Syria ~ Trump addresses the Nation

[MMC]

When you say "the rebels", don't forget to mention that they're jihadists who cut people's heads off, eat people's organs, put children inside cages, are trying to turn Syria into an Islamic state, and have used chemical weapons in the past.

The Kurds are considered rebels.....do they do that? Did you want to say all the Rebels are Jihadists?

[MMC]

Then why did they need a Chem attack? They were winning. Assad just decided this was a good time to commit a war crime because he was running out of opportunities to do so?

Again I can't think for him. But then if he wanted those people living outside Damascus to not enable or support the Rebels again. Do you think he could just tell them that in a speech?

[MMC]

Well, if he had, considering they "gave comfort and aid to the Rebels" as you say it might be the way it was, then it was all a matter of who survives. But it didn't happen that way. So much for the constant efforts to distort the truth and still make it a right to bomb other countries trying to survive I.S.I.S. and the Zionist apparatus.

What now if the dollar goes collapsing? Can't say what the future will be except that the Zionists will have lost. That's what happens when taking advantage of something for so long it finally destroys the host. They never gave any real thanks for all they have been given from so many angles, but instead used their grander positions to beat everyone else up over it.

The world was sent to hell so a few could dominate. The hungry barely have bread. The head of the tail has made his own date with certain destinations. Zionism is finite. Inside the Bible, the prophets said God is against it and its every deceit. How whole populations have been majorly hurt because of it. How many good soldiers have been used fighting for the same lies to receive nothing for it!

Its not a question if he had. He did.

Did you think Russia and Iran would allow the free flow of Oil to their enemies? Were you confused when Russia turned off the spiket for those Baltic States.


So you prefer the Russian ruble or Iranians Rial for a global economy?

[MMC]

Just because you assert it, doesn't make it so. There is no proof of it.

So then why did the Russians admit Chems were used. But blamed the Brits.

[MMC]

Given the paucity of actual witnesses to the chemical attack, what proof is there that they were delivered via an air attack? Since it is accepted that the Syrians were actually bombing at the time (conventional weapons), the witness or witnesses may have mistaken actual bombs for chemical weapons - the latter of which may have been fired by "rebels" with homemade launchers i.e. hell cannons. Did you not see the photograph of one of those cylinders laying on someone's bed? Do you suppose that such a device dropped from an aircraft remaining out of range of enemy fire would simply break through a roof and land on a bed, causing no further physical damage? That would be an impressive mattress. It defies the laws of physics.

If the Rebels were imbedded in the City. Do you think firing at the enemy outside the city would be a tell tale sign as to which direction artillery and launchers are firing their rounds? Do you think those firing into the city that the civilians would know which direction they are coming from? Meaning they are coming from outside the city. Note the Russians do not deny Assad was using his aircraft.

Do you think people would note what is falling out of the sky after some planes or helicopters flew over?

[Tahuyaman]

Given the paucity of actual witnesses to the chemical attack, what proof is there that they were delivered via an air attack? Since it is accepted that the Syrians were actually bombing at the time (conventional weapons), the witness or witnesses may have mistaken actual bombs for chemical weapons - the latter of which may have been fired by "rebels" with homemade launchers i.e. hell cannons. Did you not see the photograph of one of those cylinders laying on someone's bed? Do you suppose that such a device dropped from an aircraft remaining out of range of enemy fire would simply break through a roof and land on a bed, causing no further physical damage? That would be an impressive mattress. It defies the laws of physics.

People who witnessed the attack stated it came from aircraft.


I give up, too many people have their mind made up and nothing will change that.

[MisterVeritis]

You didn't see the link in post 463? That's funny you responded to it. Here let me re-post it back up again.


Washington has a vested interest in Syria. The United States has maintained global security through its expansive military presence and its almost instant strike-force capability across the world. This has translated into a monopoly of deploying force abroad, often legitimized by UN resolutions or “coalitions of the willing.” That no other great power has been able to rival U.S. military capabilities—at least conventional capabilities—has deterred the likes of Russia and China from engaging in foreign adventures of their own. Russia’s intervention in Syria—the first outside of the geographical area of the former Soviet Union—is a precedent in the post–Cold War era, and is a direct challenge to America’s leadership in managing global security and maintaining a monopoly on the use of force. Should the United States allow Russia to dictate the outcome of the Syrian conflict, and expose American weakness, it could encourage a repeat in behavior elsewhere. Indeed, an increasingly assertive China is already testing America’s willingness and ability to confront its claims to the South China Sea. It also threatens to diminish the role of the UN Security Council, should great powers no longer deem it necessary to pursue UN channels to mandate military action. In terms of global security and great power relations, Syria should absolutely matter to Washington


But neither of these interests—confronting terrorism or containing Russia—necessarily equates to greater US military involvement, or war with the Assad regime. Determining interests is one matter, arriving at outcomes is another.....snip~

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...t-18037?page=2

Which of the things you listed do you believe are vital interests. I did not see any.

[Ransom]

The outcomes in Syria....are of vital national interests. For example, it becomes an issue of vital national interest if say an ISIS was the winner in the Syrian Civil conflict and then begins to establish a caliphate. The outcome of vital national interest because the players already involved. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria not to mention terror groups from Hamas to Hezbollah, from al-Qaeda to ISIS.

Peter, donttread, and Ethereal already provided us this lesson, MisterV. Those three would lecture to no end that any outcomes in Syria weren't in our vital national interests. Ethereal and Peter droning on about ISIS being no threat, donttread's nickname for the Islamic State was Boogeymen.....nonexistent made up by westerners mumbo jumbo. I remember donttread asking me not one month prior to the PAris attacks what possible threat ISIS could be against us. He's never ever asked that again. Not after those horrific attacks, donttread pretty much had to shut up. Eat his crow.

[MisterVeritis]

The outcomes in Syria....are of vital national interests. For example, it becomes an issue of vital national interest if say an ISIS was the winner in the Syrian Civil conflict and then begins to establish a caliphate. The outcome of vital national interest because the players already involved. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria not to mention terror groups from Hamas to Hezbollah, from al-Qaeda to ISIS.

Peter, donttread, and Ethereal already provided us this lesson, MisterV. Those three would lecture to no end that any outcomes in Syria weren't in our vital national interests. Ethereal and Peter droning on about ISIS being no threat, donttread's nickname for the Islamic State was Boogeymen.....nonexistent made up by westerners mumbo jumbo. I remember donttread asking me not one month prior to the PAris attacks what possible threat ISIS could be against us. He's never ever asked that again. Not after those horrific attacks, donttread pretty much had to shut up. Eat his crow.

If there is a vital national interest you should be able to clearly link it to national policy concerning the nation's survival. Shouldn't you?

If you find a vital national interest please explain how Trump's illegal War of Choice advances or protects that vital national interest.

[MisterVeritis]

The outcomes in Syria....are of vital national interests. For example, it becomes an issue of vital national interest if say an ISIS was the winner in the Syrian Civil conflict and then begins to establish a caliphate. The outcome of vital national interest because the players already involved. Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria not to mention terror groups from Hamas to Hezbollah, from al-Qaeda to ISIS.

Peter, donttread, and Ethereal already provided us this lesson, MisterV. Those three would lecture to no end that any outcomes in Syria weren't in our vital national interests. Ethereal and Peter droning on about ISIS being no threat, donttread's nickname for the Islamic State was Boogeymen.....nonexistent made up by westerners mumbo jumbo. I remember donttread asking me not one month prior to the PAris attacks what possible threat ISIS could be against us. He's never ever asked that again. Not after those horrific attacks, donttread pretty much had to shut up. Eat his crow.

Do you understand the difference between a vital national interest and a national interest? It does not seem to me that you do.