Syria Strike

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,129
31,274
1,743
oklahoma city
#21
How do you know it makes no sense for Assad to do this? Wasn't aware you were an expert on the nuances of the Syrian Civil War. These arguments just make too many leaps in logic for me. I agree the MIC is a bad thing, but not everything is because of the MIC. You're saying Obama stood up to the MIC in 2013 when he decided against striking when Assad used these weapons then? The most simple answer is usually the one. Assad used chemical weapons for the umpteenth time and we couldn't look weak by not acting. It has to be enforced.
I don't claim to know and suspect @ksupoke isn't claiming that either. But, healthy skepticism of governments, including our own, makes a lot of sense when a fairly cut and dry pretext for warfare is given.
Going back to the Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, even Pearl Harbor the media reports of us being innocently provoked into action are generally at a later time found to be half-truths at best.

When Colin Powell was giving his famous speech at the UN declaring what Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid war, I was deployed in the Middle East and had already been briefed that war was going to happen, given a time frame in which it would start, and in no uncertain terms was told that Saddam's actions at that point were irrelevant.

I don't think we know the truth, but I agree with @ksupoke, odd time to pull out the chemicals and burn up some kids on the cusp of victory. If it did happen, the man really is a psychopath.
 

Okieleaks

Le Soleil
Banned
A/V Subscriber
Mar 19, 2017
2,247
443
213
Here to there
#22
I don't claim to know and suspect @ksupoke isn't claiming that either. But, healthy skepticism of governments, including our own, makes a lot of sense when a fairly cut and dry pretext for warfare is given.
Going back to the Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, even Pearl Harbor the media reports of us being innocently provoked into action are generally at a later time found to be half-truths at best.

When Colin Powell was giving his famous speech at the UN declaring what Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid war, I was deployed in the Middle East and had already been briefed that war was going to happen, given a time frame in which it would start, and in no uncertain terms was told that Saddam's actions at that point were irrelevant.

I don't think we know the truth, but I agree with @ksupoke, odd time to pull out the chemicals and burn up some kids on the cusp of victory. If it did happen, the man really is a psychopath.
Assad is a Puppet, his Military and Intellegence are the monsters behind the man.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
13,810
5,010
1,743
Katy, TX
#25
This article is a few days old but worth the read, a lot of info on how the open source site Bellingcat put info on the chlorine attack together and placed blame on Assad gov't:
http://abcnews.go.com/International...h-president-emmanuel-macron/story?id=54415655

"The thing is with this," he explained, "there have been constant chemical attacks this year. Five to six already this year. The only thing that's special about this one is that it got noticed.
 

Okieleaks

Le Soleil
Banned
A/V Subscriber
Mar 19, 2017
2,247
443
213
Here to there
#26
This article is a few days old but worth the read, a lot of info on how the open source site Bellingcat put info on the chlorine attack together and placed blame on Assad gov't:
http://abcnews.go.com/International...h-president-emmanuel-macron/story?id=54415655

"The thing is with this," he explained, "there have been constant chemical attacks this year. Five to six already this year. The only thing that's special about this one is that it got noticed.
Bellingcat is a top notch source. Good link.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,622
9,458
243
51
Bixby-Bristow OK
#27
I could see the Russians wanting us to do this attack it's beneficial to them. It allows them to monitor our forces when they go on the offensive. It allows them to test their defnsive systems under live fire. Teaches them our tactics and it's really at little or no cost to them. Heck they may even profit off of it when Assad pays them to rebuild what we blew up.

The change in Russia's tone before during and after the attack tells me our assessment of the attack is probably the most accurate one. The Russian defenses must have failed horribly. They went from we are going to attack the the launch pads and shoot down all your missiles to we are filing a complaint with the U.N.

Something tells me a lot more happened than is being reported.

BTW I'm with @ksupoke on trusting our intelligence agencies to be telling the truth.
 
Last edited:

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#30
15 years and counting- thousands of US and allies deaths, innumerable injured physically and emotionally, hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqi’s, the region is more unstable now than then, we are still there and still trying to exert our influence. Somehow though the main source of terror (Saudi’s) have remained unscathed.
Again, less than a month ago we (Trump) were asking for an exit plan, Assad was less than a year from being able to declare total victory, so what does he do, of course he gasses women & children knowing it will bring the story back to the front page and force the west to reengage.

As a reminder of the pretext for an invasion of a sovereign nation here’s the text of Powell’s speech. One that he now says was based on less than reliable if not falsified European intel, btw the French say they have incontrovertible evidence ‘this’ time.

None of this is to say it didn’t happen or Assad wasn’t involved but at a minimum it should give pause (while providing time for an actual investigation) for those wanting to seek revenge. If Assad did it he can’t hide, and a war crime trial is a much better means of achieving justice, imo.

The speech Powell regrets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html

and I still maintain this has Bolton all over it
 
Last edited:

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
6,521
5,147
1,743
Edmond
#31
I don't claim to know and suspect @ksupoke isn't claiming that either. But, healthy skepticism of governments, including our own, makes a lot of sense when a fairly cut and dry pretext for warfare is given.
Going back to the Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, even Pearl Harbor the media reports of us being innocently provoked into action are generally at a later time found to be half-truths at best.

When Colin Powell was giving his famous speech at the UN declaring what Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid war, I was deployed in the Middle East and had already been briefed that war was going to happen, given a time frame in which it would start, and in no uncertain terms was told that Saddam's actions at that point were irrelevant.

I don't think we know the truth, but I agree with @ksupoke, odd time to pull out the chemicals and burn up some kids on the cusp of victory. If it did happen, the man really is a psychopath.
Healthy skepticism, yes. Not "everything our military does is the MIC." We aren't using this as a pretext for war. It's a one-off strike.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,050
16,371
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#32
Healthy skepticism, yes. Not "everything our military does is the MIC." We aren't using this as a pretext for war. It's a one-off strike.
If Assad did it and there is actual evidence (something more than Euro intel, which at this point is all there is - just like the Iraq invasion) then we already should have learned our lesson about allowing a despot to remain in power from the 1st gulf war, which ultimately was the precursor to this entire fiasco, not to mention that bush jr left Karzai wafting in the breeze causing significant delays, and as a result damage to Karzai, to go after sadam's, supposed wmd stockpiles and finally sadam himself (his target to begin with).
American's need to show resolve and eliminate him, not try to make it harder for him, as sadam showed, all making it harder means is more horror to the people and more effort when it comes time to actually take him out, which we had no legitimate right to undertake but hey regime change, hooray!!!.
Ultimately Russia is not going to back Assad if it means a massive conflict they are the super power who can least afford the cost, it's very similar to trade with China, push comes to shove they backed down, Russia would do it differently but they would back down none the less.

Unfortunately, Americans (and as a result our elected pol's) have no stomach for war (the row of the world has figured this out and uses it to their advantage) so instead of doing what is right we will do what is politically expedient.
If we are not going to eliminate him we shouldn't be involved, our presence presents nothing but problems now and in the future, otoh, if you want to go in and take him out and you have the story to tell (Powell speech not withstanding) then do it. I don't think you really believe this is a one off - we fired missiles we are out - situation and if you do I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you, hell we have troops in country (hence the request for an exit plan) so obviously it isn't a one off.

I knew when I listened to Trump's speech that this was not something I was going to support because:
1. He used the tired old, women and children gasping for air routine, how can you let the women and children suffer, if I didn't know better I'd think the teachers union wrote his speech
2. Vital to our nation's security, really, how, because that little tidbit was and is missing from this entire conversation
3. It was going to be a 1/2 assed approach that cost the taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars (all in not just the missiles) and nothing would be accomplished, best estimates (I've seen) we reduced his capability to use chemical weapons by 30%, not eliminated his capability, reduced it by 30% or so, that's just great.

When the American people are ready to do what is necessary, i.e. bring them to their knees, no terms just surrender, then and only then should we engage, otherwise it is a never ending troop deployment to somewhere else accomplishing nothing but increasing an ever mounting debt.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
10,622
9,458
243
51
Bixby-Bristow OK
#33
If Assad did it and there is actual evidence (something more than Euro intel, which at this point is all there is - just like the Iraq invasion) then we already should have learned our lesson about allowing a despot to remain in power from the 1st gulf war, which ultimately was the precursor to this entire fiasco, not to mention that bush jr left Karzai wafting in the breeze causing significant delays, and as a result damage to Karzai, to go after sadam's, supposed wmd stockpiles and finally sadam himself (his target to begin with).
American's need to show resolve and eliminate him, not try to make it harder for him, as sadam showed, all making it harder means is more horror to the people and more effort when it comes time to actually take him out, which we had no legitimate right to undertake but hey regime change, hooray!!!.
Ultimately Russia is not going to back Assad if it means a massive conflict they are the super power who can least afford the cost, it's very similar to trade with China, push comes to shove they backed down, Russia would do it differently but they would back down none the less.

Unfortunately, Americans (and as a result our elected pol's) have no stomach for war (the row of the world has figured this out and uses it to their advantage) so instead of doing what is right we will do what is politically expedient.
If we are not going to eliminate him we shouldn't be involved, our presence presents nothing but problems now and in the future, otoh, if you want to go in and take him out and you have the story to tell (Powell speech not withstanding) then do it. I don't think you really believe this is a one off - we fired missiles we are out - situation and if you do I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you, hell we have troops in country (hence the request for an exit plan) so obviously it isn't a one off.

I knew when I listened to Trump's speech that this was not something I was going to support because:
1. He used the tired old, women and children gasping for air routine, how can you let the women and children suffer, if I didn't know better I'd think the teachers union wrote his speech
2. Vital to our nation's security, really, how, because that little tidbit was and is missing from this entire conversation
3. It was going to be a 1/2 assed approach that cost the taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars (all in not just the missiles) and nothing would be accomplished, best estimates (I've seen) we reduced his capability to use chemical weapons by 30%, not eliminated his capability, reduced it by 30% or so, that's just great.

When the American people are ready to do what is necessary, i.e. bring them to their knees, no terms just surrender, then and only then should we engage, otherwise it is a never ending troop deployment to somewhere else accomplishing nothing but increasing an ever mounting debt.
Dude thias whole fiasco is about the petro dollar. There have been government documents released under foia request that admit as much. Also there were some documents in wiki leaks that talked about it.

Assad had no debt and was trying to create a continental gold backed currency for Africa. All of us poor bastards spending imaginary money couldn't stand for that kind of shit. That and then there is the petro dollar value of a pipeline across Syria.

Quit making this out to be something it's not follow the money.