]

Do we think there is any chance to negotiate Assad out of there?

Or, will Damascus have to be flattened to achieve this newly stated stated policy goal of "regime change?"

Is there a third way of accomplishing regime change?

 

[Musburger1]

lol

The opposition is lead by Suni extremists that want Sharia. They've kinapped citizens, stolen property, murdered Christians and others. A great percentage of them are foreign and come from all over the world. To pretend otherwise by not mentioning these facts as our government and media tend to do, is disingenuous.