Saudi in talks with US over troop deployment in Syria
Foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir says Riyadh is willing to send soldiers amid reports Trump is looking to exit Syria.

 black321 wrote: 
Not clear from the article. But wouldn't anyone want to actually see the evidence before (illegally) bombing a country? Esp. seeing how the OPCW was supposed to arrive the next day. Maybe the bombs were about to expire?

---

 R_P wrote: 
who is blocking the inspectors?  Assad?  doesnt make sense syria would block if it wasnt actually a gas attack?  Wouldnt Assad want to show evidence there was no attack?  

Fisk: The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack

Nikki Haley Seems To Be Saying US Will Remain In Syria As Long As Iran Exists

 sirdroseph wrote: 
As someone, somewhere commented recently in modern vernacular: the alt-right got cucked by the neocons.

Despite the rhetoric, media circus, kinetics and illegality, nothing much happened. According to Russian and Syrian sources, supposedly most rockets were shot down and very little actual damage was done.

 R_P wrote: 
I'm telling you man, The Walrus is behind all this. What I want to know is what birdie flew in Trump's ear to out of the blue put this guy in charge of foreign policy?  The Neo Cons have assumed control, this is tantamount to coup d' etat and not that I was not before, but I am profoundly concerned now.

Said every US President ever...
Trump launches 'precision strikes' in Syria
U.S. does not seek 'indefinite presence in Syria,' president says

U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said that, although Washington has no hard proof, he believes the Assad government was responsible for Saturday's attack.

Fisk: As Theresa May gears up for war in Syria, we should remember what hypocrites we are about chemical warfare in the Middle East
Not a soul today is mentioning the terrible war fought between 1980 and 1988, which was fought with our total acquiescence. It's almost an 'exclusive' to mention the conflict at all, so religiously have we forgotten it

I think Senator Paul sums this up nicely, these are tweets, I am unable to post images on this site at work for some reason, only text:


Donald J. Trump

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and smart!"


Senator Rand Paul

"Promising war by tweet, insults not only the Constitution, but every solider who puts their life on the line."

Follow the money...
The US military budget shows just how deep Donald Trump is getting into Syria

Donald Trump warned Russia that US missiles to Syria “will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” in a tweet Wednesday morning.

The threat is a response to a reported chemical weapons attack on the Syrian town of Douma, which was held by the rebel forces. At least 40 people died during the bombing on Saturday (Apr. 7,) according to rescue workers and other observers who blame the Syrian government forces. The Syrian government has denied the accusations.

While initially reluctant to get entangled in the war in Syria, the US is prepared to be more involved than ever. In fiscal year 2019, the government assigned $15.3 billion’s worth of Department of Defense funds for US operations in the troubled Middle Eastern country. It set aside another billion in foreign aid and other help through the Department of State, according Costs of War, a research project at Brown University.

The US’s military commitment to Syria, however, remains tiny compared to the US’s involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At its highest point, in 2011, US officials appropriated nearly $120 billion to spend in that conflict. The size of US’s budget for those two countries remained more than twice as big as the one for Syria in fiscal 2018.

Pork and porkies

Thanks R_P for the news and analysis on the so-called chemical bombing in Syria.  Did not know but am not surprised.

The 'us and them' line of reasoning in the USA has gone so far over the top that regular folks simply believe that X did Y because "they are evil".  No matter how irrational.

Trump‘s Red Line
President Donald Trump ignored important intelligence reports when he decided to attack Syria after he saw pictures of dying children. Seymour M. Hersh investigated the case of the alleged Sarin gas attack.

New Revelations Belie Trump Claims on Syria Chemical Attack

misdirected airstrike..................................

 miamizsun wrote: 
Back in 2013 (?) when the last major gas attack happened in Syria, I strongly believe Assad was framed and said so then.  This time around, I don't know who did it and don't know who to believe on this one.

That said, Trump had a free shot and took it.  I guess so far though, its nothing more than a parent smacking their kid who keeps running out into traffic from between parked cars just to get their attention in an effort to try and stop them from being stupid and careless.  It doesn't stop the kid from doing what they do and preventing the usual outcome, the kid gets run over. 

This was never going to end well.  I will disagree with anyone who thinks that a happy ending in Syria was ever possible.  The best we can hope for now is that cool heads prevail and Syria does not become another Libya which is basically anarchy on steroids.

 

Frankie Boyle wrote:

Nothing more perfectly embodies White America than a 70 year old golfer firing missiles at the Middle East from his country club. Some sticks in the mud probably expect a host of formalities to be gone through before attacking another country: a UN investigation, or congressional approval perhaps, but personally I'm just glad to see a guy with the temperament of a mistreated circus animal launching ballistic missiles on a hunch. It seems statesmanlike and decisive. It's difficult to tell what Syria's moderate rebels are really like, as journalists can't really be embedded with them, because they'd be beheaded. But I refuse to be cynical: there's every chance that Assad's end will see a peaceful, pastoral period for Syria once groups like Allah's Flamethrower and Infidel Abattoir get round the table and good-naturedly sort out their deep seated differences on the finer points of Islamic Law. Perhaps this is a period which Syrians will one day look back on and laugh, if laughter is still allowed.

Not only will Democrats support any war Trump chooses to start, they'll be outraged by any voters who hold it against them at the next election. Hillary Clinton called for the airstrikes immediately before they happened. We'd do well to listen to the woman who is the architect of modern Libya, where her neoliberal intervention introduced the principals of the free market with such clarity that the country now has several different governments competing for the right to kill everybody. Clinton was criticised for running a tone-deaf, aloof campaign but Democrats have rallied, pointing out that many people didn't vote for Hilary because Trump is a Russian spy, and people who didn't vote for Hillary are Russian stooges, and people who voted for Hillary but not very enthusiastically are also Russian stooges, and slowly but surely the goodwill has begun to return.

Personally, I think it would be great if Putin was controlling Trump. I'd love to think there was a rational, malevolent actor directing him rather than just a combination of his own blood sugar levels and the concept of vengeance. I honestly think we'd be in less trouble if he was being controlled by the dark wizard Thoth Amon, or if his body had been taken over by a sentient bacterial civilisation that was using him as a kind of Lifeship. I'm not saying it's impossible that Trump was moved by the plight of Syria's children, perhaps in the same way that Tony Soprano got really upset when that guy killed his horse, it's just that the balance of probabilities is that he doesn't care about them, even enough not to ban them from entering his country.

The Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that the UK government had close discussions with the US over the few days running up to the attack and had been given "advance notice of the President's final decision". Odd then, that immediately after the chemical attack the Guardian cites Downing Street officials (on a tour of despots with the prime minister in the Middle East) who, when asked about military reprisals, said “nobody is talking about that”. Sort of makes you wonder if there's any contempt that can be shown by the US that will stop us drooling about our "special relationship" like we're some kind of stalker. I doubt the Americans see us as a valued ally. We're just somewhere that they stick a few missiles. My best guess is that they think of us in the way that we would think of a shed.

At the prospect of a war, the media reacted with the exuberant joy that I remember fights bringing to a school playground. War copy sells well, and is easier to write. A good way to get a handle on the media's attitude to conflict is to try to write a thousand words on a United Nations sponsored bilateral negotiation, then the same on a missile cutting a hospital in half. The Guardian exuberantly described the "pinpoint accuracy" of Tomahawks. I'm not sure accuracy is strictly relevant when you're delivering high explosives, the ultimate variable. In the West, we've never needed the military spectaculars favoured by Soviets and dictators; the news has always been our missile parade. On MSNBC the launch of the Tomahawks was repeatedly described as "beautiful". And there is a certain beauty at that point in their trajectory. Perhaps we should focus on some other point. It would be nice to see a shot of them ten seconds before they drop on their screaming victims. Or two days later when bodies are being pulled from the rubble. Maybe a shot from ten years down the line when the shell casings form part of a makeshift gallows, reflected in the glass eye of an implacable amputee warlord. Perhaps our whole fucked up attitude to war comes from only ever seeing our missiles taking off, only ever seeing our soldiers setting out.

Ignoring international law is bad for all sorts of reasons, not least because it's the same position as Assad's. Knowing that our own resolve is only strengthened when people attack us and expecting other people's to be weakened is suggestive of a kind of racism. Pouring arms and bombs into an intractable conflict means that you are happy for it to be prolonged and worsen. Britain's activities in the Middle East historically mean we almost can't imagine what a moral position might look like. We have a huge navy that we could use to pick up the thousands of Syrians, Libyans and others scheduled to drown in the Mediterranean this year, for a fraction of the cost of the bombs we've dropped on them. I wonder if those people know, clambering onto boats with their frightened children, many of whom have never seen the sea before and will never see land again, that we aggressively tune out images like this, should they ever reach us at all. That we see all these lives we could save as part of a chaotic, insoluble mess, better not thought about; we who focus so intently on the sleek, clear lines of bombs.

Sean Spicer Justifies Syria Strike By Claiming Hitler — Who Gassed Millions — Didn’t Use Chemical Weapons

 miamizsun wrote: 




I love Gabbard, she should be a Libertarian, Democrats can't stand her so she must be doing something right! lol