Here we go. Bombs Away.

If you are referring to The NY Times article, it accuses the ISIS attacks launched by projectiles and accuses the Syrian Army attacks dropped via air.

As far as what happened in Ghouta Saturday, the scenario I suspect is that hostages were placed into a basement and then brutally murdered with chlorine gas by their captors. The cameras were at the ready to film the atrocity and then broadcast to give justification for war. Can I prove it? No, but the motive exists. The Russians predicted a false flag chemical attack was imminent on March 10th. The US destroyer armed with tomahawks moved into position prior to Saturday. This scenario makes more strategic sense than cutting lose a chemical attack when you have all but completed the objective of liberating the territory occupied by the US backed jihadis.

 

Hope this article is just disinformation.
https://www.debka.com/us-france-uk-prepare-air-navy-units-for-sustained-assault-in-syria/

 

Well, if Russia made this accusation, that certainly proves it happened.

 

Great logic.

 

A couple of years ago, we bought a house nearby for my MIL. The old guy that sold it left a lot of books behind. To my disgust, as I cleared them out, he turned out to be a Holocaust Denier. He had a lot of journals and books denying the Holocaust happened (or if it did, that the Nazis were behind it). I was morbidly curious enough to flip through a couple.

The two main arguments used by the Holocaust Deniers were-

1. Corrupt investigation- they focus on one claim against one Nazi, and if they detect a flaw- an overzealous prosecutor misapplying evidence, a witness changing their story- they seize upon that to invalidate the entire investigation. They argue that since the same body that screwed up o e case managed all the other cases, you cannot conclude their prosecutions were legitimate.

2. Incomplete evidence- they would seize upon a missing link in the chain- for example, the flexible hosing used to deliver the gas is now missing- and argue that this single piece of (missing) evidence shows the whole story is a fabrication (pay no attention to the bodies in the mass graves- “you can’t PROVE the Holocaust happened, so I will stop listening to you”).

These are the techniques Mus uses to advocate for Russia. Every independent body, every private Journalist is not to be trusted because they do not adhere to his standards for evidence and process. Russia? They can be trusted.

 

Hasn't your history here said just the opposite? If Putin says it it must be true?

 

Oh, and my policy recommendation is to send a cruise missile to the location where our best intel says Assad is. He has it coming for a large number of reasons.

 

It's the logic you're using, so I would have expected that you would agree with it.

 

I’m sure you’ve thought ahead and calculated what the sequence of events would be afterward. Enlighten us.

 

Russia, Iran and Turkey only need for Assad’s puppet regime to win. They don’t need Assad. Let the final outcome be a policy that using WMD costs a despot personally.

 

Have we stopped using depleted weapons? I know they were used in Yugoslavia and Iraq and have caused massive increases in cancer and birth defects, not to mention the effect on US soldiers exposed to that **** that will stay millions of years. If we actually have ended this practice then perhaps we would have a leg to stand on. And that’s assuming the unlikely possibility that Assad committed the act rather than the murderous proxies we have supported to overthrow him.

 

Straw man

 

How so? Is Uranium not an element? Have we not used in battle? Is it not permanently a contaminant and is there not statistical proof that it has and does cause great damage to humans and living organisms in general? No, this is not a straw man. It’s a documented fact we’ve used it.

 

It is a straw man because it is a distraction.

By the way- I work in aerospace. We use depleted uranium all the time, for weight balancing reasons. It’s better than lead.

Why don’t you start a new thread about depleted uranium.

 

Do you inhale it?

 

Did the US sign a treaty swearing not to use depleted uranium?

 

We've discussed this issue before. I'm not a fan of our "Assad must go" policy mainly because I haven't heard a convincing case that it's in our interests to pursue that policy. His use of chemical weapons doesn't change the game on that in my view. That's just emotional BS. It's not a real factor. Ultimately the people are dead, whether he gasses them or shoots them. My preference was always to destroy ISIS first, even if it meant having to play ball with Russia and Assad and even if it meant pissing off the Saudis. So I'm not going to be an easy sell on attacking the Syrian government either way.

However, this is a far cry from the false flag, tin foil hat stuff you peddle. You basically think the US is covertly supportive of the chemical attacks as a means to frame the choir boys, Assad and Putin. You like to talk about "logic." How much logical sense did that make with the first chemical attack? Barack Obama made his infamous "red line" bluff at the time. The last thing he wanted was for chemical weapons to actually get used, because he knew it was a bluff. That one move essentially destroyed his foreign policy from that point forward, because the entire world lost all respect for him. Plenty liked him still, but nobody respected him after that. We basically tripped over our dicks for the rest of his term, and our Syrian policy might have been the most incoherent policy toward a country in 240 years.

Is Trump more aggressive? Sure, but do I think he wants a major war in Syria? Hell no. The political risks are way too big, especially when we'd be entering the war with no clearly defined objectives and no easy way out. If he wants a war just for shits and giggles or to "feed the MIC," he'd have MUCH cleaner choices in Venezuela or North Korea. NK would be bloodier, but it would be much more clear cut.

 

I do, but only when I've had a really rough day.

 

If the ouster of Sadam has shown us anything it's to be careful what you wish for. Things can get worse in the absence of a strong leader. That doesn't mean Assad deserves our support but taking him out may create a vacuum that results in groups like ISIS.

 

I'm with you on this part.

You have made the false prerequisite that the 2013 attack was made by Assad. In fact, the forensic evidence - conducted at Porton Down - did not implicate Assad.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

All I can say is hope you are correct. But there are certainly a lot of deranged warhawks at his side and in his face demanding an escalation.

 

Before the tide turned in Syria, refugees were pouring out of the country. Many have since returned. Deposing Assad could very well lead to a situation similar to Libya where Ghadaffi was replaced with ungovernable factions and has since turned into a terrorist haven.

There have been papers suggesting that if the US cannot replace Assad (Putin, the Ayatollah, etc) with a pro-Western puppet, the next best objective is to make the country into a failed state(s). As such, US policy cannot be opposed, and terrorism can then be directed from the failed state to regional countries that are competitors to the US.

Think about it. No opposition to US policy and another terror hub where chaos can be exported to Iran and Russia. Totally opposite to fighting terror. More like channeling terror; not necessarily to obtain geopolitical objectives, but to thwart competing nations (Russia, China, Iran) from obtaining their geopolitical and political objectives.

It's a sick policy, it demands destroying the lives of millions of innocent civilians, but I've no doubt there is a faction within the US government advocating something like this.

 

There are people in the neocon movement who desperately want to democratize the Islamic world. Some of them have good intentions, and some of them don't. Regardless, it's a fools errand. It's not because Muslims can't function in a democracy, but I don't think it can be forced on them. They have to want it, and though I think we can help them get it, they have to actively fight for it.

 

Deez, I think those people have shifted from trying to turn the Islamic world into functioning democracies, to simply destroying any vestige of sovereignty that hinders US hegemony. The neocon movement of democratizing the world went out the window with the failure in Iraq in my opinion. At the time, the theory played well with the American public. The public doesn't believe that's possible anymore nor do the neocons.

 

Russia blocked the US resolution and the US blocked the Russian resolution. I haven’t heard what the details are.

 

But you basically buy into any theory of evil one can concoct about the United States. Creating failed states doesn't protect American dominance. It creates headaches with very little benefit. Most neocons would rather have Hussein in power in Iraq than perpetual bedlam. If it truly was about destroying any sovereign that hinders US hegemony, there's a lot lower hanging fruit than Syria, Libya, and Iraq. For example, Venezuela and Cuba would be easier to overthrow and dramatically easier to stabilize.

 

I can make the argument that the Syrian adventure was very much patterned after the Libyan topple. Same support groups of radicalized Sunnis were supported to overthrow a stable and somewhat sectarian government. Was this an accident or premeditated?

As far as taming Venezuela, don’t kid yourself. Anti-American sentiment there is extremely high. We are blamed for their economic disaster moreso than Maduro. US sanctions and corporate monopolies have played a big part in what’s happened down there in addition to government corruption and low oil prices.

 

Peter Ford, former British ambassador to Syria.

 

A stable government? I suppose by Somali standards, it was stable. By most standards, Syria has been pretty unstable for quite awhile. Some of the opposition was Islamist. Some of it was not. Some of it wanted political reforms going back to the Damascus Spring back in the early 2000s. But the opposition was quite substantial - long before any Libyan involvement was even a consideration in the United States.

Never said that stabilizing Venezuela would be easy, and I'm not saying it would be impossible to screw up. I'm just saying it would be much easier than stabilizing any Middle Eastern country. It's Westernized, Christian, has at least in the past had a respecable economy, is and generally sane. Much easier to work with and play ball with people who don't think they have a religious duty to murder anybody who doesn't accept their faith.

 

Those are good points and very true. The majority of these people are Christian, socially conservative, hard working people. But our harsh treatment, sanctions, and history of exploitation has soured the people on the United States. Hezbollah has more pull in Venezuela than does America.

Look up Venezuelan Vice President, do some research, and consider the serious possibilities which lie ahead.