(04-07-2017 12:16 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:13 AM)rainy Wrote:  Alex Jones just claimed talks are ongoing with Damascus to convince Assad to step down and leave and if he doesn't, strikes could come tonight or tomorrow.

And then who takes over?

No one good, that's who. At best it's an American/Western puppet who's going to have jihadists/extremists at his disposal to carry out whatever the globalist war-mongering agenda is, only with cover and no apparent connection to us to the masses at large.

Or, it's going to be jihad on jihad, tribes slaughtering one another over political and religious beliefs, pushing more refugees on Europe, kind of like every other place in the Middle East we've intervened.

(04-07-2017 12:35 AM)rainy Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:16 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 12:13 AM)rainy Wrote:  Alex Jones just claimed talks are ongoing with Damascus to convince Assad to step down and leave and if he doesn't, strikes could come tonight or tomorrow.

And then who takes over?

No one good, that's who. At best it's an American/Western puppet who's going to have jihadists/extremists at his disposal to carry out whatever the globalist war-mongering agenda is, only with cover and no apparent connection to us to the masses at large.

Or, it's going to be jihad on jihad, tribes slaughtering one another over political and religious beliefs, pushing more refugees on Europe, kind of like every other place in the Middle East we've intervened.

Basically, an absolute shitshow

So, to all the pro-putin, oh-noes-its-ww3 peoples. Lets take a small break.

What is putins response to this?

He isn't going nuclear, don't worry. Not over assad. Armored columns across the steppe towards the Crimea,well maybe.
He has no real conventional force projection outside his borders.
He can't slap economic sanctions on anyone.
He CAN ship more weapons, advisors, etc to potential hot spots.
He can't sustain endless air operations in Syria.
Its summer, he can't cut off the gas. And he needs the money.

?????

Say assad will leave in a negotiated settlement. Some of the other, more medieval, parties say FU.
Isolate assad, crush isis (via Kurds and iraqis). Split up syria on ethnic lines, its never going back as it was before.
And maybe get some sanctions lifted in exchange for negotiating the Ukraine question (whose borders BTW we guaranteed by treaty. Regardless of where Russia ends and Ukraine starts).

I think Trump might have bitchslapped everyone across the world, took out the whole him and putin are buddies angle, showed how much of a pussy obama was (and hey why was he spying on his domestic opponents instead of handling isis?)
and cornered the hillary mCcucks/media. If nothing else happens but talks, what are they going to say? Not enough blood?

The risk is pissing off his most loyal base, temporarily. When he is putting up a wall and dick slapping china, are you still going to pout?

Another aspect. Assad is Baath party, basically a mix of nazis, communism, and arab nationalism. ISIS is well 7th century.
I.E. Red on Red. Kinda like the Iran-Iraq war, but with more primitive weapons.

The only real party that is pro-US in the region are the Kurds. Fairly pro-western. Sitting on a lot of oil. A counterbalance to the turks?

Iran, hezbullah and hamas fit in here somewhere too, though I can' think of anything at the moment.

I think, looking at it from the current prospective (not the one this morning) this is a very shrewd calculated (but risky) move.

To everyone about to jump off the train, give it a couple of days. He's played everyone else in the media like chumps his whole life. Why stop now?

If he starts to advocate regime change and nation building and how we need more refugees from syria, well, lets revisit this question.

Also, it might give him cover to put more of his own people in charge.

Hasn't he pleasantly surprised us before?

ETA, I know I can't be the only one thinking this.
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-53767...pid1544328

(04-07-2017 12:13 AM)rainy Wrote:  Alex Jones just claimed talks are ongoing with Damascus to convince Assad to step down and leave and if he doesn't, strikes could come tonight or tomorrow.

Alex Jones doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. He's all-in on Trump and can't call him out for fear of losing out on the administration's favor.

Anyone who can't see tonight is a tragic moment for the nationalist and populist movement that Trump rode to the White House is in straight denial. Period.

In my opinion, this was a brilliant move by Trump, as has been argued by Scott Adams and others.

1. It was essentially cost-free. Even if this costs, say, $100 million, that is less than a rounding error in the $3.9 trillion federal budget. Also, no American lives were lost.

2. It is unlikely to result in any kind of direct military retaliation from the Syrians or Russians. Assad knows that attacking Americans would be equivalent to signing his own death warrant. The Russians won't risk an escalation. Plus, Putin respects strength.

3. Trump has, in a flash, buried the Russian conspiracy nonsense by acting in a way that is quite visibly contrary to Russian interests.

4. Trump's show of force has demonstrated to the North Koreans and Iranians that he is not afraid to take swift, devastating military action if pushed. This will give him a great deal of leverage in future negotiations/conflicts.

5. Trump also showed strength to China, which will give leverage on the North Korea issue primarily, but also on the South China Sea, Taiwan, and even trade. This is particularly so given that Trump gave the order and then dined with Xi and, apparently, personally informed him of what was happening. Alpha move.

6. This limited strike does not materially affect the fight against ISIS.

7. The Syrian civil war has been going on for more than six years. 14 million Syrians have been displaced and are now refugees pouring into the West. The status quo is not positive - notice the difference from Iraq, which was stable before the American intervention.

8. The chain of events, from Trump saying that Assad was fine (essentially), followed by the graphic images of children dying, followed by Trump's emotional reversal, will humanize Trump in the eyes of much of the public who have considered him the embodiment of evil. It deals a great blow to the "Trump is a heartless Nazi" narrative.

9. A successful military action (even if small) is a great way for a president to build political capital early in his presidency. Notice that very few politicians on either side of the aisle have said they disagree with what Trump did. Watch his approval numbers (whether they are to be believed or not) shoot up in the next few days. This will help him get his way on the truly important stuff (immigration, trade, taxes).


Of course, much of the above depends on what happens next. There are risks, but as of now, that is where we stand. I highly doubt this is a prelude to a ground war or even to American pilots in the air above Syria, although, of course, only time will tell.

I've been disappointed to see some people (e.g. Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter) turn on Trump so quickly. Questioning and disagreeing with the decision are perfectly reasonable, and should in fact be encouraged. Completely disavowing him is a different story. When a man leads you to a great victory against seemingly impossible odds, at great personal risk, you do not abandon him at the first disagreement. Loyalty is a high virtue.

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  7. The chain of events, from Trump saying that Assad was fine (essentially), followed by the graphic images of children dying, followed by Trump's emotional reversal, will humanize Trump in the eyes of much of the public who have considered him the embodiment of evil. It deals a great blow to the "Trump is a heartless Nazi" narrative.

Pretty bad that Trump sees a picture of a dead baby and is ready to declare war.

Trump will always be a Nazi in the eyes of the media and leftist opponents nothing he can do to shake that. Nazis were warmongers and Trump launching missiles actually puts him closer to a Nazi than away from it.

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  8. A successful military action (even if small) is a great way for a president to build political capital early in his presidency.

And complete contradict his campaign promises of no needless foreign interventions. Plus alienate a huge part of his base.

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  Watch his approval numbers (whether they are to be believed or not) shoot up in the next few days.

Polls aka good goy points

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  I've been disappointed to see some people (e.g. Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter) turn on Trump so quickly. Questioning and disagreeing with the decision are perfectly reasonable, and should in fact be encouraged. Completely disavowing him is a different story. When a man leads you to a great victory against seemingly impossible odds, at great personal risk, you do not abandon him at the first disagreement. Loyalty is a high virtue.

What about Trump's loyalty to his campaign promises and voters? Loyalty goes both ways and many of us were drawn to him for his anti-interventionist and American first policies. Today a huge part of that appeared to be bullshit.

I don't buy the idea that this is a 4D chess move that "weakens the Russia narrative". Since when was that narrative based on any tangible statements, moves and/or facts?

For God's sake, this is the media that ran headlines about Trump's secret golden shower orgies in Moscow hotels! They don't give a fuck about what you did before or if it makes any sense! How will ANYONE who gets their news from the media be persuaded by Trump doing something anti-Russian?

The key is not to please the media or rely on them to spread some "counterpoint" or whatever, the key is to ruin and ignore the media so that people stop following it. I don't see how what Trump is doing will have any effect on this.

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  I've been disappointed to see some people (e.g. Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter) turn on Trump so quickly. Questioning and disagreeing with the decision are perfectly reasonable, and should in fact be encouraged. Completely disavowing him is a different story. When a man leads you to a great victory against seemingly impossible odds, at great personal risk, you do not abandon him at the first disagreement. Loyalty is a high virtue.

Loyalty is one thing; unquestioning loyalty is another. And principles sometimes have to come first. In this case, PJW and the others turning on Trump are quite rightly pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy that Trump is engaging in: from screaming that we need to get the fuck out of Syria and points east in 2013 and four years later being the first President to openly throw military hardware at Syrian real estate. Trump was meant to be a military nationalist, i.e. fucking spend the defence budget protecting the US and those of its allies who've given blood and gold for its support in the past, not go acting as the military arm of the UN.

Lest we need to underline the point again, this sort of shit is exactly how the US wound up in what is getting on a 15 year war in Iraq with still no exit plan and no end to the sectarian bullshit in sight. This sort of Austria-Hungary/Serbia 2.0 crap is how fucking world wars get started and how millions of people die in conventional and nuclear firestorms. This type of cowboys-and-indians stageshow is how, in the background, the US skyrockets past the 120% debt-to-GDP ratio, your college degree winds up with less value than a square of toilet paper, and the US slowly creeps toward a socialist, transgender dystopia.

If, as President, Trump can't afford the luxury of principles anymore, fine for him. Doesn't mean everyone else has to give up theirs.

Look at the fucking insanity of this situation. It's the far Right begging him not to get into a Middle Eastern war, and the fucking Left is praising him for dropping bombs on aircraft hangars and the janitor's Honda! Ten years back it was literally the reverse.

Lets look at the other players in the game. Think of what they really want and what options do they have.
Hint, open full scale unrestricted warfare (ETA, outside the region), much less thermonuclear exchanges are not it.

Russia - with proxy syria, (and I think we should include chechneya).

Iran - with proxy of syria, hezbullah

Turkey- supposedly with proxy of isis or some such 'rebels'.

Kurds

Saudi arabia (and to some extent other gulf states) - proxy of hamas, some 'rebels'

Outside observers with keen interests

China- proxy norks

Australia - who will they side with more?
India
Pakistan
Egypt
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
(ETA) General Domestic Opinion in the US

I have a feeling this was a setup by someone (iran, mcains peoples, isis?, possibly not revelent at this point) that was flipped on them.

This is Trump's first foreign policy test. Everyone knew it was coming.
Bush's first test - Chinese fighter collides with US maritime plane
Obama's first test - none really, he opened his ass cheeks pretty early on.
Trump's first test - gas attack

TL;DR wait a few days before completely tripping out.

(04-06-2017 10:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If involvement in the Middle East is restrained to just air strikes and small scale interventions, I will be okay because this is still much less than what Clinton was promising.

This is the worst thing I have ever seen you write on this forum.

Bar none.

I wrote a long-winded response to Trump's military strike on Syria for my website. I'm posting it in full here. For those wondering, I use a pen name.

https://wethevigilant.com/2017/04/07/sta...supporter/

Quote:Hello everyone, Benjamin Knight here.

I’m going to abandon the usual APA, journalistic writing style to post something directly from the heart. At this time, it’s important for me to get a few things off my chest.

To say I am disappointed with Donald Trump’s recent military action in Syria would be an understatement. I was willing to give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt following a press conference directly after the Syrian chemical weapons attack, but today he crossed a line.

Firing missiles into a sovereign nation without conducting a serious investigation into the findings (so-called) of the intelligence community is downright reckless and unconstitutional. Nobody within the Trump administration, neither the president himself nor his secretary of state, provided even a shred of evidence proving the Assad regime was responsible for the sarin gas attack.

The president didn’t even bother to confer with Congress before making this decision, something he criticized Barack Obama for in 2013.

In 24 hours, Donald Trump took a 180 degree turn on foreign policy – flip flopping from a non-interventionist stance to a war-hawk neocon approach based on video footage of an attack that likely had nothing to do with the Syrian government, which is fighting CIA-backed “rebels” (ISIS).

There is only one explanation for this sudden change in the president’s behavior:

The deep state has fully hijacked the White House.

Prior to the election, the shadow government had two major choices. One of them was Hillary Clinton, the Bilderberg pick for president who would have gladly done the dirty deeds of the establishment. The other, a maverick whose catchphrase “America first” was a direct shot to the globalist power structure. He was uncontrollable, so the elites did everything to stop him.

That is, until he won. Then, the shadow government agenda shifted from stopping Trump to undermining Trump.

They succeeded.

Just three months into Trump’s presidency, the elites have fully neutralized his administration. How? Their totally manufactured McCarthyite Russian conspiracy.

The globalist elites and their surrogates in the media created the Trump/Putin narrative to manipulate this administration into abandoning its foreign policy promises, namely Trump's promise to pull back from the Syrian conflict and work with the Russians to demolish ISIS.

Today, the president finds himself surrounded by establishment war-hawks who are telling him to adopt neocon policies to “prove” he isn’t beholden to Putin.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the current state of Trump’s presidency. It appears the deep state outsmarted the maverick.

I have so much respect and admiration for Donald J. Trump and I support his domestic agenda. However, I will NOT stand for perpetual war in the Middle East when I was promised the opposite. I will gladly jump off the Trump train faster than I jumped on if the president plunges us into another failed conflict that will endlessly feed the military industrial complex.

There must be an immediate change of course with regard to foreign policy, even if that means the president is forever labeled a “Russian agent.”

Nothing was going to stop the left from demonizing him anyway.

Mr. President, please come to your senses and bring the old Trump back. The guy who told Crooked Hillary to her face that he’d put her in jail. The guy who lambasted Jeb Bush on a Republican debate stage for the disastrous Iraq war. The guy who said globalism would not be our credo.

The guy who vowed to put AMERICA FIRST.

I’m not sure where that guy went, but I’d like him back now more than ever.

I never expected that Trump will turn things around, he just won us a few years to gather more resources to survive the coming really bad times. Use it wisely.

The old saying used to go:

You can please some of the people all of time,
and all of the people some of the time, but
you can't please all of the people all of the time.

This thread has made me realize that the first two no longer apply to our society. As a society, we're running on fumes and hanging by a thread.

(04-06-2017 11:33 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  My fear is the (((globalists))) came up with a "heads win we, tails you lose" scenario involving the 2016 presidential election.

Option 1: Clinton wins.

This was obviously their preferred option, as Clinton would happily do their bidding. Continue with business as usual.

Option 2: Trump wins.

The massive smear campaign perpetrated by mainstream media, Hollywood, etc., would obviously suggest the (((globalists))) did NOT want Trump to win, either because they were uncertain he'd go along with their schemes (based off his campaign rhetoric) or they didn't have enough leverage on him (yet) to ensure he would.

I'm prepared to be wrong on this, and hopefully I am, but it's looking like they found a way of getting to Trump.

I'm not hopping off the Trump Train just yet, but I will be monitoring this situation very closely. This is the first time I've actually had doubts about Trump's loyalties. I don't know what to think. Seems the game plan was either to get Hillary to go after Russia directly, or to create a Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy to coerce Trump into taking action against Syria/Russia to "prove" he isn't with them.

I sincerely hope the "right path" won't lead us to the same destination the "left path" would have.

Totally agree.

You know what I'm thinking - he got "the phone call" and they threatened little Barron. That handsome kid - I'd hate to see anything happen to him. Or maybe his grandkids. Perhaps that's why he was so ticked off about babies getting gassed .

It makes total sense. The elites aren't gods with absolute power (yet). To all those feeling betrayed by Trump look at what he was able to do - just the campaign he ran and all the things he was able to say. The fact that he won amidst the ridiculous multi-billion smear campaign against him. Then his first few weeks in office, making at least some headway with the wall, and throwing a middle finger at the establishment with the travel ban.

I highly doubt Trump didn't know what he was getting into. Maybe all he wanted to do was do his best and see how far he could get, at least try. Maybe also show us how much reach the elites have. I have to admit that I'm surprised he was able just to get into office, much less start meddling with the narrative once in office, even if it was just for a few weeks. But with that being said, you have to wonder why someone with so much to lose; such a big family and so much wealth, would knowingly go into this with his intentions. Maybe he simply didn't know.

The elites want Assad's head and badly for some reason. Maybe it's just him being a secular leader bringing order to a Muslim majority nation, or maybe it's because Syria doesn't have a non-Rothschild owned bank, I have no idea. Obama never did any conventional military action because it doesn't support the narrative, that's what the Republican presidents are supposed to do. As a result, it was non-publicized drone strikes and CIA regime changes. They probably thought they could take out Assad without conventional military action but then Russia ran interference for some reason and threw a monkey wrench into their plans.

The elites then drummed up "muh Aleppo" and compared it to the Holocaust complete with Martha Raddatz crying, as well as the bad Russia narrative to prep the public for Hillary possibly leading military action, but that it would strictly be due to human rights issues instead of WMDs. The establishment was adamant in preserving Obama's "legacy." This also explains why he didn't lead any conventional military action - things are going to get messy and it would tarnish his "legacy" . Now that Trump is president and he's a republican, they're sick of waiting and don't care what his campaign promises are. So they threatened him, staged an attack, told him what to say, and here we are.

The question now is, how will Russia be dealt with? The elites don't want nuclear war, they want their planet to be nice for themselves later on. Putin for some reason is not going along with the plan. Perhaps there will be stronger and more numerous attempts to assassinate him in the near future? Or maybe they'll threaten him too and he'll go along? We will just have to wait and see.

And then of course there's the beating of the war drums with North Korea as well.....

While Trump's neoconnery sucks balls, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Short of starting WWIII complete with strategic ballistic missile exchange, foreign policy bullshit in the middle east isn't that important in the greater scheme of things. I don't much care if Trump bombs some Syrians, if I had a sister and those guys could rape her they'd do so in a heartbeat. These guys are not our friends and my heart doesn't go out for them (or their "poison gassed babies" for that matter). Look how they behave in Europe.

Does it suck that we're wasting money and potentially lives by fucking shit up in the middle east again? Sure, if I had my choice we'd do without it. With that said, I made my peace during the election, when I realized just how chummy Trump was with a great number of (((the very best people, folks))), with the fact that cucking for Israel was almost certainly going to be on the menu. One doesn't simply get the tacit support of people like Sheldon Adelson and explicit support of people like Steve Wynn and Steve Mnuchin by not cucking for Israel.

There are bigger stakes here. Those stakes are, are we going to retain demographic control of the United States of America, the world's number one superpower? So long as we maintain demographic majority, there is at least the hope and potential that one day, the population will become uncucked, see who truly runs shit on the top, and come out with pitchforks to root those rat bastards out and seize control of the country (and thus the world) from the subversive usurpers and back into the hands of those who built it and sustain it still.

If we lose demographic control, we're toast. Getting uncucked won't do us any good then, we'll be surrounded and slowly or not so slowly destroyed. That's why much as I don't like the Syria shit, I'm much more 'meh' about it than I was about DACA. The immigration issue, to the extent that immigration rather than demographic inertia even matters at this point, is the big one. If Trump delivers on that one he can cuck for Israel till the schnitzels come home.

But he's definitely on notice now. The benefit of the doubt should basically be gone at this point. it's all about "what have you done for me lately" from this point forward.

Russian Reaction:
   

   
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/07/russia-say...s-6559106/

Quote:The Kremlin has warned that the overnight bombing of Syria by the US do ‘significant damage’ to US-Russia ties.
Putin described the missile strike as ‘aggression’ and a ‘violation of international law’.

US launches air strike on Syria firing 60 cruise missiles at airbase

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov was cited as saying that the Russian leader, a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, regarded the US action as ‘aggression against a sovereign nation’ on a ‘made-up pretext’ and as a cynical attempt to distract the world from civilian deaths in Iraq.

Peskov was quoted as saying that Russia did not believe that Syria possessed chemical weapons and that the U.S. move would inevitably create a serious obstacle to creating an international coalition to fight terrorism, an idea that Putin has repeatedly pushed.

‘This step by Washington inflicts considerable damage to US-Russia relations, which are already in a lamentable state,’ Peskov added.

A Syrian official said that the US missile attack that hit military targets in central Syria has killed three soldiers and two civilians.

Britain has backed the missile strike saying it was an ‘appropriate response’ to the Assad regime’s ‘barbaric’ chemical attack.
Talal Barazi, the governor of Homs province, said seven others were wounded in the early Friday attack. He had earlier said a fire raged in the air base in Homs for over an hour following the barrage of missiles.
A Syrian opposition monitor said the attack killed four soldiers, including a general.

The attack came in fiery retaliation for this week’s gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians.

A survivor of the chemical attack in a northern Syrian town says he hopes the US missile attack could help put an end to Syrian government airstrikes, creating a safe area for civilians.

Alaa Alyousef, a 27-year old resident of Khan Sheikhoun, said Friday the U.S. missile attack ‘alleviates a small part of our sufferings,’ but he worries it will be like ‘anesthetics,’ to save face. AlYousef said the U.S. is capable of ‘paralyzing’ Syrian warplanes .
‘What good is a strike on Shayart air base alone while we have more than 15 other air bases,’ he said. Alyousef lost at least 25 relatives in this week’s gruesome chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun. The Syrian government denies it was behind the attack, believed to have deployed chemical weapons.

As much as we'd all like to believe that this is some kind of strategic master-stroke, if Trump ran onto the Whitehouse lawn naked and smeared himself with his own faeces there would be no shortage of people screaming 4D CHESS!!!1!1!

Pure...



4 months ago this forum was elated by the idea that we weren't going to be playing flinch with Russia for four years and wake up one day to the sight of mushroom clouds. Suddenly we're supposed to believe that some dead kids in Syria and a hostile and hated old-media demand for action is grounds for pummelling a sovereign nation's military airstrip with dozens of missiles because 4D CHESS!!!1!1 and "he has to prove he's not a Russian puppet to the actual people who fabricated the story of him being a Russian puppet."

(04-07-2017 02:07 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  If we lose demographic control, we're toast. Getting uncucked won't do us any good then, we'll be surrounded and slowly or not so slowly destroyed. That's why much as I don't like the Syria shit, I'm much more 'meh' about it than I was about DACA. The immigration issue, to the extent that immigration rather than demographic inertia even matters at this point, is the big one. If Trump delivers on that one he can cuck for Israel till the schnitzels come home.

Right, because more refugees going to Europe and starting WW3 will be easier to handle than fat Mexicans on welfare.

(04-07-2017 02:00 AM)kamoz Wrote:  The elites want Assad's head and badly for some reason. Maybe it's just him being a secular leader bringing order to a Muslim majority nation, or maybe it's because Syria doesn't have a non-Rothschild owned bank, I have no idea. Obama never did any conventional military action because it doesn't support the narrative, that's what the Republican presidents are supposed to do. As a result, it was non-publicized drone strikes and CIA regime changes. They probably thought they could take out Assad without conventional military action but then Russia ran interference for some reason and threw a monkey wrench into their plans.

There are several possibilities and things to note here:

(1) Israeli interests. Israel profits off sectarian chaos in Muslim countries surrounding it because it encourages more US support to protect it and has the bonus of keeping any regional Islamic power from getting organised enough to threaten it conventionally. In the first twenty years of its foundations, Israel had to fight off multiple Muslim nations allied against it. Those powers included (if I remember right) Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Except for Iran there is no credible Muslim nation state in there that could mount a conventional war against Israel anymore: the whole area has been converted into a shitshow with the very notable exception of Israel and Iran ... and until the civil war got underway, Syria as well. Yes, it's more theoretically dangerous since every Muslim in the Middle East wants to blow Israel off the map as much as if not more than the US, but disorganised offensives against the Israelis are a lot easier to beat off than entire organised nations coming at them.

(2) Russian interests. Basically, Syria is a longstanding ally of Russia. It is a safe port in the Mediterranean. Russia doesn't want to easily give up that resource.

(3) Sunni/Shia interests. Assad's people are Alawite, a form of Shia while the majority population is Sunni. Shia and Alawites are really not liked by the Sunni ... and Wahhabist Islam, i.e. the form that generates ISIS and Al-Qaeda, is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, from whom most terrorists ultimately flow, tends to generate Sunni terrorists. Some Sunni clerics have said Shia are closely associated with America and that they need to burn as much as any Christian or Yazidi. There are forces in the Middle East that want complete dominance of Sunni belief systems; about the only places where there is a Shia majority now are Iraq and Iran.

That's before we get into concerns about oil.

Quote:And then of course there's the beating of the war drums with North Korea as well.....

It's a very different story here since North Korea firing off a nuke towards Japan or Hawaii would not just be war against the US, it would be war on the United Nations. The war in Korea -- as with the first Gulf War -- was a UN-sanctioned incursion, with the United States leading part of an official UN coalition of forces dissolved when the Armistice Agreement was signed.

North Korea has said 6 times it doesn't consider itself bound by the armistice agreement, but if it went so far as to start a shooting war with South Korea or anyone else, there'd be an immediate rationale to have the UN assemble and bring the fight back on. The Korean War is technically still going on: it's one of the longest ceasefires in history, not a complete cessation of hostilities. I'm more worried about the prospect of nukes in a new Korean War, but less concerned about the legalities: if Kim fires off a nuke, half the Korean peninsula will be a smoking cinder about thirty minutes later.

Thank goodness for Vladimir Putin.

Meanwhile, while everyone is looking at Syria,....look at what is happening in the baltic states bordering Russia

Quote:U.S. Responds to Russian Invasion Fears in Lithuania with NATO Military Drills
By Tom O'Connor On 4/6/1

http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-tank...lls-580018

The U.S. and Lithuanian militaries have joined forces to conduct military exercises as part of a larger initiative to prepare and integrate NATO's defenses in a region where tensions have run high between the Western military alliance and Russia. U.S. Army soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division partnered with Lithuanian troops Tuesday to vie for control over a simulated battlefield outside Rukla, Lithuania. Throughout the joint exercise, a Lithuanian platoon and U.S. infantry took the offense, while a second Lithuanian platoon and a U.S. tank platoon assumed defensive positions. The drills, known as "Savage Wolf," were intended to help U.S, troops familiarize themselves with a foreign land and gave both forces an opportunity to learn from one another's tactics. "It's unknown territory, everything's new," Spc. Curtis Lichter, 3rd platoon, Barbarian Company, said, according to the Army's official news site. "You don't get a chance to oversee the area, you're hidden before you hit it. You get your graphics and whatnot, but once you're on the ground, it's your first time. That's nice."

"Sometimes we think we can do everything on our own, from both sides actually," 1st Lt. Mykolas Rutkauskas, the battalion executive officer for 2nd Company, said in a press release published Thursday by United Press International. "From the tank sides, from our infantry sides, but when we are working together we see that we can still have areas to go and work on." The exercises, which began Monday with both sides planning their maneuvers, coincided with the release of a threat assessment report by Lithuania's intelligence service that said Russia would be able to attack the Baltic states with as little as 24 hours' notice. All three Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—have joined NATO and expressed concern over Moscow's influence in Europe. Since Russia annexed the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014, NATO has vowed to build its military power along Russia's borders, something Moscow has said it considered warmongering behavior. NATO and Russia have since undergone parallel military escalations and conducted opposing military drills in strategic regions of Europe.

Quote:British tanks join NATO battle group in Estonia

Posted 23 Mar 2017 01:35

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/worl...17642.html

TALLINN: British army equipment including tanks and self-propelled guns on Wednesday (Mar 22) arrived by boat in Estonia, part of a NATO move to reinforce its eastern flank to deter a militarily resurgent Russia, according to Estonia's defence forces. The 130 units of equipment arrived at the Paldiski seaport in northern Estonia but will be transferred to the town of Tapa to join the 200 British troops and 50 French soldiers already there. By mid-April more than 800 British troops and nearly 300 French troops will be stationed in Estonia. A Danish contingent will replace the French later this year. NATO decided at a July 2016 summit to deploy its troops to the Baltic states and Poland as a tripwire against Russian adventurism in states formerly under Moscow's control. Apart from the British-led battalion in Estonia, Canada will lead a multinational battalion in Latvia, Germany in Lithuania and the US in Poland. Tensions between Russia and the West have escalated over the past two years, triggered by Russia's actions in Ukraine and its military campaign in Syria since late 2015.

Quote:Russia to send the world's largest submarine to the Baltic: Monster sub armed with 20 nuclear missiles to sail into NATOs 'swimming pool' as Putin flexes his muscles

Massive Typhoon-class sub Dmitry Donskoy is to leave the White Sea and travel around Norway and Denmark.
Measuring an enormous 574-foot in length the Russian vessel it is one of the most feared of the Cold War era.
The beast set to serve as a chilling reminder to the rest of the world about Russia's growing nuclear prowess.
Submarine can stay submerged for 120 days with a crew of 160 on board and is fitted with six torpedo tubes.

By Gareth Davies For Mailonline

Published: 16:28 BST, 6 April 2017 | Updated: 18:19 BST, 6 April 2017


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...altic.html


Russia has flexed its nuclear muscles once again by sending the world's largest submarine with an arsenal of 200 weapons on board including 20 nuclear missiles to the Baltic Sea. The massive Typhoon-class sub called Dmitry Donskoy is to leave the White Sea and travel around Norway and Denmark into what Putin's officials are calling NATO's swimming pool. Measuring 574-foot in length and equipped with a total of 200 deadly weapons, it is one of the most feared vessels of the Cold War era. The Kremlin is scheduled to parade the submarine in St Petersburg, but is set to serve as a chilling reminder to the rest of the world about Russia's nuclear prowess. Eerily, the Dmitry Donskoy - named after the Prince of Moscow who reigned from 1359 to 1389 - can stay submerged for periods of up to 120 days and is fitted with six torpedo tubes. Typhoon-class submarines feature multiple pressure hulls that simplify internal design while making the vessel much wider than a normal submarine. In the main body of the sub, two long pressure hulls lie parallel with a third, smaller pressure hull above them which protrudes just below the sail, and two other pressure hulls for torpedoes and steering gear. This design greatly increases their chances of survival — even if one pressure hull is breached, the crew members in the other are safe and there is less potential for flooding. It is big enough to hold a crew of 160 on board.

Maybe this was his final adrenaline rush before calming down permanently and accepting his elderly-ness.

He's fucked models, driven Ferraris, done billion-dollar deals. Playing war with expensive toys was the last check on his bucket list hopefully.

(04-07-2017 02:34 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  Maybe this was his final adrenaline rush before calming down permanently and accepting his elderly-ness.

He's fucked models, driven Ferraris, done billion-dollar deals. Playing war with expensive toys was the last check on his bucket list hopefully.

He still has to send someone to Mars to plant a Trump flag.

(04-07-2017 02:25 AM)Travesty Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:07 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  If we lose demographic control, we're toast. Getting uncucked won't do us any good then, we'll be surrounded and slowly or not so slowly destroyed. That's why much as I don't like the Syria shit, I'm much more 'meh' about it than I was about DACA. The immigration issue, to the extent that immigration rather than demographic inertia even matters at this point, is the big one. If Trump delivers on that one he can cuck for Israel till the schnitzels come home.

Right, because more refugees going to Europe and starting WW3 will be easier to handle than fat Mexicans on welfare.

Europe can go fuck itself, if they didn't want to be raped and killed by "refugees" they wouldn't be sending their entire navy to Libyan coastal waters and ferrying assorted Africans and Arabs across the Mediterranean
like its the fucking Cunard Line. They'll find a way to get their hands on the desired rapefugee quota regardless of what the US does in the middle east, don't you worry about that.

And it's not fat Mexicans on welfare we should be worried about. It's about the kinds of things skinny, clever weasels like a Jared Kushner will be able to dream up for us when Mexicans fat and happy on welfare and anti-white propaganda are the electorate that will be "answered to." Wouldn't want to be your ass then..

(04-07-2017 02:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  There are several possibilities and things to note here:

(1) Israeli interests. Israel profits off sectarian chaos in Muslim countries surrounding it because it encourages more US support to protect it and has the bonus of keeping any regional Islamic power from getting organised enough to threaten it conventionally. In the first twenty years of its foundations, Israel had to fight off multiple Muslim nations allied against it. Those powers included (if I remember right) Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Except for Iran there is no credible Muslim nation state in there that could mount a conventional war against Israel anymore: the whole area has been converted into a shitshow with the very notable exception of Israel and Iran ... and until the civil war got underway, Syria as well. Yes, it's more theoretically dangerous since every Muslim in the Middle East wants to blow Israel off the map as much as if not more than the US, but disorganised offensives against the Israelis are a lot easier to beat off than entire organised nations coming at them.

(2) Russian interests. Basically, Syria is a longstanding ally of Russia. It is a safe port in the Mediterranean. Russia doesn't want to easily give up that resource.

(3) Sunni/Shia interests. Assad's people are Alawite, a form of Shia while the majority population is Sunni. Shia and Alawites are really not liked by the Sunni ... and Wahhabist Islam, i.e. the form that generates ISIS and Al-Qaeda, is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, from whom most terrorists ultimately flow, tends to generate Sunni terrorists. Some Sunni clerics have said Shia are closely associated with America and that they need to burn as much as any Christian or Yazidi. There are forces in the Middle East that want complete dominance of Sunni belief systems; about the only places where there is a Shia majority now are Iraq and Iran.

That's before we get into concerns about oil.

All very good points, and I certainly do think the petro dollar plays into it with regards to oil. I guess in a sense there are lower level interests and (((higher level))) interests.

(04-07-2017 02:26 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  It's a very different story here since North Korea firing off a nuke towards Japan or Hawaii would not just be war against the US, it would be war on the United Nations. The war in Korea -- as with the first Gulf War -- was a UN-sanctioned incursion, with the United States leading part of an official UN coalition of forces dissolved when the Armistice Agreement was signed.

North Korea has said 6 times it doesn't consider itself bound by the armistice agreement, but if it went so far as to start a shooting war with South Korea or anyone else, there'd be an immediate rationale to have the UN assemble and bring the fight back on. The Korean War is technically still going on: it's one of the longest ceasefires in history, not a complete cessation of hostilities. I'm more worried about the prospect of nukes in a new Korean War, but less concerned about the legalities: if Kim fires off a nuke, half the Korean peninsula will be a smoking cinder about thirty minutes later.

The sources that say that North Korea launched a missile here, or has a nuclear program there, are the same sources that say Iraq had WMDs or that this recent chemical attack occurred, only difference is that it's been talked about for a longer period of time.

Do you still believe all that now?