Trump and Syria

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: Reydelsol
a reply to: nwtrucker

Trump has been played like a moron it is as simple as that.

The deep-state wanted a war in Syria and Trump was going stop that by pulling out.

So a chemical attack is staged with support of the rebels with pictures of dead children as they though that will trigger trump who thinks more with emotion than logic.

And so the deepstate has got Trump dancing to there tune.

You could flip the table and say that Assad used chemical weapons to keep USA in Syria after Trump announced that USA would pull out. Syria is obviously bad business for USA, so making USA throw money down an endless hole would make sense. Another country that is interested in US staying In Syria is Israel. Israel doesent want Assad, Iran and Russia having a party on their border.

Take it further, Saudi Arabia is screwed in their near war with Iran if the U.S. pulls out. Europe's addiction to ME oil is threatened if the Saudis are in a losing position, as well. So is Kuwait, UAE, the list goes on.....

abcnews.go.com...

Latest oil find in Bahrain is estimated at 80 bilion barrels. How is ME and Saudi Arabia oil threatened? Syria is a relatively small oil producer, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the global production in 2010.
There won't be any war between Iran and Saudi Arabia unless a WW3 breaks out, be serious.
So yeah. Chemical attack was carried out by either Jews or Assad/Putin. Of course, Saudis have an interest in US presence in Middle East. You guys are after all allies

Ok,taking it a little deeper then. It 'looks' to me-what do I know(?)- that as ISIS get snuffed the quieter and more powerful coalitions come into play. Russia-Iran-Syria versus the newer Israel-Saudi Arabia-U.S. group.

The U.S. pulls out based on Trump's policy of no further regime change or nation rebuilding as long as the nation takes care of their domestic extremists. Russia stays in Syria with it's S-400 long range missile system virtually controlling the Med. Syria, a long time near satellite state of Iran, has allowed Iranian military personnel in Syria along with the Russians. SA and Iranian backed groups in Yemen and Lebanon are tangling as we speak. Israel, 'apparently', just overflew Iran, likely with F-35s, without being detected and has been hitting Iranian targets in Syria as Iranian backed actions have increased against Israel.

Do you think Russia is happy about 80 billion more barrels in Bahrain?? Not on your life. That keeps the crude prices lower for even longer. Now add in the U.K.'s control of Gibraltar is at risk in the negotiations to leave the EU and China, along with the Saudis(!) are building a naval base up at the northern point in Africa which could control that entrance to the ME. That would mean even access the the Med would be potentially a contested area for the U.S..

The U.S. pullout, which is vastly superior to the Russians, opens the door to Russia being vastly superior in the ME with only European NATO members directly in the way of Russia. Add in Turkey into the equation and their stronger relations with Russia and that overall coalition woud 'own' the ME and it's oil supplies, militarily, within years.
l
These people think in decades down the road, not just the current mess. That scenario woud scare the crap out of numerous nations, both in the ME and in Europe.

The simplest solution is keep the U.S. there, involved as the lesser of two evils. After all, the oil hasn't stopped flowing with the U.S. presence. Just the potential of it being interrupted is enough to bring in all kinds of false flag potentials...all to keep the U.S. there. That's the threat...down the road

Just my unexpert thoughts on it, though.

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
[


But we had better not start planning battles based on popularity.

Because that is off-the-chart ####ing stupid.

I am not asking about planning battles.

I am demanding the politician who are mean to WORK for US to consult us about STARTING WARS in the first place.

Politicians start wars. The military just finish them.

If you love war so such I hope your going to sign up for Trumps crusades?

Then you had better rewrite the Constitution then. As a representative republic, we have given our leave to those to make those decisions for us. Not to consult us. To act in our name. Guess what? That has likely prevented wars from occurring we don't even know about.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A bit of a preamble here. Many of you know I'm a Trump

So why isn't Trump producing the evidence of Assad/Syrian culpability? He either has it or he doesn't. Yes? Why not produce it? That one I cannot come up with a reasonable answer to and I hope someone smarter than me might have an answer.

Boy how we live in 24/7 world now don't we? Trump is posturing as he always does. Will that lead to a standoff or full war, or somewhere in-between, who knows?

I would think data is still being gathered as to what actions is taken, we do know zero missiles from the US have been launched so until that happens we sit. I'm sure Trump and team will present evidence one way or the other before actions or inactions happen.

War with Russia would be bad for America and the world, but it would be really really bad for Russia, and I think they know that. Russia is strong but not as much as people seem to think and I don't think Iran would get involved if the war was a coalition of US, EU, Middle East countries, so it would be many against one...not a good thing.

At the end of the day I don't think anything is going to happen past posturing on both sides. War that has a high risk of actually coming home on both sides is not very profitable...

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
[


But we had better not start planning battles based on popularity.

Because that is off-the-chart ####ing stupid.

I am not asking about planning battles.

I am demanding the politician who are mean to WORK for US to consult us about STARTING WARS in the first place.

Politicians start wars. The military just finish them.

If you love war so such I hope your going to sign up for Trumps crusades?

Then you had better rewrite the Constitution then. As a representative republic, we have given our leave to those to make those decisions for us. Not to consult us. To act in our name. Guess what? That has likely prevented wars from occurring we don't even know about.

And one of Trump campaign promises was to stop getting involved in pointless wars.

He was elected on his campaign promises was he not?

So the fact he is going against one means he is going against the public that voted him in.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A bit of a preamble here. Many of you know I'm a Trump

So why isn't Trump producing the evidence of Assad/Syrian culpability? He either has it or he doesn't. Yes? Why not produce it? That one I cannot come up with a reasonable answer to and I hope someone smarter than me might have an answer.

Boy how we live in 24/7 world now don't we? Trump is posturing as he always does. Will that lead to a standoff or full war, or somewhere in-between, who knows?

I would think data is still being gathered as to what actions is taken, we do know zero missiles from the US have been launched so until that happens we sit. I'm sure Trump and team will present evidence one way or the other before actions or inactions happen.

War with Russia would be bad for America and the world, but it would be really really bad for Russia, and I think they know that. Russia is strong but not as much as people seem to think and I don't think Iran would get involved if the war was a coalition of US, EU, Middle East countries, so it would be many against one...not a good thing.

At the end of the day I don't think anything is going to happen past posturing on both sides. War that has a high risk of actually coming home on both sides is not very profitable...

If the USA goes to war with Russia..... No one wins.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh and man if Howard Dean and Lyndsey Graham are both for something... I am against it on reflex, cause I cannot believe those two could agree on anything unless they are paid a lot of cheddar.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The Obama administration was wrong to get involved in Syria in the first place. What we've managed to do is draw out a civil war over a pipe dream of US-friendly regime change.

Don't get me wrong, Assad is horrible. There's plenty of documented human rights abuses by his regime without mentioning gas attacks. However, there are lots of similarly bad men running countries around the world and we do little to intervene in most of them (and in some cases, our prior interventions led to those bad men coming to power).

There's no shortage of theories for why the US decided that Syria merited involvement not seen elsewhere — the petrodollar, pipeline wars, etc — and maybe there's truth in some or all of them or none at all. The fact is that Syria is a seemingly attractive target for regime change based solely on its location and alliances.

Setting aside other considerations, in purely practical terms, what the US has done in Syria makes little to no sense.

1. Russia and Iran are far more committed to keeping Assad in power than the US and its allies are to removing him. It was never a good bet that US-armed rebels could topple Assad with Russia and Iran all-in in support of Assad. The American people have no stomach to match their commitment. Not only is Syria strategically valuable to both, Russia can't very well be seen as weak in defense of its ally. And we've got no leverage to convince them otherwise so from their point of view, the calculation is fairly simple. They'll always be prepared to go further than the US and its allies.

2. What's the end game. Who would replace the Assad regime? The "rebels" are a collection of literally hundreds of groups in loose coalitions that include a number of Al-Qaeda linked jihadists. And what would happen if Assad fell? These factions would fight for power to enact their competing agendas, none of which seem either pro-Western or particularly pro-democracy.

There's no clean way of extricating ourselves from Syria but there also doesn't seem to be a path forward that won't have even more disastrous consequences. Whether or not there was a gas attack launched by Assad forces, the math doesn't change.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Trump's most recent tweet makes me think he is reevaluating the whole scenario and may not attack at all if absolute proof isn't put forward. One can hope at least because the last thing we need is to drop more bombs. I could see him doing exactly what the MSM and war lobby wants and attack Syria, just to be condemned for it a few weeks later after proof comes out Assad didn't use the chemical weapon.

Really? You think it's about the evidence? Or is it because Putin told Donnie in no uncertain terms that if he acts, Russia will bitch-slap him back to Tuesday?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I could live with a strike on further storage site of chemical weapons, if for no other reason than to be rid of them. That's just me, though.

I guess we disagree there. After being over there and seeing the pointlessness of it. We're just wasting time, lives, and a ton of money. With a national debt of 20 Trillion, I think we can spend the money used for a bombing campaign rebuilding schools, taking care of the vets, and rebuilding our infrastructure. Trump promised that during his campaign. I'm holding him to that promise.

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Reydelsol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
[


But we had better not start planning battles based on popularity.

Because that is off-the-chart ####ing stupid.

I am not asking about planning battles.

I am demanding the politician who are mean to WORK for US to consult us about STARTING WARS in the first place.

Politicians start wars. The military just finish them.

If you love war so such I hope your going to sign up for Trumps crusades?

Then you had better rewrite the Constitution then. As a representative republic, we have given our leave to those to make those decisions for us. Not to consult us. To act in our name. Guess what? That has likely prevented wars from occurring we don't even know about.

And one of Trump campaign promises was to stop getting involved in pointless wars.

He was elected on his campaign promises was he not?

So the fact he is going against one means he is going against the public that voted him in.

Sorry, but 'pointless wars' is your words, not Trump's. Obama go us involved with Syria and indirectly funded ISIS. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. SYRIA. Trump has stated Isis is about done and his intention to leave Syria. He has....so far..stayed on course of his promises. Your alterations not withstanding.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Fair enough.

Getting rid of chemical weapon supply is a prudent investment to avoid future use of them, keeps his promise to respond to further use of them and leaves the leaving of Syria still on the books.

In an imperfect world, I can live with that.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: nwtrucker



1. Russia and Iran are far more committed to keeping Assad in power than the US and its allies are to removing him.
2. What's the end game.

Russia will do what it needs to do to keep it's huge navel presence in Syria and Iran will do what it needs to do in building it's land bridge to Israel. At some point all of this does not end well.

We did learn with Saddam that as bad as he was, he did provide stability. Assad is the same...

originally posted by: Irishhaf
The guy kind of bothers me, but Tucker Carlson did a 5 minute piece on Syria that was pretty good.

everything about this attack stinks.

This needs to be broadcast everywhere...

So it's the United States responsibility to take care of Assad, but it's not the United States responsibility to take in refugees created by bombing people like Assad.

Gotta love "small government," conservative logic at it again!

I don't think the US will attempt really to repeat what it did during the summer of 2013 in Syria. Twice is not smart !

originally posted by: Flanker86
I don't think the US will attempt really to repeat what it did during the summer of 2013 in Syria. Twice is not smart !

The strike is over.

Let assad or whomever, gas again and get more incoming.

Unless they can make it in the kitchen sink, the targets will be factories etc.

Someone has to make that # somewhere.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
So it's the United States responsibility to take care of Assad, but it's not the United States responsibility to take in refugees created by bombing people like Assad.

Gotta love "small government," conservative logic at it again!

What selective memories the lefties have. The refugees from Syria is a resut of Obama's funding of both rebels and ISIS. Long before Trump took office, long before a airbase was hit, long before three targets a couple of days ago.

You are funny.

But it still looks like, the UK and France are in the process of preparing another strike, similar to the one they had in April a few weeks ago !

Oh, so last night it was Israel. The IDF claims of hard damage against Iranian targets are pure fantasy