Slashdot Mirror
US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles (nbcnews.com)
mi writes: Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target -- Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria, the Defense Department said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired chemical weapons on Tuesday. There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site, including the runway, were hit. Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago." The report also notes that the strike "dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition."
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
Is there a Mars colony that is getting just a slashdot feed? Otherwise, fuck off, slashdot, this is again an article that completely useless for 99% earth! Every fucking tv channel, twitter, facebook, website, blog and missconfiguried gopher:// service is reporting this since 4hrs, the 1% that does not really know what happens, DOES NOT CARE!
Let him taste the bayonet like Gaddafi did
Neat, more than $93M ($1.59M unit cost according to wikipedia) gone in a single (non war related) strike. /s
Thanks goodness he saved money by cutting the budget of EPA and NSF!
...but at $50million dollars for the strike, it sure does keep Raytheon in the black...
wants war more than anyone? Whenever there is trouble in the Middle East, the constant common factor is the United States.
Because what would a war in the Middle East be if the US didn't destroy all the baby milk factories that coincidentally look just like air bases, missile launch sites, and terrorist training camps.
The next volley will surely be aimed at the school for the mentally disabled.
What does thhis kind of news have to do with /.?
Put those together and this is a very limited way to "must do something" that so many people have been calling for. It also sent a message to North Korea and China. Hopefully nothing more comes of it.
Personally, I find it implausible that Assad ordered a chemical attack now. Also, I'm pretty sure that John Kerry told us that Assad had handed over his entire chemical arsenal a while back. The US news about the chemical attack has been full-blown Pallywood, and now they are trying to spin this missile strike into the opening blow of WWIII.
As a long-time Trump supporter, I really, really hope that he hasn't been neo-conned by holdovers in the intelligence community, but even if he was, this limited attack is certainly not what they were hoping for.
See that "Preview" button?
Don't like what you see...... change the channel on your HTTV!
Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive? Can't the US get a bulk discount at this point?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
These actions seem to be yet another thing that run contrary to his rhetoric. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, I'm just saying, he sure doesn't seem to be a man of his word.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Also there was very little US reaction to the earlier chemical weapon attacks in Syria so that reason sounds incredibly unlikely. Elvis alive today riding on a unicorn unlikely.
- Trump is a Russian puppet selling out his country because of secret business deals and/or pee pee tapes
- Trump is a crazy warmonger trying to start a war with Russia
He did enough to "do something" - because doing nothing probably wasn't a realistic option and even if it was a false flag he couldn't really say so without starting another shitstorm - and hopefully it did enough to appease the 75% of the country (all dems + half reps) who seem to be dying for WW3. Plus the Russia narrative looks even sillier now than it did before now that he's basically bombed them by proxy, and he'll probably even get a poll bump. The Alex Joneses of the world might be disappointed, but it's not like they're ever actually abandoning ship, and if the libs are reduced to complaining about the price of the missiles you know they've got nothing.
If he starts talking about an invasion or regime change via military force, then I'll get worried. But if this is all that happens (barring more shenanigans from Assad/whoever really did it), then it's probably a net positive overall, depending on how pissed Russia really is.
US has always seemed like an invading force to me in Syria, yet the media where I live never seem to discuss this or so is my impression, almost as if the news I am reading is pro USA propaganda somehow.
I already have listed USA as a terrorist org. and although there might be good causes, I think USA is not the good guys, and I guess they never were. It is probably all about power, abuse and getting away with it.
OK - you probably worked that out long ago but some many out there do not understand that Trump can never be taken at his word. He seems to have broken it more than kept it which is why US Banks wouldn't touch him in the last decade.
If we're attacking their bases, that means they had no chemical weapons and perpetrated none of the attacks on those civilians.
So, who did it then? Was it all US all along?
:Looks like we zapped a few Russkies in the the mix. Tough luck guys, you were warned in advance. But take heart, by tomorrow you will be visiting school children again.
About time we get to use some nukes! Norks, you are next!
Yeeee Haaawwww!
Maj. T.J. "King" Kong
P.S. This proves without question that the President is not, and was not, ever involved with Putin and his henchmen.
Good thing everyone voted against Clinton and stopped her from starting another war in the middle east. Oh wait...
Sure it is, Pyotr -- or is it Ivan?
It must make you feel all warm and fuzzy to side with people using nerve gas on infants.
Naaah, you live a bit further east than Norway. right Ivan?
You didn't get any "insight" mods, but I think yours was one of the better comments so far. However, you did leave out some of the key players in the mess.
In particular Iran was the big winner of Dubya's war against Saddam, and they seem to be playing a similar game in Syria now. Basically just laying low and moving into the power vacuums that appear. They would gladly consolidate a Shia caliphate if they could. Turkey is quite nearby and extremely concerned, though it is hard to tell if they are more concerned about getting more involved or about the situation getting more out of control. Meanwhile, the Saudi Arabians are pumping money into the mess and might get desperate if their "proxy warriors" in the region are being exterminated on a wholesale basis.
#PresidentTweety has not done anything to improve the situation, but it's unclear if the launch of roughly $100 million of fancy missiles is going to make things worse. Hard to see how things could get worse (especially in Syria and North Korea), but I keep getting surprised in the worst way... (I just hope Bannon is really on his way out rather than on route to greater mischief.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Looks like you're getting rid of your computer. Because you saw an article on slashdot that you didn't like. And then you commented on.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Here is the first consequence of that ageism in the donkey party's bureaucracy. If Bernard Sanders, a wise mature man, had been a candidate we would probably live now in another better world.
RIGHT UP YOUR ASS...
By hitting Assad Donald is helping IS, Al Qaeda, etc.
By hitting Assad Donald shows he follows through on a false flag.
By hitting Assad Donald keeps playing the world police role even though the empire is fading.
It is all so obvious. `The US` (deep state, etc) want a continuation of any war. Justice is not important.
Seems unlikely that the rebels could get the sarin. Also, they would have to keep it on hand while waiting for a suitable airstrike from Assad, and then release it in a way that could have come from bombs. Doing all of that in the chaos of an actual bombing attack seems pretty tough.
Much easier for Putin to arrange it. Wouldn't even need the pilot to know that a few of his bombs had been switched for poison gas bombs. All it would take is a fighter support crew 'donated' by Putin as part of his support of Assad. Or maybe even simpler if Assad's people can't inspect the weapons they receive from Russia. Just mix a few sarin bombs into the latest delivery.
When I think about it that way, suddenly it could make sense. Putin could almost surely anticipate that #PresidentTweety would react almost exactly as he did. The exact reaction is not critical if Putin's goal is just to draw America further into the quagmire. Might even count as a business transaction if (1) Putin is sure that Assad has the cash to buy replacement weapons from Russia, and (2) Assad is unsure whether any of his soldiers are hiding some sarin from him. Condition (2) could be tricky, because if Assad realized that Putin did it to provoke the American reaction, then he'd have to be a real idiot to buy more weapons from Putin. Some limited evidence that Assad is not an idiot.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
US again using 'false flag'. Trump now has its own Tonkin. Occams razor applied to "Who benefits?" makes it highly improbable that Assad would prefer defeat through using chemical weapons while winning the war already. The US is again supporting terrorism.
adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."
It is also an act of war and a military attack on a foreign country. Not that the USA ever cared about that, but if you wanted to give Russia a perfect excuse to activate it's S-400 on US airplanes, you just did.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
+1. Even Trump will get things right occasionally.
Do people really think that all of the world's problem's, real and imagined, are the US fault alone? And that it is OK for Assad to drop poison gas on civilians.
Get real.
Throughout 2016 we were told that Clinton would "declare a no-fly zone over Syria and cause a war with Russia". Not even 4 months on the job - Trump launches a massive airstrike against Syria... wasn't your whole argument against Clinton based on the idea that she would leave Asad to do whatever evil he wants to rather than provoke Russia ?
Something tells me Putin is seriously pissed right now, after all that effort to put a puppet in the white house.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Why can't we all just get along?
Many Trump supporters upset that he is using military force, because one of the major reasons for voting against Clinton was the allegation that she was a warmonger.
Perhaps this, and other similar comments, are tongue-in-cheek and that part of my brain isn't active yet. It's interesting to hear people say individuals backed Trump because they thought Clinton was a warmonger.
In my area, I heard people say they voted for Clinton because Trump was a warmonger.
Even though we have means to communicated with the rest of the world, it appears the information we have is still extremely limited and skewed by the ruling classes of our area.
On a side note, chemical weapons were used against civilians. I think the response from Trump was appropriate. Basically telling them to sit down, shut up, and pay attenuation.
Thank God Some one has some balls to stop the murdering of innocent children. Obama's dummycraps Don't care about them and I'll bet are supporting Russia and Syria and not the U.S.
'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'
That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.
Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
First off, we've had over 7,000 airstrikes on Syria. 60 more doesn't really change the situation. The U.S. propaganda media arm just gave President Obama a pass on all of his war crimes.
Furthermore, there was a clear use of chemical weapons. Now personally, I suspect Assad was set up, and that ISIL or other entity launched the chemical attack to draw blame on Assad, and ensure the Resident Rump would continue President Obama's military aggression in Syria. But this was far more justified than most of the 7,000 prior attacks in recent years.
I still think we shouldn't be sticking our nose everywhere, and many of these situations were exacerbated by U.S. involvement.
When you draw a line in the sand, how many times do you allow the morons to cross over the line before you hit back?
The attack in 2013 turned out to be a false flag attack intended to draw the U.S. into the conflict against Assad; this is just another instance of ISIS gassing their own people in order to blame Assad.
There are some bad people at work, here, and a lot of them are in our government.
we can't very well have people killing the same people we are killing in a manor that we find crude. therefor, we will kill you in a manor we find acceptable, and then continue killing the people you missed.
Huh,. Everyone stopped talking aboutâ the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia in meddling with last U.S. election.
This is not what I come to /. for.
In other news this morning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why the heck do you need 59 missiles to hit one airfield?!? Is the guidance system designed by Microsoft or something? If a GPS in your cell phone can be accurate within ten feet, you should be able to do at least that with a missile.
Put one in the middle of each runway to disable it; what's left on either side is too short to use as a runway. ... ... hype?
Put one in each building you want to remove. Doesn't sound that complex
Was all the hype about a powerful military just that
One major way Syria is NOT like Libya (but is like Iraq) is that the Alawites are a minority. 46 years of the Assads may have raised their numbers from 5% of the population to 10%, but they remain regarded as heretics/apostates by Sunnis. While in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, the uprisings were people's uprisings against tyrannical leaders, Syria was different: once an uprising started against Assad, the Alawites saw it as a pretext to do to them what Iraq's Shi'ites did to Sunnites and Chaldeans after Saddam's ouster. They saw themselves being wiped out if they let Assad fall, so they pulled in the support of Iran's Quds force, Hizbullah, Iraq's Mahdi Army while the rebels pulled in Jihadis from places as diverse as Pakistan and UK. Also, the Alawite concerns were not unfounded: when the FSA (not ISIS) had briefly captured Aleppo and Homs, they either massacred or drove out Christians from those areas, since Christians had been a part of the Baath coalition.
From an Iranian point of view, the Baathists in Syria are a pivotal bridge between them and Hizbullah in Lebanon, and help form the Shi'ite Crescent of Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, giving them a hinterland to back other Shi'ite insurgencies like in Yemen, Bahrein and Saudi Arabia. They have a deep history with the Assads: during the Iran-Iraq war, Hafez al Assad was one of two Arab leaders who broke the Arab League coalition and backed Iran: the other being Gadaffi.
As for Russia, they've seen Sunnite insurgencies on their frontiers, like Chechnya, and also the latest terrorist attack in St Petersburg done by a Kyrgyz/Uzbek terrorist, and have recognized the Wahabis/Saudis as being behind this indoctrination. So they've adapted a strategy of backing the Shi'ites to undermine the Saudis and their allies in the region. They have two reasons to back Assad: one, Syria remains one of their few customers for military hardware, particularly after the fall of Libya. Two, the last thing they want to see is a united Sunni bloc south of them, which could potentially spread to the stans and be a real threat to them, as opposed to the West, who just issue diplomatic criticisms of them.
Trump just doesn't have the GUNS to be president. He's no Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I think possibly one assumption people are making is that it had to be "Assad" OR "the Rebels".
This is a civil war that has been raging for 6 years. Also you have a Dictator who is in power due to his control of the military and Russian support. Perhaps Assad doesn't have the control he once had over his military, perhaps he doesn't have the Russian political support he once had. There could be other internal political agendas as work here outside US/Russia and Assad/Rebels. Remember this is a pretty fractured country. Perhaps someone in Assad's military decided it was time for some political change. Perhaps the Russia support is waning, or the war isn't going so well and required some show of force.
Who knows. I doubt it was all the conspiracy theory of US/Rebel false flag bs being thrown around on Slashdot. Heck could be some grunt at the airfield loading the wrong payloads, or running out of conventional bombs they decided to breakout the perfectly good chemical ones just sitting there doing nothing. Anyway assuming that Assad ordered it done intentionally is also assuming he has complete control over his military which may not be the case.
Anyway the fact that the US targeted the airfield was probably the best response, seeing as that was where the chemical weapons seemingly come from. 60 cruise missiles seems a bit overkill, but then again this was primarily about sending a message to Assad, physical damage was a secondary spin-off. This was also a not so subtle message to Russia, and a more nuanced one to the UN (and their inability to take any action).
If you really dig down into the root cause of instability in this portion of the Middle East, I'd blame the Europeans for carving up the region after they defeated the Ottoman Empire in the first World War. They drew those borders with little to no consideration for the indigenous cultural, lingual, and political boundaries. As a result, you have disparate peoples forced together into the same "country" trying to form a unified government. And (in the most extreme case) the Kurds - 28 million people spread across as minorities in four countries without a country to call their own.
This is a great point. After WWI, the Brits & French simply divided up the region based on what THEY occupied, regardless of who lived where. Hence you have the Kurds spread out between 4 countries, none of which to call their own. Given how none of these countries are our friends - Iraq being an Iranian puppet - it's worth revisiting that, carving out Kurdistan from all 4 countries, and giving them that country. Just put one condition - there has to be genuine religious pluralism: Kurdistan can't become an Islamic state. Also, they must accommodate and give full freedoms to Yazidis, Assyrian and Syrian Christians, and all other religious minorities within their area. Include in their territory cities like Kirkuk, Palmyra, and even some areas of eastern Turkey.
For the Alawites, give them the entire Mediterranean coast, including Turkey's Hatay province, so that they have Ladakya and Antakya. Give Damascus to the Druze. For the Sunnites, unite the Sunnite areas of Iraq & Syria - running from Raqqa to al Anbar province, and hand it over to Jordan, instead of creating a new country. Central and Southern Iraq - from Baghdad to Basra - unite that with Iran's Khuzestan province (which is Arab) to form a Shi'ite country - maybe include Bahrein in it as well as Saudi Arabia's al Hasa province, which is majority Shi'ite.
Source please? Internet search reveals no evidence that Assad actually did this, let alone what airfield was used.
NEE Nee nee nee Nee NEEEEEEEE!!!!
One in the middle of a runway won't necessarily disable the site for long, as a single crater is repairable in a reasonable amount of time. A runway that's been peppered with ordnance to the point where it resembles a teenager's face is much more definitely out of action for an appreciable period of time.
That said, I also though that using as many as 59 missiles, especially at over £1.5M a shot, seemed a bit over-the-top.
Oh, good, he's invoking god to justify bombing the shit out of Syria. So, god is obviously on our side in this one. I was wondering about that.
"'No child of God should ever suffer such horror': Trump explains why he launched air strikes on Syria in the wake of chemical gas attack
Sadly, the shills on r/The_Donald were saying that nobody was killed or even injured.
It's sad that people can lie like that.
September 2013: Obama ordered air strike against Syria after Assad gas attack.
Probably the biggest reason you don't understand, is that you think there exists an entity to which you refer using the word "you."
There isn't a "you." There's a "him," another "him," a "those guys," and a "those other people" and a "him" etc. A government isn't a person, and a government stretched over many decades isn't even a vague approximation of a group of persons who all have something in common.
We just had an election, and one president (Trump) is trying to undo most of the previous president (Obama), who tried to preserve and expand everything the president before him (Bush2) did, etc, who agreed/disagreed somewhat with the previous president (Clinton), etc. And those are only presidents. There's Congresscritters changing, advisors changing (Bannon de-emphasized, in Trump's short time) and then even within a single president, 8 years is a long time and people get older (do you agree with 2009-you)?
Saddam goes back so many decades, there is no "you." It would be no less crazy to say that Hitler and Ghandi seem inconsistent; one minute he's gassing jews and the next minute he's saying to resist nonviolently.
By "get out" I mean no military intervention, no foreign aid (except for emergencies like natural disasters), no weapons sales, and no immigration by mid-eastern nationals (except for very select cases).
1) Money, and weapons, always end up in the wrong hands.
Hamas is getting their money from Qatar. The US gave Qatar $11 billion. We might as well have given the money directly to Hamas. ISIS is using US military equipment. There are many more examples.
2) The US will be blamed, and hated, even more than it already is, by everybody in the world, especially Muslims.
Any military intervention will be called an invasion. The US will be accused of killing civilians to steal the oil of whatever mid-east nation we are "helping" this week. If we help tribe A, tribe B will hate us even more. Then tribe A will hate us as soon as we stop helping them. All casualties will be blamed on the US, even if most casualties are the result of Muslims killing other Muslims. And there is always that one-in-a-million soldier that does something completely out of line, and that is all the media will focus on.
3) The US can no longer afford the outrageous expense.
The US is drowning in debt. Our credit has been downgrading. Our economy is in the toilet. Yet we borrow more billions from China, to give to mid-eastern Muslim who hate us.
4) There are no "good guys"
Does it really matter if Syria, or Iraq, or whatever, is ran by insane Sunis, or equally insane Shites? Our friends today, are our enemies tomorrow. I believe both Saddam Hussan, and Osama bin Ladan where our buddies at one time. Between Assad and ISIS, who is the good guy? They all seem like murdering thugs, why pick sides?
5) Even if you win, you lose.
Over ten years, and I don't even know how many billions of dollars, or thousands of lives, or how much suffering, in Iraq. And now Iraq is being overrun by ISIS. Even before ISIS, it was non-stop terrorist attacks. If we stop ISIS than what? Peace for two weeks?
6) Other than buying oil, the US has no business there.
Clearly the US does not want another nation interfering in our politics. In only stands to reason that other nations do want the US interfering in their politics. The US may have good intentions, but other nations will not see it that way.
Money is the point. You are not the point.
They do. Money. They've turned this stuff into regular and substantial paychecks. Largest military budget in the world, larger than the next several countries combined. So what's on the agenda? Increasing military spending, that's what.
The military-industrial complex completely disagrees with you. And they run the show, because we keep re-electing those willing to be their puppets.
Welcome to the machine. What are you going to do about it? What do you think you can do about it?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You act like Trump pulled out the presidential credit card, said "order me some bombs" and then launched them.
Now maybe there will be a cost to replace these munitions, but my understanding is that there are "plenty where that came from" so realistically there's no immediate financial cost for materials. Additionally - and this is a bit more of a cynical view - a lot of these things actually become expensive to keep around and maintain over the long term. An unused bomb/missile is one that has to be checked for integrity regularly to ensure that it is still viable and also not likely to go over due to defect, and they need to be stored etc.
Now if Trump orders a bunch of new fighter jets, aircraft carriers, or munitions you'll have a legitimate gripe in this area.
Sovereign nations should stay far away from getting involved in civil wars. There are never any winners.
It'd be cheaper to build a new block of houses for all the Syrian refugees than to fight this war. When will the President start running the country like a business? Because going to war is a bad business decision. (although profitable for a small minority of contractors, it's not a profit for the US)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Less than month ago, the US coalition killed 300 Syrian refugees in airstrikes on a school in Raqqa which was used as a refuge for civilians.
And now the US claims to care about protecting civilians? The hypocrisy is disgusting.
Z^1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Today, April 7, 2017 - a date which will live in infamy - the nation of Syria was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval forces of the United States of America.
--
Oh I forgot, military action _against_ international laws without declaration of war is only bad if anybody else does it to you, right?
> A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.
I don't know. Seems work out positively for NK. You look crazy people give you a wide berth.
Seems like the cold war has restarted. Weren't the Korean and Vietnam Wars proxy wars waged between the US & Russia during the "cold war"?
I just fixed it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
(Edit summary: First paragraph did not mention the intended target, which left a quite misleading impression that Syrian forces were the intended target.)
We'll see if the cadre of anti-American Wikipedia editors reverts to the misleading version.
The removal of him and failure to provide Iraq with a functional government lead to the formation if Isis
Following the "troop surge" of January 2007, the rate of insurgent attacks in Iraq was low and trending lower.
If the level of U.S. security assistance had been modulated by facts on the ground, Iraq's democratic institutions would have continued to take root and there would have been no ISIS.
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we have not signed a Status of Forces Agreement, so the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Following the "troop surge" of January 2007, the rate of insurgent attacks in Iraq was low and trending lower.
If the level of U.S. security assistance had been modulated by facts on the ground, Iraq's democratic institutions would have continued to take root and there would have been no ISIS.
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The Bush Administration's "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse for cutting and running. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we don't want to extend the Status of Forces Agreement, therefore the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Given all the turmoil Iraq has suffered, going all the way back to 1963 when the Ba'ath Party violently seized power, Iraq has a surprisingly high GDP per capita right now. It's higher than Costa Rica, a very peaceful place.
As such, it's quite wrong to blame economic conditions for the rise of ISIS.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
it is unclear which faction outside Assad's regime has the skills and the resources to maintain control of Syria
Having studied the situation quite a bit, it's pretty clear to me.
Removal of Assad would greatly empower al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria (which has wisely not publicized its atrocities on social media, so as to avoid the degree of military action that has been brought against ISIS).
Following the "troop surge" of January 2007, the rate of insurgent attacks in Iraq was low and trending lower.
If the level of U.S. security assistance had been modulated by facts on the ground, Iraq's democratic institutions would have continued to take root and there would have been no ISIS.
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we do not wish to extend the Status of Forces Agreement, so the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Following the "troop surge" of January 2007, the rate of insurgent attacks in Iraq was low and trending lower.
If the level of U.S. security assistance had been modulated by facts on the ground, Iraq's democratic institutions would have continued to take root and there would have been no ISIS.
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we are not extending the Status of Forces Agreement, so the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I would place some blame on the U.S. electorate, for being more receptive to this brain-dead campaign promise:
"I will bring our troops home!"
than to this nuanced campaign promise:
"The level of U.S. security assistance to Iraq will be modulated by facts on the ground, so that Iraq's democratic institutions will continue to take root and terror groups will continue to be weakened."
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we do not wish to extend the a Status of Forces Agreement, so the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Following the "troop surge" of January 2007, the rate of insurgent attacks in Iraq was low and trending lower.
If the level of U.S. security assistance had been modulated by facts on the ground, Iraq's democratic institutions would have continued to take root and there would have been no ISIS.
When you are operating a brand new nuclear reactor, you don't say "our simulator says we should be able to pull the control rods all the way out, and there won't be a meltdown, so let's pull the control rods all the way out." No, you very cautiously pull the control rods out, a millimeter at a time, to verify that the system reacts as the simulator predicts.
Iraq should have been handled just as cautiously. Instead, the control rods were abruptly pulled all the way out, and we got the meltdown of ISIS.
The "Status of Forces Agreement" is not an excuse for cutting and running. Imagine Japanese officials in 1947 saying "we do not renew the Status of Forces Agreement, therefore the U.S. occupation must end." Douglas MacArthur would have laughed his ass off!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
McDonnell Douglas (correct spelling) ceased to exist in 1997, when it merged with Boeing. Apparently you have been living under a rock for more than two decades!
Z^2
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Full disclosure: I am a Russian citizen.
Since I have not found anything like "36 rockets" here I must warn you of 2 facts:
1) Exactly 36 Tomahawks were lost in transit and were unable to hit the Shairat base.
2) The Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system based in Khmeymim can track and destroy exactly 36 targets at once.
Get that attention span worked on kid. Just because the evil shit Ghadaffi was up to wasn't in the press for a while doesn't mean that all should be forgiven.
It's incredible strange (and even more pathetic) that Ghaddafi is getting the "born again" treatment just because Hillary may have fucjed up in 2011. Do you really worship The Party more than you care for your country? Are you that good a Komrade?
No. He was still up to his tricks until the day he died it's just that the terrorists he supplied more recently were not bothering us.
No it does not.
Instead of being hysterical and attacking messengers perhaps you should consider whose opinions really count instead of trying to pretend that I am to blame.
You are also forgetting that is is very likely that those rebels are actually allies that we have been supplying. There already is a lot of US backed and direct US military action going on in Syria.
... less than 24 hours later, the Assad regime launched another attack on that same city from that same air base.
Are ya' getting tired of winning, yet? I know I am. #maga
And replacing those Tomahawks will result in money being spent in a state and in a congressional district, perhaps more than one.
In my more cynical moments, I think this sort of thing is deliberate.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Russians dropped bombs and chemicals were released as a result. Trump said it was bad, reprehensible, unspeakable and immoral. So he did the same. The people there had to deal with Russian bombs. Then with poison gas (likely chlorine and not Sarin). Then with American bombs. If you think those were 'kinder, gentler' bombs, you're crazy. The Russians at least were bombing the (falsely so-called) 'rebels.' America was probably bombing the rescue workers. Trump has blamed Assad with no evidence, even without any logic. It makes no sense! Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cNuPd2CDk
Look, Assad is the president and Syrians picked him, even again since the hostilities, because they know that the 'rebels' are outsiders who fight within the borders to make it look like dissent. Assad knows that the U.S. wants to run every country it can overthrow. He's probably seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU
in which Gen. Clark states that the U.S. has had the intention to destroy Syria since 2001. Watch it! Assad wants to run Syria for Syrians, not for Americans. He knows who's behind the 'rebels' so he asked Russia to help rid him of those 'rebels.'
The American bombs were just aimed (only 23 of 59 hit the target!); even WITH close oversight, this is what you get (watch McCord's testimony):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-scotland-leave-uk-independence-referendum-join-canada-eu-province-a7673296.html
And where did the gas come from?
http://www.inquisitr.com/4124806/hillary-clinton-once-accused-of-approving-delivery-of-sarin-gas-to-syrian-rebels-in-order-to-set-up-assad/
and this was done to enable what has now happened. Here's another eye-opener:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178
Learned from Japan Today's News evening edition that Mr. Abe of Japan supported US missile attack on Syria along with few more leaders .Though the attack were carried with out consent of UN Security Council . May be he has forgotten the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Roll of US during WWII .
After 9/11 for the oil and safeguard of Israel create a drama of mass destruction weapons lying with Mr. Saddam of Iraq. So need to destroy him same way with out authorisation of UN Security Council ,started war game among those countries later on found nothing and told then information were wrong . But in the mean time destroyed whole the Iraq. Same had done in Libiya .Not only for this created whole the ME particularly Muslim countries as fire ball destroyed the social and religious harmony still they are killing each other .
Later observed Syria will difficult for Israel Planned to fall Mr. Assad region created entry Assad various group including IS to whom direct and indirect providing money ,logistic each and every support and thus almost destroyed Syria except not yet possible to toppled Assad region on the blessing of Iran and Russia.
World were observed during long lasting Iraq Iran war logistic supply were made for both country properly with Israel (famous as Contra scandal)and S.Arabia.
As a civilised life we can not accept any kind of killing and inhuman activities. But questions comes due to killing civilian by Mr. Assad US triggered Missile to Syria then can we expect the same action for killing millions of civilian in Iraq, Lybia, Afganistan by US coalition ?Can we expect same action for killing Palestinian by Israel? Whole the world not authorised with out investigation to punish Mr. Assad by killing the people and destroy the in fracture of other country on assumption because the same gas was used by rebel of Syria reported earlier . We can expect to know who were supplied this gas to them ? What the civilised world done when US killing 200 civilian in Mosul last month? Know all question is valueless and all cause are vague . UN have no moral right to do some thing against the big power.
As US coalition backed group now are defeating so to help them US coalition created drama to cuttle the strength of Mr. Assad for strong the hand of rebel and IS .
And another side when Trumps popularity going down he may be tried to improve support by opening new field to play War game under the banner of safe the democracy and humanity.
We the general people do not want any war any blood shed . So need to stop the war game, sale and production of arms. Wants peace peace and peace around the world nothing else.
https://youtu.be/4VWISlypcrA
http://goo.gl/FY7iqU
I have no idea what Z^2 even means but thanks for proving that you actually have no intelligent counterargument and are just another braindead troll.
Z^3
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.