US Attacks Syria with UK, France

[Gameface]

Nah Rumsfeld and the Halliburton crowd always planned on getting their hands on the oil. Evil bastards the lot of them, if you ever feel inclined read John Pilger's writing on the Balkans terrible stuff, beautifully written by a giant of journalism.

I don't want to comment without reading John Pilger's writing, but I don't know that we ever actually got "our hands" on that oil.

Clinton handled military issues with ineffective half-measures. I'm of the opinion you either stay out, or play a purely diplomatic role, or you state your intentions, your demands, and then achieve them them with the greatest military force in human history. The U.S. is in a unique position. I'd be happy to spout off as to why U.S. military capability is not only larger and more technologically advanced than any of the next several rival nations, but that 1 unit of U.S. military capability is greater than 1 equivalent unit of our rivals military capability. I'll sum it up in a word... Logistics.

The U.S. is by far the most practiced modern military force in the world. We know how to get our power where we need it when we need it.

But we are also the biggest target. Blunders could change the entire dynamic in an afternoon. I fear there is a plan in place amongst Russia, China, Brazil and India to seize the opportunity should the U.S. commit a grand blunder with our military forces. I have been concerned that Trump is just the leader to commit such a blunder and he is why Russia invested so heavily in tampering in our election process.

Today my fears were reduced.

 

[Rubashov]

I don't want to comment without reading John Pilger's writing, but I don't know that we ever actually got "our hands" on that oil.

Clinton handled military issues with ineffective half-measures. I'm of the opinion you either stay out, or play a purely diplomatic role, or you state your intentions, your demands, and then achieve them them with the greatest military force in human history. The U.S. is in a unique position. I'd be happy to spout off as to why U.S. military capability is not only larger and more technologically advanced than any of the next several rival nations, but that 1 unit of U.S. military capability is greater than 1 equivalent unit of our rivals military capability. I'll sum it up in a word... Logistics.

The U.S. is by far the most practiced modern military force in the world. We know how to get our power where we need it when we need it.

But we are also the biggest target. Blunders could change the entire dynamic in an afternoon. I fear there is a plan in place amongst Russia, China, Brazil and India to seize the opportunity should the U.S. commit a grand blunder with our military forces. I have been concerned that Trump is just the leader to commit such a blunder and he is why Russia invested so heavily in tampering in our election process.

Today my fears were reduced.

Pilger has written extensively abut the US but is stuff on the Balkans is pre-war on terror. I think the big problem with Neo-Cons is they all seem to think that the rest of the world wants to live like Americans, a great many people do not, for a large number of very different reasons. The second Iraq war as an example, I got the feeling that the administration seemed to think they could show up, open a McDonald's and everything would be peaches and cream. There was no coherent plan for the peace, furthermore if they were honest and understood history they would have known that there was no likelihood of peace, they instead should of planed on imposing a new form of state terror, in order to create order. The implications of this are obvious and illustrate the problems with imperialism in the modern age.

 

[Gameface]

Pilger has written extensively abut the US but is stuff on the Balkans is pre-war on terror. I think the big problem with Neo-Cons is they all seem to think that the rest of the world wants to live like Americans, a great many people do not, for a large number of very different reasons. The second Iraq war as an example, I got the feeling that the administration seemed to think they could show up, open a McDonald's and everything would be peaches and cream. There was no coherent plan for the peace, furthermore if they were honest and understood history they would have know that there was no likelihood of peace, they instead should of planed on imposing a new form of state terror, in order to create order. The implications of this are obvious and illustrate the problems with imperialism in the modern age.

Liberals in the U.S. are far more convinced that the rest of the world wants what we have than the neo-cons have ever been. Neo-cons sell their wars by promising to deliver western style democracy and freedom to the oppressed. If they didn't have to do any PR they'd just say "we're gonna go **** up some brown people."

 

[Rubashov]

Liberals in the U.S. are far more convinced that the rest of the world wants what we have than the neo-cons have ever been. Neo-cons sell their wars by promising to deliver western style democracy and freedom to the oppressed. If they didn't have to do any PR they'd just say "we're gonna go **** up some brown people."

I don't think anyone really wants to buy the American dream anymore. I suspect going places to kill brown people would be a fairly popular policy in vast parts of this country too.

 

[fishonjazz]

I want to give this administration credit where due.

This operation was handled professionally, much as it would have been handled under Obama, or Bush Jr.. I think Bill Clinton mishandled situations like this as much as any President in my lifetime. Trump did this better than Bill Clinton probably would have, or maybe the "deep state" has learned lessons from Bill Clinton's mishandling of such situations and advised Trump not to make the same mistakes.

Anyway, he didn't. WWIII did not start over this, yet we made a strong statement and destroyed chemical weapon capabilities with the promise to do it again should they deploy chemical weapons again.

Well done Mr. President!

I actually was thinking the same thing last night. If assad really used chemical weapons on people then i think that trump did the right thing and did it the right way.
Only caveat being that if WW3 starts from this then im morally conflicted. I think that the US has the ability to help those in need and if innocent people are being attacked by assad in this way then i think trying to help them is the right thing to do but...... is helping a small amount of syrian people worth the lives of billions of people if ww3 is started?

 

[fishonjazz]

I blame Clinton 100% for Bush Jr's Iraq war. There was an opportunity to handle it decisively on his watch, without an invasion of Iraq, and he punted.

handle what? I always thought the war with iraq was about non existent wmd's (oil). Is that not the case? (not even looking to argue or de-rail the thread btw, i really just want to know)

 

[Rubashov]

handle what? I always thought the war with iraq was about non existent wmd's (oil). Is that not the case? (not even looking to argue or de-rail the thread btw, i really just want to know)

WMD was the lie the US used to get their hands on the oil.

I actually was thinking the same thing last night. If assad really used chemical weapons on people then i think that trump did the right thing and did it the right way.
Only caveat being that if WW3 starts from this then im morally conflicted. I think that the US has the ability to help those in need and if innocent people are being attacked by assad in this way then i think trying to help them is the right thing to do but...... is helping a small amount of syrian people worth the lives of billions of people if ww3 is started?

Don't think WW III is going to start over Syria but a whole heap of Syrian civilians are going to continue to suffer and die, while foreign powers use their lives as chess pieces in their political maneuverings.

 

[fishonjazz]

WMD was the lie the US used to get their hands on the oil.



Don't think WW III is going to start over Syria but a whole heap of Syrian civilians are going to continue to suffer and die, while foreign powers use their lives as chess pieces in their political maneuverings.

Ya thats why i said non existent wmd's. Im wondering what bullet was talking about when he said clinton should have handled it (iraq) before bush had to. Was clinton supposed to invade iraq for non existent wmd's first?

As for the second part of your post...... There are lots of russian military in syria currently. I worry that one of these strikes being executed by france/uk/usa hits and kills a russian soldier and that prompts russia to attack us. Then all hell breaks loose.

 

[framer]

Ya thats why i said non existent wmd's. Im wondering what bullet was talking about when he said clinton should have handled it (iraq) before bush had to. Was clinton supposed to invade iraq for non existent wmd's first?

As for the second part of your post...... There are lots of russian military in syria currently. I worry that one of these strikes being executed by france/uk/usa hits and kills a russian soldier and that prompts russia to attack us. Then all hell breaks loose.

We killed a couple hundred Russian "contractor" soldiers last month with air strikes. All Hell did not break loose. . .

 

[fishonjazz]

We killed a couple hundred Russian "contractor" soldiers last month with air strikes. All Hell did not break loose. . .

huh i didn't know. I wonder if russia has a limit to how many of their people they are ok with us killing though.

 

[Gameface]

handle what? I always thought the war with iraq was about non existent wmd's (oil). Is that not the case? (not even looking to argue or de-rail the thread btw, i really just want to know)

After the first Iraq war in the 90s the US along with the UN Security council were conducting inspections in Iraq to ensure the WMDs and the capability to manufacture them were destroyed. That was a key part of Saddam's terms for surrender so that the US didn't invade/occupy Iraq after kicking them out of Kuwait. Under Clinton, Saddam began impeding the inspections and sometimes refusing to allow inspectors into sites they wanted to inspect. His claim was that they weren't really looking for weapons as much as just using the inspections as a means to spy on him and gather information unrelated to WMDs, which very well may have been true.

Instead of forcing the issue with the inspections, which ultimately would have allowed us to know with certainty that he no longer had WMDs before Bush Jr. took office, he pulled the inspectors and instituted sanctions and no-fly zones.

I find sanctions morally reprehensible. They harm the poorest and most powerless people far more than they harm the government they are intended to punish. I would have preferred Clinton to tell Saddam that it was either inspections or we would consider him in breach of our peace agreement and military operations against him would resume, possibly including invasion/overthrow. I would then have sent a military escort with the next group of inspectors and if they attempted to stop the inspection they would have to do so with force. If they relented then inspections would resume, if they used force against the military escort then military operations against him would resume.

The sanctions turned the Iraqi people against us. They lasted for around a decade. It drastically reduced the quality of life for average Iraqis. It was easy for Saddam to pass the blame for that onto the evil Americans.

The no-fly zones were constantly a source of conflict. Saddam would regularly target our patrol aircraft with fire control radar (lock-on) and we would frequently destroy these radar facilities in retaliation.

History has been dramatically re-written (not really, but the general understanding the whole thing is far from the reality) when it comes to Iraq.

Clinton punted the issue onto the next administration and we know where that got us. Had he taken decisive action during his administration the problem would have been much less messy, a real solution would have been much more possible. Clinton never used the military in a decisive or effective way. Not in regard to Iraq and not in the Balkans. Both were horrible atrocities that he could have done a lot to mitigate.

 

[Gameface]

WMD was the lie the US used to get their hands on the oil.

Does the US have our hands on that oil?