Post: #276

(04-05-2017 02:44 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  US forces are already on the ground in Syria and Iraq. If Trump does take a more serious action as a result of this then it takes a lot more than a simple change of government to stop the US industrial complex.

A very good debate took place on Crosstalk on RT on Monday last.





In it, Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos, a left wing Anglo-Greek academic argued that the Trump Administration would be no different to the Obama one because it is based on a system that is fundamentally flawed. It's a must watch. I'm sorry if I sound pessimistic but I do think Trump will turn out to be a great disappointment to those wanted real change.

Post: #277

I wouldn't be surprised if the shadow government didn't go to Trump and say "let us go after Syria and we will leave you alone."

Post: #278

Really, really disappointed in the last few days. This is not what I voted for in November. I expected more out of Trump than to jump to conclusions and make impulsive emotion based decisions and alterations on policies based on shit like media propagandized photos of dead kids. All of the sudden his mind is completely changed and we're right back on the neo-con bullshit.

It makes no god damn sense for Assad or the Russians or both to be chemically bombing civilians when they're winning or at all. None. It serves no strategic purpose or tactical advantage. And how the hell was it immediately known who was the perpetrator? No investigation or proof whatsoever? Just like last time with my government coming to me with no proof but saying "trust me" on this one, and that it was that evil Assad gassing his own people. I don't trust any of these "humanitarian" organizations either, they all have some agenda to push with their findings. And it's most certainly suspicious the timing of all this and the coincidental presence of these groups right where the attack happened.

The US government needs to fuck off from getting involved with other countries. We don't even have a legal basis to be in Syria. Assad/Russia/Iran don't need our help or our bombing sorties to beat ISIS. Trump criticized Obama for not following through on his threat several times, does this mean we're going to get seriously involved in this mess? With the Russians running around and possibly causing an international incident? No thanks. If not then I see little reason for this posturing, what do we gain from it? To have our president getting fooled by an incredibly obvious false flag and trying to morally grandstand over a handful of civilian deaths in what's turning out to be a massive proxy war? Not much.

Yeah, whatever we've been doing in Syria since the inauguration...I don't think it's been helping Assad/Russia/Iran. We seem to be full steam ahead on prior middle east policy. Pro Saudi Arabia against Yemen, anti-Assad Regime now, filling foreign policy roles with neo-cons and people who care about Israel more than anything else. Doesn't feel good to me.

Post: #279

(04-05-2017 03:55 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  Really, really disappointed in the last few days. This is not what I voted for in November. I expected more out of Trump than to jump to conclusions and make impulsive emotion based decisions and alterations on policies based on shit like media propagandized photos of dead kids. All of the sudden his mind is completely changed and we're right back on the neo-con bullshit.

It makes no god damn sense for Assad or the Russians or both to be chemically bombing civilians when they're winning or at all. None. It serves no strategic purpose or tactical advantage. And how the hell was it immediately known who was the perpetrator? No investigation or proof whatsoever? Just like last time with my government coming to me with no proof but saying "trust me" on this one, and that it was that evil Assad gassing his own people. I don't trust any of these "humanitarian" organizations either, they all have some agenda to push with their findings. And it's most certainly suspicious the timing of all this and the coincidental presence of these groups right where the attack happened.

The US government needs to fuck off from getting involved with other countries. We don't even have a legal basis to be in Syria. Assad/Russia/Iran don't need our help or our bombing sorties to beat ISIS. Trump criticized Obama for not following through on his threat several times, does this mean we're going to get seriously involved in this mess? With the Russians running around and possibly causing an international incident? No thanks. If not then I see little reason for this posturing, what do we gain from it? To have our president getting fooled by an incredibly obvious false flag and trying to morally grandstand over a handful of civilian deaths in what's turning out to be a massive proxy war? Not much.

Yeah, whatever we've been doing in Syria since the inauguration...I don't think it's been helping Assad/Russia/Iran. We seem to be full steam ahead on prior middle east policy. Pro Saudi Arabia against Yemen, anti-Assad Regime now, filling foreign policy roles with neo-cons and people who care about Israel more than anything else. Doesn't feel good to me.

The election of Obama in 2008 was greeted enthusiastically by the anti-war left which had increasingly opposed the warmongering policies of the previous administrations. The result was that opposition
from the left to US foreign policy was largely neutered. The anti-war left was effectively brought onside and coopted by all the 'hope and change' gibberish

Is Trump playing the same role for a different demographic?

Post: #280

^ I was about to post that.

Sadly, American foreign policy in MidEast exists to benefit 2 countries, and neither of them is USA: Saudi and Israel

Israel wants Assad gone. Hell, they've openly admitted they prefer ISIS to Assad, and how they are worried about "Shia Terrorism".

Obama promised anti-war with good intention first, before following through with the neocon agenda. Same thing is happening to Trump.

I don't know who are the deep forces behind the scenes, but they run the show. There is no getting out of this mess.

I ask President Trump, where was his concern with "Dead civilians" when a US airstirke killed 200 civilians in Mosul 2 weeks ago? Where was his "many lines" principle when a rebel suicide bomber killed 70+ civilians in Damascus last week ? If he rightly brands Western MSM as "Fake News" when reporting on him and his administration, how come he blindly accepts their report and hysteria regarding this alleged gas attack with no investigation and proof ? So they are FAKE NEWS when reporting on internal American News, but somehow REAL NEWS when reporting on what happens thousands of miles away from US soils ?

Sick of this BS already. So disappointing...

Post: #281

(04-05-2017 04:04 PM)rockoman Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 03:55 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  Really, really disappointed in the last few days. This is not what I voted for in November. I expected more out of Trump than to jump to conclusions and make impulsive emotion based decisions and alterations on policies based on shit like media propagandized photos of dead kids. All of the sudden his mind is completely changed and we're right back on the neo-con bullshit.

It makes no god damn sense for Assad or the Russians or both to be chemically bombing civilians when they're winning or at all. None. It serves no strategic purpose or tactical advantage. And how the hell was it immediately known who was the perpetrator? No investigation or proof whatsoever? Just like last time with my government coming to me with no proof but saying "trust me" on this one, and that it was that evil Assad gassing his own people. I don't trust any of these "humanitarian" organizations either, they all have some agenda to push with their findings. And it's most certainly suspicious the timing of all this and the coincidental presence of these groups right where the attack happened.

The US government needs to fuck off from getting involved with other countries. We don't even have a legal basis to be in Syria. Assad/Russia/Iran don't need our help or our bombing sorties to beat ISIS. Trump criticized Obama for not following through on his threat several times, does this mean we're going to get seriously involved in this mess? With the Russians running around and possibly causing an international incident? No thanks. If not then I see little reason for this posturing, what do we gain from it? To have our president getting fooled by an incredibly obvious false flag and trying to morally grandstand over a handful of civilian deaths in what's turning out to be a massive proxy war? Not much.

Yeah, whatever we've been doing in Syria since the inauguration...I don't think it's been helping Assad/Russia/Iran. We seem to be full steam ahead on prior middle east policy. Pro Saudi Arabia against Yemen, anti-Assad Regime now, filling foreign policy roles with neo-cons and people who care about Israel more than anything else. Doesn't feel good to me.

The election of Obama in 2008 was greeted enthusiastically by the anti-war left which had increasingly opposed the warmongering policies of the previous administrations. The result was that opposition
from the left to US foreign policy was largely neutered. The anti-war left was effectively brought onside and coopted by all the 'hope and change' gibberish

Is Trump playing the same role for a different demographic?

I have no idea what Trump is doing. He seems to be veering 180 degrees from his the positions he campaigned on. Once he replaced Flynn with that McNugget faggot I stopped understanding. I don't think invading Syria is going to fly with the base that elected him. The cult of personality only goes so far. If the neo-cons somehow push him in this direction I don't see a republican getting elected again after this. Ever.

Also, I don't believe the left is "anti-war". They're pro whatever their ideology is for and can easily be groomed for being pro-war against whoever doesn't share their beliefs. See: Russia.

Post: #282

If Trump merely proposes sanctions and embargos against Assad, I can live with it. If he calls for invasion, then he's begging for one-term. Although the sad part is any Democrat who follows Trump will be just as warmongering, plus horrible for the US economy with the endless welfare.

Post: #283

I think the US imperium is in crisis and that is why we are seeing such dissension within the national security and foreign policy elite. They are in disagreement as to how to respond to the Russia-China-Iran strategic partnership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_C...ganisation

This partnership is commited to the medium-term rejection of the international dominance of the US dollar as a reserve currency and is committed to the economic integration of Eurasia. leaving the US as a peripheral bystander. Events in the arc of crisis from the Balkans in the West to China's province of Sinkiang in the East are attempts to knock this off course.

Is the Syrian war about competing gas pipelines and their sponsors? It is certainly very plausible.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/62769.html

Post: #284

No one is buying this shit.

If Trump keeps going he will look really foolish. I hope that could be a wake up call to not trust some people in his admin. I doubt Trump likes looking foolish because he got bad intel.

Post: #285

(04-05-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If Trump merely proposes sanctions and embargos against Assad, I can live with it. If he calls for invasion, then he's begging for one-term. Although the sad part is any Democrat who follows Trump will be just as warmongering, plus horrible for the US economy with the endless welfare.

I can't really imagine that after 6 years of war there are any possible sanctions against Assad, which have not yet been imposed. As for military Action, Russia has made it clear that Libya was far enough -Assad will not be allowed to fall.

Post: #286

^ Yes. Tillerson really talking tough now. I don't like the prospect of where it's going.

He's going to Moscow next week. Be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Post: #287

I can't imagine there are many sanctions or embargoes that will hurt someone fighting for half of their country whose allies are not going to be participating in said sanctions.

I also get the impression, based upon Trump's harsh criticism of Obama's soft policy on his Syria ultimatum, that this will be more than that.

An invasion would be disastrous. This will not be some cakewalk like our previous clusterfucks. Russia is highly motivated to protect their ally, their very important strategic naval base, and to prevent that pipeline from going through. I fully believe Russia would escalate and send in ground troops if the US does. There is a lot riding on this fight for Russia, that port and pipeline's importance for them is no joke. For the US it's completely irrelevant outside the government's desire to pursue pro Israel, pro Saudi Arabia, and pro neo-con interests.

Trump and Tillerson need to chill the fuck out and think this through. They're almost too eager to flip their position on this...

Post: #288

(04-05-2017 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If Trump merely proposes sanctions and embargos against Assad, I can live with it. If he calls for invasion, then he's begging for one-term. Although the sad part is any Democrat who follows Trump will be just as warmongering, plus horrible for the US economy with the endless welfare.

An embargo benefits who? You might as well line up the people fighting ISIS and Nusra or any of the Islamist groups and shoot them because if they suffer a loss of ability to fight, thats what will happen.

Assad is helped by Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. Islamists are assisted by the entire western intelligence network and industrial complex through the CIA and Gulf States.

I'm pretty sure Russia couldn't go toe to toe with such a logistical disadvantage. It would not be economical and a surge of enemy forces would be costly.

Trump will keep his response close to his chest but if it veers into war mongering territory we may well see those "2017 will be an itneresting year" predictions come to fruitition.

Post: #289

(04-05-2017 03:55 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  Really, really disappointed in the last few days. This is not what I voted for in November. I expected more out of Trump than to jump to conclusions and make impulsive emotion based decisions and alterations on policies based on shit like media propagandized photos of dead kids. All of the sudden his mind is completely changed and we're right back on the neo-con bullshit.

It makes no god damn sense for Assad or the Russians or both to be chemically bombing civilians when they're winning or at all. None. It serves no strategic purpose or tactical advantage. And how the hell was it immediately known who was the perpetrator? No investigation or proof whatsoever? Just like last time with my government coming to me with no proof but saying "trust me" on this one, and that it was that evil Assad gassing his own people. I don't trust any of these "humanitarian" organizations either, they all have some agenda to push with their findings. And it's most certainly suspicious the timing of all this and the coincidental presence of these groups right where the attack happened.

The US government needs to fuck off from getting involved with other countries. We don't even have a legal basis to be in Syria. Assad/Russia/Iran don't need our help or our bombing sorties to beat ISIS. Trump criticized Obama for not following through on his threat several times, does this mean we're going to get seriously involved in this mess? With the Russians running around and possibly causing an international incident? No thanks. If not then I see little reason for this posturing, what do we gain from it? To have our president getting fooled by an incredibly obvious false flag and trying to morally grandstand over a handful of civilian deaths in what's turning out to be a massive proxy war? Not much.

Yeah, whatever we've been doing in Syria since the inauguration...I don't think it's been helping Assad/Russia/Iran. We seem to be full steam ahead on prior middle east policy. Pro Saudi Arabia against Yemen, anti-Assad Regime now, filling foreign policy roles with neo-cons and people who care about Israel more than anything else. Doesn't feel good to me.

Trump isn't being emotional or impulsive. This is just part of the song and dance that he, Obama, Bush, etc etc etc, did. I called this in another thread. Seriously doubt our Middle East policy will change under him or whoever succeeds him. This is just an excuse to do what he is being told to do. Despite all the media bullshit, Russia really is one of our main geopolitical foes, as Romney correctly stated. Whatever Middle East action that takes place under Trump will be the same action that would have taken place under Hillary. I say under Trump and under Hillary because neither is actually in charge. If a president goes against the elites wills and do what elites consider to hasten the end of US dominance, they will mysteriously have a quick end. The drones and undercover CIA ops will continue.

Post: #290

I still hope that Trump changes his stance.

   

Post: #291

With regard to this gas attack, google "Seymour Hersh Hillary Clinton." The results will take you to an article that appeared on Zero Hedge last year.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-01...ian-rebels

For the TL;DR version, Sarin gas from Libya was shipped to (((Syrian Rebels))) via Turkey at the behest of the US. It was ordered by Obama and Clinton. The purpose was to use it on the Syrians which would then justify a US ground invasion. Ambassador Chris Stephens was in on the deal.

I don't know how many of you remember when the "Ghouta chemical attack" took place in 2013. This was the first gas attack the western MSM tried to pin on Assad. Do you remember how the hard push made by Obama and Kerry to invade Syria? Public opinion lashed out against those two. Obamas approval rating dipped to its lowest point during his presidency. Polling said at least 50% of the US thought the US should not intervene. Of those who did think intervention was needed, most thought he should only do it with congressional approval. Congress wisely told the pres to go fuck himself. Kerry had a fit not to unlike the time when Colin Powell made an ass of himself in front of the UN when seeking support to reinvade Iraq. Obama spoke on the subject and it was one of the first times the guy clearly appeared angry.

The best hypothesis I've heard regarding the recent gas attack is that at best, a Syrian/Russian airstrike set off the (((rebels))) stockpile.

Assad and Putin have no good reason to use gas in a war they're winning through conventional means. Why draw that unnecessary criticism on themselves?

Is ISIS "Islamic State" or does it really stand for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service?"

Post: #292

Even Oreilly is cucking hard on this. He just mentioned the this is the second time Assad has used gas.

Post: #293

Post: #294

Post: #295

Very disappointed with Trump's response to this. We voted for him to stand up to the military industrial complex and we thought his election victory would mean an end to the era of endless war and failed nation building missions. US intervention on an Iraq-war scale in Syria would lead to World War 3 - the exact same outcome as if Hillary Clinton was president.

I'm going to give him time, but if this results in a 180 foreign policy change for Trump it'll be obvious at that point his administration was compromised by the pro war neocon globalists.

Hillary and Obama were responsible for arming the same rebels who unleashed the first chemical attack in 2013, for the sole purpose of using it as a pretext for war. The same thing is happening in 2017.

Trump cannot and should not take the bait.

Post: #296

You've got to wonder about Bannon's ouster coinciding with this sudden 180 degree turn, Tillerson was OK with Assad just a few days ago, and now after this false flag gas attack he goes after him and Russia. He's just the messenger here though, the policy shift was made at the top.

Roger Stone pointed yesterday at Kushner, who is basically a complete neocon when it comes to Israel. Kushner is also owned by the Carlyle Group, literally. They've bailed him out when he was upside down in 2008 on his billion dollar purchase of the 666th Fifth Ave building in Manhattan.

Neocons and the deep state want to carve out Syria, fund a jihadi caliphate there to keep the war and chaos going in the cities while they take the oil out of the Golan Heights and soon to be secured Kurd areas. They already got the plans set up, and now they just need to execute.

Post: #297

Fascinating speculation on what Trump might be doing with Syria:

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2017/04/tr...hange.html

Quote:The "tell" that Trump is playing his enemies yet again is how over-the-top his denunciations have been about the inhuman barbarity against little beautiful babies. This is the same guy who responded to Bill O'Reilly's attempt to provoke him into denouncing Putin as a "killer" with, "Yeah, well, there's a lot of killers out there -- you think we're so innocent?"

He knows which side is likely behind the attack, if not the specific jihadi group / state enabler / deep state operatives. Those specifics will take some time to figure out, and he needs to be left alone by his enemies in the meantime.

Rather than dismissing the attack on Twitter as "another obvious false flag trying to lure our stupid leaders into wasting lives and money in the Middle East," he's going to turn it back around on the real perpetrators.

In order for that boomerang to inflict maximum damage, he's going to have to get people's emotions on fire about how intolerable the act was. Then when we read a tweet about how he "just found out" that it was really, say, al-Nusra, helped along by Turkey, with CIA support -- he can call for greater severity against the jihadists (torture to get information), a clean break with the wrong-side-of-history nations like Turkey / Saudi Arabia, and heads to roll among deep state warmongers.

Then he can call for reprisals not just for how horrific the initial act was, but for the deceptive propaganda that could have lured us into another Iraq War -- this time against a nuclear superpower like Russia!

It will be hard to pull off a full discrediting of the jihadi warmongers without indulging them a little bit first. If he wants the warmongers to hang for it, first he has to fan the flames of calling for the perps to hang for it. The ultimate sneak attack will be revealing who the perps actually are.

Don't get discouraged just yet, the game is still fresh and anything can happen. It is anyone's game, don't take your eye off the ball.

Post: #298

^ Doesn't really jive with how Tillerson and Lena behave though, unless he wants them gone.

Post: #299

(04-05-2017 07:18 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  With regard to this gas attack, google "Seymour Hersh Hillary Clinton." The results will take you to an article that appeared on Zero Hedge last year.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-01...ian-rebels

For the TL;DR version, Sarin gas from Libya was shipped to (((Syrian Rebels))) via Turkey at the behest of the US. It was ordered by Obama and Clinton. The purpose was to use it on the Syrians which would then justify a US ground invasion. Ambassador Chris Stephens was in on the deal.

I don't know how many of you remember when the "Ghouta chemical attack" took place in 2013. This was the first gas attack the western MSM tried to pin on Assad. Do you remember how the hard push made by Obama and Kerry to invade Syria? Public opinion lashed out against those two. Obamas approval rating dipped to its lowest point during his presidency. Polling said at least 50% of the US thought the US should not intervene. Of those who did think intervention was needed, most thought he should only do it with congressional approval. Congress wisely told the pres to go fuck himself. Kerry had a fit not to unlike the time when Colin Powell made an ass of himself in front of the UN when seeking support to reinvade Iraq. Obama spoke on the subject and it was one of the first times the guy clearly appeared angry.

The best hypothesis I've heard regarding the recent gas attack is that at best, a Syrian/Russian airstrike set off the (((rebels))) stockpile.

Assad and Putin have no good reason to use gas in a war they're winning through conventional means. Why draw that unnecessary criticism on themselves?

Is ISIS "Islamic State" or does it really stand for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service?"

Two must read pieces for forum members are Hersh's "Redline to Ratline" and "Whose Sarin?" both in London Review of Books.

Post: #300

(04-05-2017 05:26 PM)Once Was Not Wrote:  I can't imagine there are many sanctions or embargoes that will hurt someone fighting for half of their country whose allies are not going to be participating in said sanctions.

I also get the impression, based upon Trump's harsh criticism of Obama's soft policy on his Syria ultimatum, that this will be more than that.

An invasion would be disastrous. This will not be some cakewalk like our previous clusterfucks. Russia is highly motivated to protect their ally, their very important strategic naval base, and to prevent that pipeline from going through. I fully believe Russia would escalate and send in ground troops if the US does. There is a lot riding on this fight for Russia, that port and pipeline's importance for them is no joke. For the US it's completely irrelevant outside the government's desire to pursue pro Israel, pro Saudi Arabia, and pro neo-con interests.

Trump and Tillerson need to chill the fuck out and think this through. They're almost too eager to flip their position on this...

In my humble opinion, the timeline and convenient 'flip' in position was accelerated by what seems like a complete disaster on Trump's three supposedly 'big' legislative items on the domestic front - ACA repeal, tax reform, and infrastructure.

Pivoting to actionable foreign policy gets everyone's focus off what is going on, or not going on, in the domestic agenda.