President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[Stoked]

Interesting.

Bannon just lost his seat on the Security Council. The intelligence director, joint chiefs and McMasters specifically have been given more power and authority.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...rom-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup

 

[babe]

Literally all major news outlets are reporting this. Including some of the more obscure right wing outlets. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Here, let me educate you:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...ma-administrations-weakness-and-irresolution/
https://www.apnews.com/0bbfce47f71c...attack-kills-dozens-in-Syria,-US-blames-Assad
https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/...-attack-in-syria-hospital-reportedly-hit.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/chemical-attack-syria-170404195457304.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...wn-where-toxic-gas-and-shelling-were-reported
https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/leahy-we-should-go-after-war-criminal-assad-913986115594
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39499364
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...arack-obama-syria-chemical-weapons/100038920/
https://www.nationalreview.com/arti...pital-assad-obama-trump-putin-confront-russia

Any more lame *** arguments for me to shred? Time to go to sleep Babe. Do some research if you're going to do battle with me next time. Night!

I don't believe we've had a "Free Press" since the trial of John Peter Zenger. Yah, we got a jury then who defied the Crown-appointed governor and his stooge attorney general and bought-and-paid-for judge, but most media today strikes me as a kind of dog that eats the steaks thieves throw over the fence while the thieves sack the figurative house or nation.

I think that applies even to Breitbart and Fox.

I would believe twitter and social media if people came on there and started uploading pics of Assad's soldiers gassing civilians. I would look at the question of whether the so-called peaceful people were revolutionaries with ideals for claiming their freedom and respecting human rights generally, or were merely paid Soros' mobs, mercenaries hell-bent on killing, raping, plundering or destroying the fabric of society for the elitists so they could install better puppets in Assad's stead. Maybe more terrorist government totalitarians would serve the insane elitists dreams of reducing the horrid populations stinking up the planet would be the "right" thing for Soros.

I have no love really for any government that doesn't respect humanity, but I don't believe any institutional so-called "Press" that for any reason is purporting to report the news while having no objective staff of reporters.

 

[babe]

It's no surprise if someone like myself finds Trump's response lacking. But, really, he's been trotting out Obama to suit himself ever since reminding everyone his investigators in Hawaii are looking into the birth controversy, and we "won't believe what they are finding." Give it a rest already with trotting out Obama.

In the meantime, Trump is the President, and the world is awaiting what kind of leader he is going to be. I don't believe the rest of the world, friend or foe, is much interested in seeing him use Obama as his whipping boy still again. I'm certainly not saying we must go to war against Assad, but Trump cannot just avoid the fact that any foreign policy crisis now is happening on Trump's watch, not on Obama's watch. And ignoring that basic fact is what made his statement yesterday less then stellar.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/5227...orld-awaits-what-kind-of-leader-trump-will-be

"President Trump issued a remarkable statement following a Syrian gas attack U.S. officials say was leveled by that country's leader against his own people.

Some 40 words of the short, 78-word statement blamed former President Obama for inaction.

"These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution," the statement read, in part. "President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a 'red line' against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing."

Obama declining to act when Syrian President Assad crossed the "red line" was arguably the low point of Obama's presidency when it came to his handling of foreign policy.


But it's not like Trump called for action back then; just the opposite, as NPR's Tamara Keith reports. And Trump is not calling for action now — even after an attack that killed dozens with horrific images emerging. The new American president is being tested on the world stage, as this attack comes just days after the White House said Assad's ouster is not its priority. It also raises questions about Trump's support for autocracies and authoritarian regimes — and whether he can lead the world with moral clarity and authority as U.S. presidents have done for decades."

I find this contribution within the bounds of decency and fairness. While a "constitutionally-minded conservative" like Rand Paul might simply state this is none of our business and walk away, Trump is not that kind of thinker. The practical question is what he can do that will be effective. And not throw down the interests of people with legitimate concerns for human rights generally.

And not just start a war we're not prepared to win, for no essential national defense concern.

If I had the facts in my hands objectively demonstrable, I'd hold a press conference and detail how this casts a shadow on Russian leadership in the area, and how our Ambassador and other representatives of our national interests around the world are being sent to Assad and Assad's friends and frankly any other political institution to build a consensus that this is not the way we want any government to defend itself against any so-called threat or any citizens.

But mostly I'd be culling the herd in my State Department and intel agencies for those ideological zombies who represent Obama's ideals for organizing the Soros population reduction agenda around the world.

Yes, Red, we need to root out all those kinds of dreamers where ever they are in our bloated government.

 

[Rubashov]

But you are a cheerleader for Sadam. Your hypocrisy knows only the bounds of total blind fealty to the DNC.

Until Bush decided to invade Iraq and steal its oil, (whoops i mean to find the weapons of mass destruction his dad sold them in the 80's, wait no catch the terrorists, meh i can't remember.) The butcher of Baghdad did a pretty good job of keeping law and order on his own little patch. Should he was a *******, sure he violated human rights but so do numerous regimes around the world, some of them are US allies. Now look at the situation, created by the power vacuum left by the US and its Allies (my own government included). In Syria you have a proxy war between the Saudi's and Iran for influence in the middle east and OPEC, the US and Russia have naturally both thrown their two cents in not out of any regard for human rights but because of their vested interests in the energy market and supply.

 

[Siro]

Until Bush decided to invade Iraq and steal its oil, (whoops i mean to find the weapons of mass destruction his dad sold them in the 80's, wait no catch the terrorists, meh i can't remember.) The butcher of Baghdad did a pretty good job of keeping law and order on his own little patch. Should he was a *******, sure he violated human rights but so do numerous regimes around the world, some of them are US allies. Now look at the situation, created by the power vacuum left by the US and its Allies (my own government included). In Syria you have a proxy war between the Saudi's and Iran for influence in the middle east and OPEC, the US and Russia have naturally both thrown their two cents in not out of any regard for human rights but because of their vested interests in the energy market and supply.

The oil explanation doesn't make sense. How does invading Iraq help energy interests?

 

[Harambe]

Your party cheerleading is extremely tedious.

Not as tedious as blaming Obama for anything that doesn't go exactly the one way you want it o.

 

[Rubashov]

The oil explanation doesn't make sense. How does invading Iraq help energy interests?

roughly one fifth of the worlds energy reserves are under iraq

 

[Stoked]

Not as tedious as blaming Obama for anything that doesn't go exactly the one way you want it o.

hahahahaha Yes it's tedious.

 

[Siro]

roughly one fifth of the worlds energy reserves are under iraq

How does invading Iraq help oil interests though? Oil business, much like any other business outside of weapons, require stability and security (why Saudi Arabia is our BFF). The Iraq war hurts the oil business. It doesn't help it.

 

[Siro]

Not as tedious as blaming Obama for anything that doesn't go exactly the one way you want it o.

It's the exact same thing.

 

[Rubashov]

As an interesting idea, the Cheney\Bush governments failure in Iraq reflects their political assumptions as Neo-liberal imperialists they underestimate important the role played by the state, especially in terms of soft power in maintaining order and cohesion because of the their ideological hostility to the role of government. The coalition's failure to ensure the security of Iraqi citizens during the invasion was a staggeringly ignorant and callus thing to do. I think their is something in that idea.

 

[Siro]

As an interesting idea, the Cheney\Bush governments failure in Iraq reflects their political assumptions as Neo-liberal imperialists they underestimate important the role played by the state, especially in terms of soft power in maintaining order and cohesion because of the their ideological hostility to the role of government. The coalition's failure to ensure the security of Iraqi citizens during the invasion was a staggeringly ignorant and callus thing to do. I think their is something in that idea.

Argh, still no. The "state" in Iraq is a big part of what caused the pot to boil over. Saddam maintained "cohesion" by suppressing the Kurds and the Shia majority and elevating his Sunni minority. If it wasn't for the Western-created fake state, each community would have formed its own entity, and we would be in a better situation.

 

[Rubashov]

How does invading Iraq help oil interests though? Oil business, much like any other business outside of weapons, require stability and security (why Saudi Arabia is our BFF). The Iraq war hurts the oil business. It doesn't help it.

A Vichy regime in Baghdad will suffice for ensuring the US interests are met, furthermore it provides them with another bridgehead in the region to project power over other states, leaving them less reliant on the Saudis and Israel.

 

[Siro]

A Vichy regime in Baghdad will suffice for ensuring the US interests are met, furthermore it provides them with another bridgehead in the region to project power over other states, leaving them less reliant on the Saudis and Israel.

That's the most logical explanation. And it has nothing to do with stealing oil. It has to do with the establishment of a more US/Israel friendly, resource-rich state in the near east, in order to project power over the region. The oil thing is incidental and non-explanatory.

 

[Rubashov]

Argh, still no. The "state" in Iraq is a big part of what caused the pot to boil over. Saddam maintained "cohesion" by suppressing the Kurds and the Shia majority and elevating his Sunni minority. If it wasn't for the Western-created fake state, each community would have formed its own entity, and we would be in a better situation.

Well you can't maintain an empire without establishing a terror. What you think anything resembling democracy was going to work in Iraq? The US should have established a dictatorship but of coarse you can't do that sort of thing. So instead you unleash hell, ruin a society and play weaker groups off against each other to get what you want.

 

[Siro]

Well you can't maintain an empire without establishing a terror. What you think anything resembling democracy was going to work in Iraq? The US should have established a dictatorship but of coarse you can't do that sort of thing. So instead you unleash hell, ruin a society and play weaker groups off against each other to get what you want.

The terror was established before the US government started its nation-building performance. It is inherent to the very tribal ME societies being artificially lumped together into larger states. Saddam was holding on to power through extreme ethnic and ideological repression. The same thing happening in Syria would have eventually transpired in Iraq.

The US, and other Western states, played a major role in the current debacle in the Middle East. But the situation is far more complex than the supposition that the area was doing great before the US ****ed it up.

 

[Rubashov]

The terror was established before the US government started its nation-building performance. It is inherent to the very tribal ME societies being artificially lumped together into larger states. Saddam was holding on to power through extreme ethnic and ideological repression. The same thing happening in Syria would have eventually transpired in Iraq.

The US, and other Western states, played a major role in the current debacle in the Middle East. But the situation is far more complex than the supposition that the area was doing great before the US ****ed it up.

No it wasn't but it was fairly stable and that is really all i care about. Do i really care if someone is oppressed for being a kurd? Not in the least.

 

[Siro]

No it wasn't but it was fairly stable and that is really all i care about. Do i really care if someone is oppressed for being a kurd? Not in the least.

What you personally care about is irrelevant. I'm just explaining the situation. And the situation was that Iraq wasn't truly stable. The instability was kept at arm's length through extreme, unsustainable, levels of oppression. The Iraq war lit the fuse of a bomb that was just waiting to explode. The war did not create the animosity between those people that you don't care about. It was already there. It would not have disappeared just because the US never invaded.

That is not to excuse the US government's actions in the region for the past several decades. At the very least, it made social progress in the region nigh impossible.

 

[Rubashov]

What you personally care about is irrelevant. I'm just explaining the situation. And the situation was that Iraq wasn't truly stable. The instability was kept at arm's length through extreme, unsustainable, levels of oppression. The Iraq war lit the fuse of a bomb that was just waiting to explode. The war did not create the animosity between those people that you don't care about. It was already there. It would not have disappeared just because the US never invaded.

That is not to excuse the US government's actions in the region for the past several decades. At the very least, it made social progress in the region nigh impossible.

Well no its not irrelevant, i'm a citizen of a country that has invaded and bombed another nation in violation of international law. So what i think is kinda relevant. However i didn't really express myself properly, do i care enough about the oppression of kurds to want to send Australians to fight and die in Iraq? No. Am I happy to allow oppressed kurds to claim asylum in Australia? Of coarse, thats why we signed up to the UN convention on refuges. Cheney and Bush's cowboy disregard of International law is something we should all be concerned about because it opens the door to a whole lot of abuses.

If not for the actions of Cheney/Bush, Saddam or one of his cronies would still be in power in Iraq, of that i am completely sure. As for the rest of the region that's anyone's guess.

 

[Siro]

Well no its not irrelevant, i'm a citizen of a country that has invaded and bombed another nation in violation of international law. So what i think is kinda relevant. However i didn't really express myself properly, do i care enough about the oppression of kurds to want to send Australians to fight and die in Iraq? No. Am I happy to allow oppressed kurds to claim asylum in Australia? Of coarse, thats why we signed up to the UN convention on refuges. Cheney and Bush's cowboy disregard of International law is something we should all be concerned about because it opens the door to a whole lot of abuses.

If not for the actions of Cheney/Bush, Saddam or one of his cronies would still be in power in Iraq, of that i am completely sure. As for the rest of the region that's anyone's guess.

That's fine. Disregarding the stuff about international law and its usefulness if it can't be enforced (because using chemical weapons is also a violation of said law), I agree, on moral principle, that the Iraq war was a disaster. That is not because the life of an Australian or an American is more valuable than that of a Kurd, but because one, I reject the legitimacy of state violence as a normal extension of politics, and two, because meddling in the region has helped create the current terrorism crisis, and set the region back considerably. I also find it hard to swallow the argument of "good intentions".

So I don't disagree with the notion that the Iraq war was a mistake. I am simply trying to communicate more information about the situation. The common claims that the war was about stealing oil is generally false (within that framing). The idea that Saddam's Iraq was a stable entity over the long term is also very dubious. If these things are not understood/acknowledged, then no meaningful conversation about the war, or about the US's larger involvement in the Middle East, can be had.