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.
I'm guessing the Slashdot community should be discussing this via telepathy then.
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!
I'm guessing the Slashdot community should be discussing this via telepathy then.
I'm quite sure that the majority of Slashdot readers are capable of having multiple windows open, and not relying on Slashdot for general ewws.
Yeah, cause removing the only source of stability is such a great idea. Just look at Libya now.
Libya is so freee now! So cool
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.
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.
Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.
If not Assad, then who? The Russians aren't this stupid.
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.
Americans don't care if Libya is free or not. Do they even want western freedom?
The wicked witch is dead, we'll settle for that.
It may be that stability isn't required for Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others to benefit from the removal of Assad. Especially if any dangerous groups that claim territory can be attacked from the air with impunity, which is the case and will continue to be the case.
If not Assad, then who?
False flag.
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.
"...I no longer trust the news I am reading..."
People thinking like you are who got Trump elected in the first place. Keep looking though, you'll find a source somewhere that will feed you "facts" that fit your beliefs.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
“False flag” does not answer “then who”, but more importantly, what war crime can't be written off as a false flag operation? If an army bombs a hospital either by mistake or as a tool of terror, just label it as “false flag”. It would be stupid to do it, so someone else did it. Who exactly? I dunno, must be the enemy.
Using gas to poison your own population makes twisted sort of sense — use terror to subjugate people. The more horrific the crime, the more effective it is. I personally don't believe it is true, but this line of thinking is rather widespread. Using such terror tactics is risky because of repercussions from the “international community”, but a week ago Syria had direct support from Iran and Russia, diplomatic support from China. From the west, Assad was already isolated and no one was interested in “Starting WW3”, especially since Trump had taken the “Stay out of Syria” line. If there ever was a time to use chemical weapons, this was it.
Just slap an arduino on the missiles and make it IoT or something and bob's your uncle.
I already have listed USA as a terrorist org
This statement caught my eye. Can you name some other “terrorist countries”?
Good thing everyone voted against Clinton and stopped her from starting another war in the middle east. Oh wait...
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.
Stability Putin-style comes from establishing a de-facto monarchy and wrapping the cowardly russians in ever-increasing layers of obfuscation and propaganda. "stability" indeed.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore
Is it really that much worse than getting hit by a bullet ?
Personally, I find it implausible that Assad ordered a chemical attack now.
lol whut
As a long-time Trump supporter,
Aaaah, that makes sense.
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.
Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.
Why is it too awful? The death toll from this particular attack is a lot less than from many conventional airstrikes. The fact that people are somehow less accepting of chemicals than of just bombing people to death with explosives is insane.
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.
As a long-time Trump supporter, you must realize his ability to pass the buck and avoid responsibility is his paramount concern. The scuttlebutt before the U.S. strike was that the U.S. encouraged Assad to do whatever he wanted because of Trump being Putin's poodle, and T-Rex and that ridiculous excuse for a U.N. ambassador announcing that Assad's fate was in the hands of the Syrian people. So Assad does what he does best, something incredibly stupid making el Presidente Tweetie look like he egged him on.
So ePT does what he does best, cover his tracks so that he doesn't look responsible for what Assad has done. The previous scuttlebutt is no longer mentioned, mission accomplished.
Now if that asshole had not just taken a whack out of the State Department, and staffed it properly, he'd have a followup. But he doesn't think ahead, he mostly reacts to the moment. Somehow it is not okay to see Syrian children dead but it is okay to screw poor Americans out of their health care. He's a cad and a bounder, and totally without honor.
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 *
I find it interesting that you applied Occam's Razor to your "who benefits" question but not to your "false flag" conspiracy.
Why can't we all just get along?
'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.
Assad / the Assad regime had absolutely nothing to win by using chemical weapons and could only lose by such an attack. For his opposition it was a field day.
Cui bono?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
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?
It makes sense from an evil dictators point of view when he knows that the world isn't watching or doesn't care.
It makes absolutely no sense from his point of view when he knows everyone's watching and some of the top military powers of the world are just looking for an excuse to bomb him some more. In that case, he'd just drop conventional bombs. They're cheap, don't cause that much of a stir, and used on unprotected targets they're just as deadly.
Cui bono?
This is a good principle to get a list of suspects, not enough to find the guilty party.
For his opposition it was a field day.
If you suggest the opposition (whomever those are) did it, then it is a risky move — what if they get caught? That would be a disaster for their PR. Now, since we have Cui bono? principle, perhaps the Assad really did it, thinking that it is so absurd to think that he you gas his own people, that the rebels would be blamed.
absolutely nothing to win by using chemical weapons
How so? It is effective at killing people and since no one seemed to care enough about hundred thousand killed so far, why not?
This is not what I come to /. for.
he'd just drop conventional bombs
Since sarin is heavier than air, it is good at attacking basements, which tend to survive conventional bombing. Yes, you could use bunker busters, but those are expensive. And don't forget the effectiveness of terror itself. Colourless, odourless silent killer? That helps to sleep tight at night.
world isn't watching or doesn't care.
Watching? Yes. Cares? Not in any practical sense.
In other news this morning:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
You are welcome on my lawn.
"...I no longer trust the news I am reading..."
People thinking like you are who got Trump elected in the first place, when it was shown many times the media were in collusion with Hillary Clinton's campaign..
http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
If the goal is terror, then killing everyone in the basement isn't necessary.
That helps to sleep tight at night.
And the chance of getting a bomb dropped on your head at any time is any better?
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
If not Assad, then who? The Russians aren't this stupid.
I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics. Russia may have prompted Assad to do this because they want to test the waters without being directly blamed for it in a way that sticks. I am not asserting that Russia did it. I am merely offering the possibility that Russia being behind it may not be as stupid as seem to think.
Ultimately, it is really fucked up regardless of who did it, but then, once you get to power, people don't matter, power does. That means people end up getting caught up in the gears of the power machine. Too bad for them. It is kind of a shame we can't stigmatize killing people like we do creating (sex) people.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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).
Assad pinky promised to John Kerry that he would destroy all chemical weapon stockpiles. Assad wouldn't lie would he? In any case, Assad hasn't handed his chemical weapon stockpiles over to anyone, and provided no proof that he has destroyed them.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
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
September 2013: Obama ordered air strike against Syria after Assad gas attack.
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.
If the goal is terror, then killing everyone in the basement isn't necessary.
I dunno. If I lived in a war zone and only safe place to sleep was basement and that is no longer safe, then that would increase my level of fear. In any case, I have not lived in a war zone, nor do I understand the reasoning behind such government terror. I am pointing out that false flag is not the only reasonable explanation.
And the chance of getting a bomb dropped on your head at any time is any better?
Conventional bombs kills that which is above the ground, gas kills those below or at ground level.
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.
Saddam never ceased to be useful. Not to mention that he never ceased to be loyal. Funny enough, he actually thought that he dealt with a sane and reliable partner that would keep his word or at least be rational.
That was basically his cardinal sin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
What stability has to do with raping subhumans?
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.
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.