- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions
- Thread starter Wrathe
- Start date
AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,678
- Reaction score
- 51,344
- Points
- 148
Which, is nice.
But he's also showing that we're just going to tax them for it once and then continue to not give a shit.
What is the long term strategy?
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
The Strike At Syria
8:15 AM, Apr 07, 2017 | By Elliott Abrams
....Explaining the strike, Secretary of State Tillerson pointed to one clear security goal: "if there are weapons of this nature available in Syria, the ability to secure those weapons and not have them fall into the hands of those who would bring those weapons to our shores to harm American citizens." But then he added "it's important that some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that the use of chemical weapons continues to be a violation of international norms." The term "on behalf of the international community" is certainly not one we have previously heard from the Trump administration.
This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Obama did in all his years in office.
And the strike will have far wider effects. It was undertaken while Chinese president Xi was with Trump in Florida. Surely this new image of a president willing to act will affect their conversations about North Korea. Vladimir Putin will think again about his relations with the United States, and will realize that the Obama years of passivity are truly over. Allies and friends will be cheered, while enemies will realize times have changed. When next the Iranians consider swarming around an American ship in the Gulf, they may think again.
Of course this was an easy lift militarily: a few dozen missiles, one air base as a target. Yet our previous president refused to do it; this one acted. He did not let worries about the possible Russian reaction scare him off. He understood that this would not end the war in Syria, but he did it anyway. He was willing to act alone, without demanding a UN Security Council meeting or congressional vote. And of course, leadership pays off: he will have strong bipartisan support on the Hill.
Henceforth when he speaks of American conditions and demands, interests and desires, more attention will be paid. Every official in every foreign government has been trying to figure him out since November 8. This week he gave them a lot to think about. He took command, and issued orders. He didn't draw a red line and then withdraw it, but instead called Assad's action intolerable—that overused word—and then proceeded to show that when he said intolerable, he meant it....
....But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space. Consider the alternative: Syria uses sarin and kills babies, defying us and laughing at the unanimous Security Council decisions and its own pledges—and we do nothing. That's a far worse situation for the United States. When the president said it was in the "vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," he was right. It is also in our vital national security interest to stand for justice, and peace, and liberty, and it appears he is coming to see that. That's the most encouraging thing of all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-strike-at-syria/article/2007579
8:15 AM, Apr 07, 2017 | By Elliott Abrams
....Explaining the strike, Secretary of State Tillerson pointed to one clear security goal: "if there are weapons of this nature available in Syria, the ability to secure those weapons and not have them fall into the hands of those who would bring those weapons to our shores to harm American citizens." But then he added "it's important that some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that the use of chemical weapons continues to be a violation of international norms." The term "on behalf of the international community" is certainly not one we have previously heard from the Trump administration.
This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Obama did in all his years in office.
And the strike will have far wider effects. It was undertaken while Chinese president Xi was with Trump in Florida. Surely this new image of a president willing to act will affect their conversations about North Korea. Vladimir Putin will think again about his relations with the United States, and will realize that the Obama years of passivity are truly over. Allies and friends will be cheered, while enemies will realize times have changed. When next the Iranians consider swarming around an American ship in the Gulf, they may think again.
Of course this was an easy lift militarily: a few dozen missiles, one air base as a target. Yet our previous president refused to do it; this one acted. He did not let worries about the possible Russian reaction scare him off. He understood that this would not end the war in Syria, but he did it anyway. He was willing to act alone, without demanding a UN Security Council meeting or congressional vote. And of course, leadership pays off: he will have strong bipartisan support on the Hill.
Henceforth when he speaks of American conditions and demands, interests and desires, more attention will be paid. Every official in every foreign government has been trying to figure him out since November 8. This week he gave them a lot to think about. He took command, and issued orders. He didn't draw a red line and then withdraw it, but instead called Assad's action intolerable—that overused word—and then proceeded to show that when he said intolerable, he meant it....
....But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space. Consider the alternative: Syria uses sarin and kills babies, defying us and laughing at the unanimous Security Council decisions and its own pledges—and we do nothing. That's a far worse situation for the United States. When the president said it was in the "vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," he was right. It is also in our vital national security interest to stand for justice, and peace, and liberty, and it appears he is coming to see that. That's the most encouraging thing of all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-strike-at-syria/article/2007579
Last edited:
Russia is sending a Navy boat in the direction of the two stationed Navy ships we have placed in the Mediterranean....
For those more versed in war strategy...is this expected/normal? One would think an act of aggression might break out....
For those more versed in war strategy...is this expected/normal? One would think an act of aggression might break out....
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
Here’s The Pentagon’s Evidence Assad Used Chemical Weapons
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/07/heres-the-pentagons-evidence-assad-used-chemical-weapons/#ixzz4dZoxuV8x
Apparently, we actually tracked the aircraft that did this, from their base, their entire flight path, to the point where they dropped the gas over the target.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/07/heres-the-pentagons-evidence-assad-used-chemical-weapons/#ixzz4dZoxuV8x
Apparently, we actually tracked the aircraft that did this, from their base, their entire flight path, to the point where they dropped the gas over the target.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
Completely normal. There's really nothing the Russians can do, and they know it. The sailors may wave at (or flip off....) each other as the ships steam by.
caf
Some people did something.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,582
- Reaction score
- 8,161
- Points
- 113
Susan Rice in January:
“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html
Lol.
“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html
Lol.
Huber.
Adrninistrator
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 21,374
- Reaction score
- 17,157
- Points
- 123
Putin and Don are exchanging gifts via war ships.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,929
- Reaction score
- 63,768
- Points
- 148
The Russians/Syrians aren't denying that chemical weapons were used -- so that part of any alleged wag the dog conspiracy can be taken off the table. They admit it happened, but claim it wasn't their fault.
Here's an article that debunks the Russian/Syrian excuse. I excerpted part of it, but the whole thing is worth a read. The point about binary weapons and delivery is important:
An 'infantile argument'
Dan Kaszeta, a veteran of the US Army Reserve's Chemical Corps — the branch of the US Army responsible for protection against chemical, biological, and nuclear threats — further debunked Russia's claim.
"To date, all of the nerve agents used in the Syrian conflict have been binary chemical warfare agents," Kaszeta wrote on Bellingcat, adding that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspections after Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2013 "revealed a variety of fixed and mobile mixing apparatus for making binary nerve agents."
The Assad regime began mixing the chemicals to create sarin in 2012, CNN reported at the time.
"Even assuming that large quantities of both sarin precursors were located in the same part of the same warehouse (a practice that seems odd), an airstrike is not going to cause the production of large quantities of sarin," Kaszeta added. "Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument."
Brian Palmer, a reporter for Slate covering science and medicine, wrote in 2012 that "the technical challenge for users of sarin is the dispersal." The nerve agent, he wrote, is exponentially more deadly when it is "aerosolized," or converted into a fine spray.
https://gma.yahoo.com/infantile-argument-experts-pour-cold-142850181.html
I'd point out that implicit in the Syrian/Russian excuse is that the Syrians allegedly knew that chemical weapons were being manufactured and stored there before they bombed it. But rather than alerting anyone in the international community to this ahead of time, they instead choose to bomb that facility instead (and there wasn't even a triumphant announcement saying what they'd just hit it), thereby spreading the gas to kill a bunch of innocent people.
In my opinion, their excuse doesn't pass the straight-face test.
Here's an article that debunks the Russian/Syrian excuse. I excerpted part of it, but the whole thing is worth a read. The point about binary weapons and delivery is important:
An 'infantile argument'
Dan Kaszeta, a veteran of the US Army Reserve's Chemical Corps — the branch of the US Army responsible for protection against chemical, biological, and nuclear threats — further debunked Russia's claim.
"To date, all of the nerve agents used in the Syrian conflict have been binary chemical warfare agents," Kaszeta wrote on Bellingcat, adding that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspections after Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2013 "revealed a variety of fixed and mobile mixing apparatus for making binary nerve agents."
The Assad regime began mixing the chemicals to create sarin in 2012, CNN reported at the time.
"Even assuming that large quantities of both sarin precursors were located in the same part of the same warehouse (a practice that seems odd), an airstrike is not going to cause the production of large quantities of sarin," Kaszeta added. "Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument."
Brian Palmer, a reporter for Slate covering science and medicine, wrote in 2012 that "the technical challenge for users of sarin is the dispersal." The nerve agent, he wrote, is exponentially more deadly when it is "aerosolized," or converted into a fine spray.
https://gma.yahoo.com/infantile-argument-experts-pour-cold-142850181.html
I'd point out that implicit in the Syrian/Russian excuse is that the Syrians allegedly knew that chemical weapons were being manufactured and stored there before they bombed it. But rather than alerting anyone in the international community to this ahead of time, they instead choose to bomb that facility instead (and there wasn't even a triumphant announcement saying what they'd just hit it), thereby spreading the gas to kill a bunch of innocent people.
In my opinion, their excuse doesn't pass the straight-face test.
Cratylus
FLAWLESS
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,121
- Reaction score
- 10,014
- Points
- 123
Action: Syria uses chemical weapons on its own people.
Possibility #1
Trump Reaction: Trump responds with a proportional missile attack against a Syrian airbase and says the United States won't tolerate another world state using chemical weapons.
Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Democrat Response: They get their collective panties in a bunch because Syria didn't attack the United States so they claim Trump had no right to become the aggressor with them. Clearly Trump is a warmongering hothead and he isn't fit to be President.
Possibility #2:
Trump Reaction: Trump simply verbally condemns the attack while ultimately doing nothing (you know... just like what our previous President would have done).
Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Democrat Response: They become enraged that Syria can violate international law and engage in genocidal activities against its own citizens and Trump sits idly by and does nothing about it. It's just further proof that he hates Muslims, women, and children and is unfit to be President.
In other words, Trump could develop a cure for cancer and make it free to everyone and leftists would still manage to find something to bitch about. "But, but, but... why didn't he develop it sooner? What took him so long? If he wasn't spending so much time on Twitter he could have discovered and made it available quicker than he did. Think of all the needless suffering and deaths of innocent women and children, many of whom were undoubtedly Muslim, that resulted because he was too busy being a pompous prick! Clearly he doesn't care about people and he's unfit to be President!"
Possibility #1
Trump Reaction: Trump responds with a proportional missile attack against a Syrian airbase and says the United States won't tolerate another world state using chemical weapons.
Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Democrat Response: They get their collective panties in a bunch because Syria didn't attack the United States so they claim Trump had no right to become the aggressor with them. Clearly Trump is a warmongering hothead and he isn't fit to be President.
Possibility #2:
Trump Reaction: Trump simply verbally condemns the attack while ultimately doing nothing (you know... just like what our previous President would have done).
Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Democrat Response: They become enraged that Syria can violate international law and engage in genocidal activities against its own citizens and Trump sits idly by and does nothing about it. It's just further proof that he hates Muslims, women, and children and is unfit to be President.
In other words, Trump could develop a cure for cancer and make it free to everyone and leftists would still manage to find something to bitch about. "But, but, but... why didn't he develop it sooner? What took him so long? If he wasn't spending so much time on Twitter he could have discovered and made it available quicker than he did. Think of all the needless suffering and deaths of innocent women and children, many of whom were undoubtedly Muslim, that resulted because he was too busy being a pompous prick! Clearly he doesn't care about people and he's unfit to be President!"
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 26,632
- Reaction score
- 55,563
- Points
- 151
Replace Trump with Obama and Lefties with Republicans. Voila! You have the political history of 2008-2016.
Pay little heed to what partisan people have to say. They only prefer to see half of reality.
Or, in a Republican's case, 1/3 of reality
Man Called X
Resident asshole
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 19,530
- Reaction score
- 29,852
- Points
- 135
I still think it's funny people believe anything we're being told about Syria. After all the lies this gov't has said to get itself into wars. From Nam to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya. They've lied to the American people solely for profiteering.
And you really believe we're being told the truth about Syria?
Fuck people.
And you really believe we're being told the truth about Syria?
Fuck people.