Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[Surge]

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.

Are you syria, bro??

 

[Huber.]

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.

@AZ_

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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

Well, you've stated yourself that Obama screwed the pooch in the ME, so the criticism can't all be unfounded.

And if I recall correctly, Republicans (at least those here) supported the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki

 

[AZ_]

Mission Accomplished

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Mission Accomplished

Did they drop chemical munitions? No?

Mission Accomplished.

 

[AZ_]

Did they drop chemical munitions? No?

Mission Accomplished.

So long as they're not murdering children with chemicals, we're good?

 

[buzzdog]

Trump just bombed Puttin's ally and Russia is mad about it. Yep, Trump and Puttin are besties. It's time to end the investigation. Waste of time and resources.

Okay, this is the conspiracy thread so here comes one (Not something I even believe but it is in the realm of possibility);

1) Trump suffering badly in the polls because of alleged ties to Putin and Russia.
2) Putin has his proxy Assad execute the widely publicized chemical attack, sure to fire everyone up on all sides.
3) Trump does the obligatory punitive missile attack making sure not to hit any Russian targets.
4) Trump rises in US polls, gets a lot of popular support from various quarters, and successfully distances himself from allegations of collaboration with Putin.

This would scratch a lot of itchy spots for both Trump and Putin, and allow them to "come together" in a meaningful way in the future to "put differences aside to fight terrorism".

I'm not saying this is how and why this went down, but my ultra-cynical demons say it would be pretty useful and convenient on a lot of levels.

 

[CommD]

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.

You should open your mind to consideration of whether the gas attack would have even taken place if Obama were still in office. The "RedLine" chemical weapon abandonment agreements was an effective war-with-the-Syrian-regime avoidance strategy, and joint U.S./Russian enforcement actions/verification protocols had resulted in no further use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime during Obama's remaining time in office. I submit they were more than aware of the consequences should this agreement be violated.

IMO, it is likely that Tillerson's "April Glaspie"-like statement regarding the Trump administration's (non)position) on regime change engendered a response by the regime designed to test the new administration's resolve to adhere to the chemical weapon ban. In that context, Trump's response was correct; he passed the test and may have indeed deterred further use of these weapons.

You should ask yourself though: what if Trump ever sees pictures of children bodies blown apart by "conventional' munitions. What response would he have them. Even more concerning for U.S. Middle East war mongers: What if Trump began to see pictures of civilians killed be U.S. airstrikes (the blown apart of burned bodies of which are not shown on U.S. television). Would he retreat to his non-military engagement policy? Guess we'll have to see.

Reports of up to 1,000 recent civilian deaths reflect a changing war against ISIS.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/28/15074216/iraq-syria-civilian-death-increasing

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So long as they're not murdering children with chemicals, we're good?

No, we're not "good". But stopping the Syrian civil war wasn't the mission.

 

[Sebastian]

Well, you've stated yourself that Obama screwed the pooch in the ME, so the criticism can't all be unfounded.

And if I recall correctly, Republicans (at least those here) supported the strike on Anwar al-Awlaki

I wasn't taking issue with the action.

I was pointing out how parallel partisan reactions are no matter who is in the White House.

It is amusing.

 

[buzzdog]

No, we're not "good". But stopping the Syrian civil war wasn't the mission.

If the mission was to send a message in the form of an otherwise meaningless bombing that used up about $50 million worth of 'hawks, it was wildly successful. If the goal was to give Trump about a 10 point bump in approval ratings I bet we'll see that worked when the next polling data comes out. If the goal was to put PR distance between Trump and Putin then it will be a wild success also.

It might slow down or stop chemical weapon attacks, IDK about that. It won't make much difference in other areas as far as I would guess.

Having said all that I guess I agree with the decision and it just feels good and makes me proud as a 'merican that we bombed SOMETHING in response to the babies being bleached.

Seriously, it does feel good that somebody did something, which hasn't been the case for the past 7 years. Kind of a tainted way to feel good, and mixed because it's killer PR for a politician I dislike. But whatevs.

It's kind of hilarious that the airstrip we bombed appears to be completely operational, and if there were any chemical weapon warehouses nearby they were untouched.

 

[David.]

X

 

[Huber.]

 

[buzzdog]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If the mission was to send a message in the form of an otherwise meaningless bombing that used up about $50 million worth of 'hawks, it was wildly successful.

I don't understand what you mean by "otherwise meaningless". Other than...what?

It might slow down or stop chemical weapon attacks, IDK about that. It won't make much difference in other areas as far as I would guess.

That was the point. An actual red line when it came to the use of WMD's. That's something that's a part of treaties we've signed, that other nations have signed, and that's we've opposed publicly for decades. Considering that we're the only one really capable of bringing pressure to bear on outlaw states like NK and Iran when it comes to the potential use of WMD's, I don't think we could afford to keep ignoring it.

It's kind of hilarious that the airstrip we bombed appears to be completely operational, and if there were any chemical weapon warehouses nearby they were untouched.

Tomahawks really can't take out an airstrip. The terminal flight pattern isn't conducing to cratering, and runway themselves are notoriously difficult to knock out period. Fixing even deep holes in an airfield is extremely easy -- dump in some gravel/fill, pour new asphalt over it, and you're good to go in less than 12 hours anyway. But we blew up some very expensive planes that will never fly again, damaged refueling and some control ability, etc.. They lost more than they gained with this strike. And the message we sent is that we are not predictable -- we will strike without seeking international or even national approval, so they cannot gage/predict our response ahead of time. That's the best kind of deterrence.