US Attacks Syria with UK, France

[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?

 

[sahlensguy]

Couldn't wait for the playoffs to end first?

No man...there are too many scandals that we need to be distracted from.

 

[Scat]

Clinton also had the opportunity on several occasions to deal with bin Laden and muffed it. On at least one occasion that I recall they had excellent intel on his location and Clinton waffled on action. Once he decided to act bin Laden had relocated and we missed him.

I always got the feeling that Clinton was more concerned about people liking him and approving of him than doing what needed to be done.

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know all of that about the inspections that were supposed to be done but were never really thoroughly completed. Ya, thats on clintons administration no doubt.

 

[fishonjazz]

Clinton also had the opportunity on several occasions to deal with bin Laden and muffed it. On at least one occasion that I recall they had excellent intel on his location and Clinton waffled on action. Once he decided to act bin Laden had relocated and we missed him.

I always got the feeling that Clinton was more concerned about people liking him and approving of him than doing what needed to be done.

You might be right there. He certainly was a charming sob

 

[fishonjazz]

The more i read about the attack last night the better i feel about it. Sounds like it was very successful, had support of multiple nations and needed to be done.

 

[The Thriller]

We’ve accepted 11 Syrian refugees this year.

Seems to me that if we really were concerned with Syria, maybe we could do more to help?

 

[The Thriller]

Didn’t we do the exact same thing last year?

Didn’t seem to deter Assad from using chemical weapons over and over again. In fact, Mattis believes they’ve used chemical weapons 50 times since last year. Why was this time to different? What could Donald be trying to distract us from?

 

[fishonjazz]

Didn’t we do the exact same thing last year?

Didn’t seem to deter Assad from using chemical weapons over and over again. In fact, Mattis believes they’ve used chemical weapons 50 times since last year. Why was this time to different? What could Donald be trying to distract us from?

I considered that angle as well (the comey book coming out timing angle).

 

[The Thriller]

I considered that angle as well (the comey book coming out timing angle).

Right? I won't go as far to say that this was "Wag the Dog" all over again. But the timing sure is suspicious. Five minutes ago, every single news outlet was reporting Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, and Robert Mueller in an endless loop. Now? That's all gone. It's all about Syria. Our entire approach to Syria has been interesting.

In 2013, Assad used chemical weapons and crossed President Obama's "red line." President Obama (correctly) approached Congress on the use of force. Donald Trump even warned President Obama to "stay out of Syria" and if he were to use force, that he should, "go to Congress." Well, President Obama followed Trump's "wisdom" and did just that. The GOP controlled Congress told President Obama to, "go pound sand."

As a result, for the past five years, we've essentially condoned Assad's actions and have agreed that he's the side we are going to fight on (or at least, not resist). I don't necessarily disagree with that move, since the alternative was to side with the rebels who were joined with ISIS fighters.

Over the past five years, we have witnessed day after day, scenes of horrible tragedy in Syria. But as a nation, we essentially agreed that this was a "necessary price to pay" in order to stay out of larger conflict between us, Syria, Turkey, and Russia. Right? Trump even went as far as to shut off our acceptance of Syrian refugees. We've accepted a whole 11 refugees this year. That's not exactly showing that we give a **** about that country, right?

Last year, in an attempt to show strength and to appease his daughter who was confirmed to have been greatly distraught over the scenes of gassed children, Donald launched an attack on an empty airfield days after he gave Russian forces a warning. He didn't go to Congress, as he advised President Obama to do. He just launched an (illegal) attack on Syria. It... I guess accomplished something? What" I'm not sure. It gave us warm fuzzies? But it did absolutely nothing to deter Assad from killing thousands more. It did nothing but embolden Russia.

Fast forward to today. Trump has continued his ignoring of the Syrian people and called for American forces to quickly withdraw. Not a week goes by where we don't see horrific scenes from Syria. But again, we've accepted this fate, right? Assad is going to win, thousands will unnecessarily die, and we won't see larger conflict arise between us, right?

So why would this attack be so outrageous? Why would our response do anything to dissuade Assad from continuing to kill innocents? Wasn't HR McMaster recently fired because he called for greater American involvement in Syria while Trump wanted the opposite? So why did we launch an attack this week?

And what do we hope to accomplish by it other than distracting the media for a few days and giving us the misperception that we actually helped the Syrian people in some way? And if we are going to continue to attack Syria, shouldn't the President at some point go to Congress with a plan? I thought Congress was supposed to be the only branch of government that could declare war? Should we support continued American attacks without a larger discussion with the American people and its elected representatives?

What's the plan?

 

[The Thriller]

And before the conservatives on the board accuse me of being an opportunistic anti-trumper, please know that I was grateful for the republican Congress denying President Obama's request for escalation in Syria back in 2013. I saw it then and continue to see it now, Syria is NOT a hill worth dying over. Greater conflict between us, Syria, Russia, and Turkey is not recommended. Who will be left to run Syria? How would Israel feel about regime change, opening the door for radical rebels to take over Syria and its WMD weapons supply? Wouldn't taking out Assad serve Syria on a silver dish to radical Islamists?

The devil that we know is better than the devil we don't know...

However, I feel American messaging has been mixed. We need to take a stand and decide from one of the three remaining options:

#1 Do we care about teaching Assad a lesson? The president must go to Congress, present a plan for potential regime change, and go from there with the understanding of potential escalation.
#2 Do we care about Syria but don't want to risk escalation? Lets open up the doors to Syrian refugees. We might not help them out militarily but we can help out those who wish to leave.
#3 Admit that we don't give a **** about Syria and retract the military and shut out doors to Syria. But admitting such also prohibits us from any further political or military action against Syria. When (not if) Assad gasses another town, lets admit that it's sad but we have other priorities.

Instead, we are closing our doors to Syrian refugees while simultaneously making the situation worse (not better) by blowing up more stuff in the country once a year whenever the President needs a much needed distraction from his own political messes...

 

[framer]

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.

Here's the article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-300-killed-and-wounded-sources-idUSKCN1FZ2DZ

Historically, Russia has never been a power over-concerned with the number of casualties on their side in military matters. Imagine a one day operation that resulted in 300 dead American soldiers. It would mean weeks of outrage here. . .

 

[babe]

Pretty sure the news reports aren't comprehensive or factual enough to judge things by......

I don't think Assad is worth deposing, or the Russian bases there worth contesting. I think, if I could believe what I've been told by people who know more than me.... Assad has protected the Christians in Syria. If we were taking refugees that might assimilate into American traditional society, and they wanted to come, fine. If we're expected to take fire-breathing radicals who want to bomb our malls or drive rented trucks through crowds in our parks, or fly commercial airlines into our skycrapers..... hell no.

Trump spoke the level truth when he said we are not going to solve the problems in the middle east, it will be the people there who will or will not find any better way. All we are saying here is that we stand for the international treaties against WMD use on civilian populations or in war, for that matter.

I wouldn't be so damn sure the chemical attack was Assad rather than some false flag trying to sucker punch US foreign policy or stampede an ignorant US populace into war. I just hope not. I just hope our President and intelligence has something that would actually call for our action..... But I really don't like this military swagger thing.

Putin is nobody's angel, and Xi is another regime that factually is oppressive against human rights I think are paramount. I wonder how much difference we can make diplomatically, but certainly we have to be strong, and conduct ourselves in a way that projects our actual values, and upholds our actual ideals and treaties.

 

[Rubashov]

Does the US have our hands on that oil?

American and British corporations have the contracts to exploit the oil reserves so i'd say yeah. Our governments no longer pursue our interests they pursue the interests of corporations. Its the critical failure of our democracies, the capture of politics and legislators by corporations, from this we get corporate tax avoidance, the disintegration of our welfare state, erosion of environmental protections, the list goes on.

 

[Rubashov]

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.

I doubt that if a Russian died in an air strike by the west we'd ever hear about it. Much more likely that western 'advisers' are killed by the Russians, still won't escalate the conflict.

 

[Rubashov]

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.

Excellent post, don't forget the legacy of the first Gulf War, Iraq has an incredibly high rate of juvenile cancer, probably linked to the DUP rounds used by America. Clinton lost his bottle after Somalia.

 

[Gameface]

Edit