Post: #61601

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.

Post: #61602

(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.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #61603

(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..

Post: #61604

(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?

Post: #61605

(04-06-2017 10:20 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I agree with Scott Adams, but I'm unnerved after watching FOX news this past hour, because there's no dissent. Every guest they've brought on thinks this was a good idea. Hannity likes it. Rubio likes it. Gingrich really likes it. Everyone likes it.

Yep. This is like March 2003 all over again.

We've learned nothing......

Seems to the consensus across all the networks:

Even Breitbart is cucking on this. Comments on the site appear to be disabled. Disabling the comments is a great way for the media to force their narrative. Will be curious to see what the polls all say about approval of this operation.

I watched MSNBC tonight. They weren't waxing ecstatic, but they were clearly pleased by this.

Each Tomahawk missile costs $1.4 million. Just in hardware, this operation cost the US taxpayer $82.6 million dollars. The Navy will replace those missiles in their inventory. Raytheon builds these missiles. Raytheon just got a $82.6 million dollar pay day.

It's safe to assume that the shareholders at Raytheon are among the same people who are shareholders at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

Post: #61606

(04-07-2017 02:47 AM)kamoz Wrote:  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?

I think there's enough evidence of exactly how brutal that regime is. There's also that the North Korean regime itself regularly publicises its missile tests and whatnot, it's not like this information is being manufactured by the MSM as such. That aside, twenty, thirty years' worth of defector reports and smuggled photos is pretty hard to fake. Assad and Saddam have nothing on the North Koreans; I don't remember Assad executing his opponents via anti-aircraft gun. Let alone that China doesn't particularly defend the regime either other than it being a communist buffer on its borders. If we had to get conspiratorial, I would only note that there ain't much oil in North Korea and it's literally half a world away from (((tribal interests.)))

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #61607

(04-07-2017 02:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:47 AM)kamoz Wrote:  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?

I think there's enough evidence of exactly how brutal that regime is. There's also that the North Korean regime itself regularly publicises its missile tests and whatnot, it's not like this information is being manufactured by the MSM as such. That aside, twenty, thirty years' worth of defector reports and smuggled photos is pretty hard to fake. Assad and Saddam have nothing on the North Koreans; I don't remember Assad executing his opponents via anti-aircraft gun. Let alone that China doesn't particularly defend the regime either other than it being a communist buffer on its borders. If we had to get conspiratorial, I would only note that there ain't much oil in North Korea and it's literally half a world away from (((tribal interests.)))

Regardless, it's none of our business how brutal the North Korean regime, or any other regime, is. I can understand taking out the fuckers to gain access to hot Korean women, but to police the regime's brutality? Not worth a single American life or dollar.

Post: #61608

Paul Joseph Watson's reaction to these events shines another light on how difficult a situation this is and how it's still too early to decide what to make of it:

--> Because Watson jumped off the Trump Train, some accuse him of being a shill for the Jews (who presumably don't like Trump).
--> Had he instead supported the attack, he would have been accused of supporting America's role as Israel's puppet, thus proving that "he's a shill for the Jews!"

Some debates aren't winnable because the question posed is flawed. Some decisions Presidents must make aren't possible to make successfully because the situations presented are flawed. It would be nice to see us concentrating our energies on defeating chess opponents rather than ripping on our side's player.

It's painful to watch leftists shouting "He will not divide us!" now circle-jerking to the thought of watching him divide us

Post: #61609

Samseau - I am afraid the beer is on you.

Meet the new boss, he is like the old boss.

Sure - he is more like Bush than Obama or Hillary, but aside from a wall being built (still not 100% certain that it will be done), then I don't see much change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/...ime-syria/

Another secular Muslim leader set to go.

This is the beginning of the end of Assad and of Syria.

The last time a chemical attack happened in Syria the UN found out that the moderate beheaders were doing it.

There is literally zero zero zero reason for Assad to do something as stupid as poisoning his own population. The only parties who have something to gain from this are the joint coalition of ISIS/Islamists/CIA/DeepState/globalists.

I agree with that girl:

I would have voted for Trump just the same because at least it angered the left, but I did not expect too much of him. Sadly I was not mistaken.

I expect an Iran war within the next 7 years.

Bush destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Obama fucked up Libya and initiated the glorious color revolutions, Trump will finish Syria and maybe tackle the biggest kid on the block - Iran.

As I said before - we cannot vote our way out of the system, we can at best hold off some minor issues.

Trump is not a bad guy, but he will do whatever his masters tell him to do on the things that matter.

Post: #61610

(04-07-2017 03:00 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:54 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:47 AM)kamoz Wrote:  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?

I think there's enough evidence of exactly how brutal that regime is. There's also that the North Korean regime itself regularly publicises its missile tests and whatnot, it's not like this information is being manufactured by the MSM as such. That aside, twenty, thirty years' worth of defector reports and smuggled photos is pretty hard to fake. Assad and Saddam have nothing on the North Koreans; I don't remember Assad executing his opponents via anti-aircraft gun. Let alone that China doesn't particularly defend the regime either other than it being a communist buffer on its borders. If we had to get conspiratorial, I would only note that there ain't much oil in North Korea and it's literally half a world away from (((tribal interests.)))

Regardless, it's none of our business how brutal the North Korean regime, or any other regime, is. I can understand taking out the fuckers to gain access to hot Korean women, but to police the regime's brutality? Not worth a single American life or dollar.

Possibly not, but the Japanese and South Korean airbases and probably intel facilities are going to be important to defend from nuclear fireballs. You'll need that shit later when it comes to war with China.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #61611

(04-07-2017 02:51 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:20 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:17 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I agree with Scott Adams, but I'm unnerved after watching FOX news this past hour, because there's no dissent. Every guest they've brought on thinks this was a good idea. Hannity likes it. Rubio likes it. Gingrich really likes it. Everyone likes it.

Yep. This is like March 2003 all over again.

We've learned nothing......

Seems to the consensus across all the networks:

Even Breitbart is cucking on this. Comments on the site appear to be disabled. Disabling the comments is a great way for the media to force their narrative. Will be curious to see what the polls all say about approval of this operation.

I watched MSNBC tonight. They weren't waxing ecstatic, but they were clearly pleased by this.

Each Tomahawk missile costs $1.4 million. Just in hardware, this operation cost the US taxpayer $82.6 million dollars. The Navy will replace those missiles in their inventory. Raytheon builds these missiles. Raytheon just got a $82.6 million dollar pay day.

It's safe to assume that the shareholders at Raytheon are among the same people who are shareholders at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

I hope you all realize that this is just the beginning - it will cost easily tens if not hundreds of billions. After the missiles there will be other interventions.

It was clear from the beginning that the globalists wanted Assad gone.

The Russian support won't help Assad now.

Also Breitbart comment section is pretty clear:

   

Post: #61612

(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.

The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons. One of those is because he is genuinely, sincerely a dreadful man who has bathed the Middle East in blood, and who has done appalling things, both in his own country and in surrounding Arab nations. For some, as a point of principle, a man like that should be deposed. It may be a short sighted approach, and may bring greater unhappiness in the long run, but any decent person can only be horrified at the very real evil of the Assad regime. Not every decent person is able to be pragmatic and focused on the long term future. It doesn't actually matter very much whether the chemical attack was him or not (almost certainly was him - and it will have exasperated the Russians), it is entirely consistent with how the regime has behaved for decades.

The other reason that Assad may need to be deposed is that the Middle East is a hugely important part of the globe strategically for any major power. Since the Ottoman sultan, the aptly named Selim the Grim, and his successor Suleyman II added everything short of central Arabia to their empire, the Arab world has been fought over by the 'global' powers of the day.

There is an argument to be made that unless and until Russia and China also adopt a non-interference abroad policy, the US simply cannot afford to abandon the Middle East as an area of strategic concern. Syria has historically exerted huge control on large swathes of the Arab world (eg. Lebanon, who had their Cedar Revolution to try to get rid of the Syrian influence). If Syria is in Russia's pocket, then they bring with them into the fold a great deal of wider influence, which significantly increases Russia's power on the world stage.

Despite the enthusiasm for him here, and despite his very real merits as a leader, Putin is also the most deplorable yahoo, and not a man to be taken at his word. If the US is to continue to be the world leader that so many of you are (rightly) so proud of, then it cannot afford to become irrelevant on the world stage. 'America First' is a great slogan, and is also the right attitude for Trump to have, but part of putting America first for the long term is to ensure that the hostile powers (and make no mistake, Russia and China both want to be number 1) do not exert too much influence, and do not have access to too much wealth and support far outside their already vast national borders.

US foreign policy has been a disaster for a long time, and is almost comically inept in its execution. However, both the Iraqi, and Syrian campaign, sensibly executed by the sufficiently adept could have had a very positive effect on the US' global standing. The US' biggest problem is that it never manages to look like a liberator - always a conqueror. In part that is due to the John Wayne approach of the military (your Secretary of Defense is called 'Mad Dog') and the almost complete refusal to engage in the 'hearts and minds' process. Fundamentally, the US is right in its aspiration, but falls a long way short in its execution. Personally I think Trump needs the chance to show that he can learn from the many and varied mistakes of his predecessors and execute foreign policy effectively.

Post: #61613

(04-07-2017 03:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons. One of those is because he is genuinely, sincerely a dreadful man who has bathed the Middle East in blood, and who has done appalling things, both in his own country and in surrounding Arab nations. For some, as a point of principle, a man like that should be deposed. It may be a short sighted approach, and may bring greater unhappiness in the long run, but any decent person can only be horrified at the very real evil of the Assad regime. Not every decent person is able to be pragmatic and focused on the long term future. It doesn't actually matter very much whether the chemical attack was him or not (almost certainly was him - and it will have exasperated the Russians), it is entirely consistent with how the regime has behaved for decades.

I realise you anticipate the argument, but the strongest counter-argument to this is simply to substitute the name "Saddam" for "Assad" in the above text.

Or "Gaddafi", absent the chemical attacks - and who went on record predicting precisely what would happen when you kill the strongman (and what did happen when the West came for his head).

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #61614

Man, some days you just feel like you're taking crazy pills.

Should I dive back through the previous 2000 pages of this thread digging for posts to the effect of "Trump is good, but I'm not happy with his non-interventionist policies in the M.E."?

My memory is obviously spotty because I can't recall a single one.

Post: #61615

(04-07-2017 03:23 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons. One of those is because he is genuinely, sincerely a dreadful man who has bathed the Middle East in blood, and who has done appalling things, both in his own country and in surrounding Arab nations. For some, as a point of principle, a man like that should be deposed. It may be a short sighted approach, and may bring greater unhappiness in the long run, but any decent person can only be horrified at the very real evil of the Assad regime. Not every decent person is able to be pragmatic and focused on the long term future. It doesn't actually matter very much whether the chemical attack was him or not (almost certainly was him - and it will have exasperated the Russians), it is entirely consistent with how the regime has behaved for decades.

I realise you anticipate the argument, but the strongest counter-argument to this is simply to substitute the name "Saddam" for "Assad" in the above text.

Or "Gaddafi", absent the chemical attacks - and who went on record predicting precisely what would happen when you kill the strongman (and what did happen when the West came for his head).

Only if you assume every subsequent president is as inept, and surrounded by as many inept advisors and strategists as the Obama and Bush administrations. I have quite a lot of faith in the Americans and their ability to get things right and learn from mistakes - it's one of the country's great strengths.

What you're suggesting though is almost to miss the argument. Of course, Syria is a mess (ditto Libya and Iraq). It needn't have been, and much of the blame lies with the Americans for that. All true. However, this is the situation Trump has inherited. It is not a mess of his making, but it is one with serious implications. If Russia and Syria are allowed to simply 'get on with it', then you are left with a strong man with tremendous power and a mandate to expand his territory with enthusiastic Russian support under the guise of eliminating ISIS. Syria will control large parts of Iraq, and potentially Libya too in the next decade if the US takes a hands off approach.

This will give the Russians naval ports across the Mediterranean, which has been a goal of theirs for hundreds of years (though Turkey and control of the Bosphorus is obviously the golden egg there). It has been a huge problem for Russia, for centuries, that any navy they have is rendered more or less useless by their inability to deploy it quickly to most of the world. The Russian Navy has to sail half the globe just to get into combat. It is a very significant disadvantage that has hurt them time and again. The ability to station a fleet in the Southern Mediterranean is huge, with serious implications for the balance of power.

It may be necessary to have a strong man in place, but whose strongman he is is very important. Better no strongman than a Russian owned strong man.

Post: #61616

(04-07-2017 03:51 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  ...
Only if you assume every subsequent president is as inept, and surrounded by as many inept advisors and strategists as the Obama and Bush administrations. I have quite a lot of faith in the Americans and their ability to get things right and learn from mistakes - it's one of the country's great strengths.

What you're suggesting though is almost to miss the argument. Of course, Syria is a mess (ditto Libya and Iraq). It needn't have been, and much of the blame lies with the Americans for that. All true. However, this is the situation Trump has inherited. It is not a mess of his making, but it is one with serious implications. If Russia and Syria are allowed to simply 'get on with it', then you are left with a strong man with tremendous power and a mandate to expand his territory with enthusiastic Russian support under the guise of eliminating ISIS. Syria will control large parts of Iraq, and potentially Libya too in the next decade if the US takes a hands off approach.
...

Fantastic. He should be done laying waste to the enemies of the globalist elite just in time to hand the mantle over to the next Democrat president.

Aside. On what premise do you assume that allowing Syria to stabilise itself with Russian aid will lead to it invading Iraq and Libya? In any case, why then cannot Trump simply focus on solidifying US presence in those two nations rather than prodding a nuclear power by shitting on their best friend's doorstep?

Post: #61617

(04-07-2017 01:08 AM)Polo Wrote:  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. ... This will help him get his way on the truly important stuff (immigration, trade, taxes).

.... 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.

Interesting and thorough analysis, indeed, congratulations. (Edit: I just hope chapter-6 will prove absolutely true)

About your chapter-3, though, what is... sad is that Leftist MSM and Globalists have apparently succeeded in forcing D. Trump into visibly harming Russia.

So they (MSM and their Globalist puppeteers) score a point: by relentlessly accusing President Trump of being too-friendly with V. Putin, they managed to force his hand, resulting in the USA showing its unstoppable might, at the expense of a perfectly respectable country (Russia) and its leader.

All of this might still be positive for every party involved (except Al Assad of course), if President Trump offers something in exchange to V. Putin. Something valuable enough, for the Russians to kiss good bye to Syria.

I can only see one thing, recognition of Crimea. This would allow V. Putin to internally -and brilliantly- save face, and would let all big players as ultimate winners at the table. Only losers would be secondary actors, Assad and Petro P...

Great 5d-chess in this case from D. Trump, and maybe even from V. Putin: maybe Putin all along wanted involvement in Syria, just to trade it at some point for recognition of Crimea? And do note that with a strong, stabilized Crimea (and a friendly-again Erdogan), the Russians do not really need the Syrian naval base anymore...

Post: #61618

(04-07-2017 04:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:51 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  ...
Only if you assume every subsequent president is as inept, and surrounded by as many inept advisors and strategists as the Obama and Bush administrations. I have quite a lot of faith in the Americans and their ability to get things right and learn from mistakes - it's one of the country's great strengths.

What you're suggesting though is almost to miss the argument. Of course, Syria is a mess (ditto Libya and Iraq). It needn't have been, and much of the blame lies with the Americans for that. All true. However, this is the situation Trump has inherited. It is not a mess of his making, but it is one with serious implications. If Russia and Syria are allowed to simply 'get on with it', then you are left with a strong man with tremendous power and a mandate to expand his territory with enthusiastic Russian support under the guise of eliminating ISIS. Syria will control large parts of Iraq, and potentially Libya too in the next decade if the US takes a hands off approach.
...

Fantastic. He should be done laying waste to the enemies of the globalist elite just in time to hand the mantle over to the next Democrat president.

Aside. On what premise do you assume that allowing Syria to stabilise itself with Russian aid will lead to it invading Iraq and Libya? In any case, why then cannot Trump simply focus on solidifying US presence in those two nations rather than prodding a nuclear power by shitting on their best friend's doorstep?

It is impossible to run a country by being as short-sighted as you advocate. Undesirable as it is, one has to operate on the assumption that your side will continue to hold the reigns of power, and that work begun now will be continued by your successor. To work under any other assumption is to shackle yourself to small ambitions and a rather grubby, grasping approach to power, authority, and the opportunity it brings.

On a number of premises:

1. This is what has historically happened across the Middle East and North Africa - current national boundaries were drawn up by the British after WW1 and do not mean the same thing to the Arabs as they do to us.

2. More specifically, this is what Assad does - just look at Lebanon and the control exerted by the Syrian Secret Police there, right up until the assassination of Hariri by Assad in 2005 and the subsequent March 14th revolution. Assad is a despot, and despots are avaricious. The more pertinent question is why do you think he wouldn't expand Syrian territory into the vacuum left by the collapse of Iraq and Libya? This is an easy opportunity to build the Syrian empire, and despots like empires (you would have to be entirely ignorant of ME history to suggest Assad is not a thoroughly unpleasant despot).

3. The Russian's would be enthusiastic for the clear reason I gave - it has been one of their key objectives FOR CENTURIES to secure a port on the Med. It changes everything for them, for such obvious geographic reasons it hardly needs rehashing.

Post: #61619

So best case scenario + tons of mental gymnastics = globalists can corner trump on foreign policy.

Worst case scenario: his appointments of kushner and the ambassador and all is a sign hes willing to be a neocon like puppet on foreign policy.

This was a very sad thing to wake up to.

You guys talk about costs and what the missiles cost, there are people here fighting islamists with their father's hunting rifles.
Young men are returned dead every day to their villages. Christians have lost their heads and have been burned alive. Christian bishops are still kidnapped by the same people. Your taxpayers money has been going to these islamists for years. Your army and CiA supports them. Your government helps them politically.

The next time you see an islamist blow himself up in europe, dont look at the middle east. We are dying while fighting them while your governments have practically created them

This is really disheartening.

Post: #61620

The way some of you are trying to spin this is hilarious. At the rate this is going, Trump will be playing 9D-chess by Sunday evening.

So many of us have invested so much hope in the Trump Presidency that we are performing mental gymnastics in order to justify the last few days.

Post: #61621

H1N1 there is absolutely 0 chance in eternity that Assad would possibly expand into Libya. Thats just not feasible. Not even iraq is feasible as occupation. Its like saying nicaragua is gonna invade malta.

Besides those two same countries wouldnt be in this situation had it not been for the same actions youre advocating.

Post: #61622

(04-07-2017 04:44 AM)Beirut Wrote:  So best case scenario + tons of mental gymnastics = globalists can corner trump on foreign policy.

Worst case scenario: his appointments of kushner and the ambassador and all is a sign hes willing to be a neocon like puppet on foreign policy.

This was a very sad thing to wake up to.

You guys talk about costs and what the missiles cost, there are people here fighting islamists with their father's hunting rifles.
Young men are returned dead every day to their villages. Christians have lost their heads and have been burned alive. Christian bishops are still kidnapped by the same people. Your taxpayers money has been going to these islamists for years. Your army and CiA supports them. Your government helps them politically.

The next time you see an islamist blow himself up in europe, dont look at the middle east. We are dying while fighting them while your governments have practically created them

This is really disheartening.

I understand and respect your concern and sadness. I hope that President Trump's next military move, will be to rain missiles and bombs onto ISIS, and even send in some US special forces, to finish off the disgusting terrorist monsters of ISIS.

In such a case, everybody wins, except, personally, Al Assad (whom I don't really believe he ordered the gas attack), but if he, Assad, is granted safe passage with his family to some tropical island, well, it'd be acceptable I guess.

Also, maybe D. Trump had intelligence pointing to a rogue, crazy high-ranking officer of Al Assad (the general commanding the air base?) having, on his own decision (Assad would not have okayed such decision), ordered the gas attack. In this case, the retaliation attack on the Syrian air base, through the use of US missiles, would be morally warranted...

Post: #61623

(04-07-2017 03:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons......

This reads like an op-ed in the NYT. Right down to the word elites being in quotation marks so as to imply that the rest of us are conspiracy theorists.

Next you're gonna call us misogynists

Post: #61624

Come on - Assad just like Gaddafi were probably offered safe passage to a tropical island before the crap happened. Both rejected those offers, one is dead, the other on the way.

After Assad Syria will descend into a dysfunctional shithole where the moderate beheaders combat it out with the radical beheaders. It would not even matter if ISIS is "defeated" by then - the globalists will disband that group and it will crop up suddenly on the Iranian borders, because that is the next country on the chopping block.

Ah well.... unfortunately it is what it is.

Post: #61625

(04-07-2017 05:04 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons......

This reads like an op-ed in the NYT. Right down to the word elites being in quotation marks so as to imply that the rest of us are conspiracy theorists.

Next you're gonna call us misogynists

Yup - full on globalist bullshit.