What should Pres. Trump do about Syria?

[Mileage Psycho]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Ummm Obama helped train and weaponize ISIS. To fight Assad. 

Link please.

I have to go make some money, this website is a productivity sop  

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, Anler said:

Stop arming rebels? 

Weird...right?  How does this work out for us?  How has it EVER worked out for us? So..let's all blame Russia and the ones beating our poorly trained rebels because we dumped some weapons on them to try and overthrow their own government so we can then turn on them and make them put somebody in place with OUR INTERESTS in mind.  Meh....then we can fight them through "our" illegitimate government they helped put in place while they kill us with the weapons we gave them to help us do............AWWWWWW  FUCK IT!  How many times doesn't a child stick his hand on a hot stove before he realizes that is NOT a smart thing to do?  Four?  Five?  Ten?  I wonder when we'll learn?

LET RUSSIA HAVE THIS!  And work as well as we can with them...IT CAN BE DONE.  

[Zambroski]

Just now, Mileage Psycho said:

Link please.

I have to go make some money, this website is a productivity sop  

Good idea.  Your "REAL DEAL" membership fees are coming due soon.  Better not fall out of that club for sure.

Now...Go Getter done!

[Anler]

7 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Democratic election to take place?   Will never happen until Assad is removed.   Need to force Russia and Iran to make that happen which it never will.  I completely agree arming the rebels was a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE.  

Sure it could, has that been explored? No. And I dont think Assad should be removed. The rebels are muslim extremists. Assad is very western. 

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Link please.

I have to go make some money, this website is a productivity sop  

I have linked it several times. 

 

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Anler said:

Sure it could, has that been explored? No. And I dont think Assad should be removed. The rebels are muslim extremists. Assad is very western. 

Not saying you are wrong but keep in mind Syria has been on our state sponsor or terror list for a long time but I guess now that Obama has us buddy buddy with Iran its no big deal.  

Syria[edit]

Syria was added to the list on December 29, 1979. According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2013:^[3]

“

Overview: Designated in 1979 as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Assad regime continued its political support to a variety of terrorist groups affecting the stability of the region and beyond, even amid significant internal unrest. The regime continued to provide political and weapons support to Hizballah and continued to allow Iran to rearm the terrorist organization. The Assad regime’s relationship with Hizballah and Iran continued to grow stronger in 2013 as the conflict in Syria continued. President Bashar al-Assad remained a staunch defender of Iran's policies, while Iran has exhibited equally energetic support for Syrian regime efforts to defeat the Syrian opposition. Statements supporting terrorist groups, particularly Hizballah, were often in Syrian Government speeches and press statements. The Syrian Government had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Assad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian Government awareness and encouragement for many years of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented. Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq. Those very networks were the seedbed for the violent extremist elements that terrorized the Syrian population in 2013. As part of a broader strategy during the year, the regime has attempted to portray Syria itself as a victim of terrorism, characterizing all of its armed opponents as “terrorists.” Assad’s government has continued to generate significant concern regarding the role it plays in terrorist financing. Industry experts reported that 60 percent of all business transactions were conducted in cash and that nearly 80 percent of all Syrians did not use formal banking services. Despite Syrian legislation that required money changers to be licensed by the end of 2007, many continued to operate illegally in Syria's vast black market, estimated to be as large as Syria's formal economy. Regional hawala networks remained intertwined with smuggling and trade-based money laundering, and were facilitated by notoriously corrupt customs and immigration officials. This raised significant concerns that some members of the Syrian Government and the business elite were complicit in terrorist finance schemes conducted through these institutions. In 2013, the United States continued to closely monitor Syria’s proliferation-sensitive materials and facilities, including Syria’s significant stockpile of chemical weapons, which the United States assesses remains under the Asad regime’s control. Despite the progress made through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon’s Executive Council and UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) to dismantle and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program, there continues to be significant concern, given ongoing instability in Syria, that these materials could find their way to terrorist organizations. The United States is coordinating closely with a number of like-minded nations and partners to prevent Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and advanced conventional weapons from falling into the hands of violent extremists.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

Not saying you are wrong but keep in mind Syria has been on our state sponsor or terror list for a long time but I guess now that Obama has us buddy buddy with Iran its no big deal.  

Syria was completely safe before we started fucking around in the ME. So was Iraq. So was Libya. etc....

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, Anler said:

Syria was completely safe before we started fucking around in the ME. So was Iraq. So was Libya. etc....

Libya and Iraq were because they had dictators that killed their own people if they got out of line.  Not democracy.   I'd also hardly have called them safe.  They too had their hand in terrorism against the US in plenty of ways.  Iran was our friend too before it became a Theocracy.  And to say their elections are "democratic" is laughable.   

The only hope for the world regarding widespread peace and stability is a modernization of Islam.  Reality is its went backwards in the last 30-50 years.  That has to come from within the religion.  Buy their oil to save our reserves and let them deal with their own desire for peace.   No amount of American meddling will help.   I use to think so....not anymore.  Fuck em.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Libya and Iraq were because they had dictators that killed their own people if they got out of line.  Not democracy.   I'd also hardly have called them safe.  They too had their hand in terrorism against the US in plenty of ways.  Iran was our friend too before it became a Theocracy.  And to say their elections are "democratic" is laughable.   

The only hope for the world regarding widespread peace and stability is a modernization of Islam.  Reality is its went backwards in the last 30-50 years.  That has to come from within the religion.  Buy their oil to save our reserves and let them deal with their own desire for peace.   No amount of American meddling will help.   I use to think so....not anymore.  Fuck em.  

[motonoggin]

[Anler]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Libya and Iraq were because they had dictators that killed their own people if they got out of line.  Not democracy.   I'd also hardly have called them safe.  They too had their hand in terrorism against the US in plenty of ways.  Iran was our friend too before it became a Theocracy.  And to say their elections are "democratic" is laughable.   

The only hope for the world regarding widespread peace and stability is a modernization of Islam.  Reality is its went backwards in the last 30-50 years.  That has to come from within the religion.  Buy their oil to save our reserves and let them deal with their own desire for peace.   No amount of American meddling will help.   I use to think so....not anymore.  Fuck em.  

The whole radical islam talking point is a joke. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst places for whack job islamists and we dont call them out. And neither does the radical islamists for being friendly with the west. The reason they hate us is because we are there. imagine if mexico started occupying the former mexican territories. do you think Americans would fight back? Yeah we need to get the fuck out of there and plan a strategy from there. 

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, Anler said:

The whole radical islam talking point is a joke. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst places for whack job islamists and we dont call them out. And neither does the radical islamists for being friendly with the west. The reason they hate us is because we are there. imagine if mexico started occupying the former mexican territories. do you think Americans would fight back? Yeah we need to get the fuck out of there and plan a strategy from there. 

I'm saying we should call SA out.  Tell the whole Muslim world....modernize or we will let you kill each other until there is none of you left.  I agree get the fuck out.  Islam has become as toxic and dangerous as the Nazis or radical war mongering Japanese.  They are no different just haven't organized to the point of Germany or Japan.   God help the world if they do.  In WW2 indiscriminate killing of civilians was done even by the allies.   We've evolved....the Muslim world has not.  

Great quote from a great show The West Wing (even though it was liberal biased I liked it.)

"We measure the success of a mission by two things: was it successful and how few civilians did we hurt. They measure success by how many. Pregnant women are delivering bombs! You're talking to me about international laws? The laws of nature don't even apply here!"

[Skidooski]

2 hours ago, Mainecat said:

Put Generals uniforms on his kids and send them over. They seem to be knowledgeable in everything these days.

Right along side your kids

2 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Nothing.

 

[oleroule]

zip.

let them kill each other off.

[Highmark]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend.......except if they are Muslim."  

[pjameven]

3 hours ago, spin_dry said:

how about relax a bit and find out who really did this chemical attack. no one really seems to know. 

this seems like a good idea...

[spin_dry]

2 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

A NATO was not attacked in Syria, the NATO mission is for NATO to defend and assist other NATO nations if they are attacked.

Next, there is no way the UN security council was going to vote on allowing a UN military option in Syria.

What now?

no doubt. this isn't a nato issue. 

[spin_dry]

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

Not saying you are wrong but keep in mind Syria has been on our state sponsor or terror list for a long time but I guess now that Obama has us buddy buddy with Iran its no big deal.  

Syria[edit]

Syria was added to the list on December 29, 1979. According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2013:^[3]

“

Overview: Designated in 1979 as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Assad regime continued its political support to a variety of terrorist groups affecting the stability of the region and beyond, even amid significant internal unrest. The regime continued to provide political and weapons support to Hizballah and continued to allow Iran to rearm the terrorist organization. The Assad regime’s relationship with Hizballah and Iran continued to grow stronger in 2013 as the conflict in Syria continued. President Bashar al-Assad remained a staunch defender of Iran's policies, while Iran has exhibited equally energetic support for Syrian regime efforts to defeat the Syrian opposition. Statements supporting terrorist groups, particularly Hizballah, were often in Syrian Government speeches and press statements. The Syrian Government had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Assad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian Government awareness and encouragement for many years of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented. Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq. Those very networks were the seedbed for the violent extremist elements that terrorized the Syrian population in 2013. As part of a broader strategy during the year, the regime has attempted to portray Syria itself as a victim of terrorism, characterizing all of its armed opponents as “terrorists.” Assad’s government has continued to generate significant concern regarding the role it plays in terrorist financing. Industry experts reported that 60 percent of all business transactions were conducted in cash and that nearly 80 percent of all Syrians did not use formal banking services. Despite Syrian legislation that required money changers to be licensed by the end of 2007, many continued to operate illegally in Syria's vast black market, estimated to be as large as Syria's formal economy. Regional hawala networks remained intertwined with smuggling and trade-based money laundering, and were facilitated by notoriously corrupt customs and immigration officials. This raised significant concerns that some members of the Syrian Government and the business elite were complicit in terrorist finance schemes conducted through these institutions. In 2013, the United States continued to closely monitor Syria’s proliferation-sensitive materials and facilities, including Syria’s significant stockpile of chemical weapons, which the United States assesses remains under the Asad regime’s control. Despite the progress made through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon’s Executive Council and UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) to dismantle and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons program, there continues to be significant concern, given ongoing instability in Syria, that these materials could find their way to terrorist organizations. The United States is coordinating closely with a number of like-minded nations and partners to prevent Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and advanced conventional weapons from falling into the hands of violent extremists.

i don't recall obama ever being buddy buddy with iran 

[Highmark]

23 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

i don't recall obama ever being buddy buddy with iran 

Nope, never.   Just negotiated a deal that gives them a path to Nuclear Weapons and gave them $1.7 Billion in cash for a few hostages.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by Highmark

[Highmark]

25 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

no doubt. this isn't a nato issue. 

Why was it in Libya?  The humanitarian crisis in Syria is 100x's worse.  

[spin_dry]

Just now, Highmark said:

Nope, never.   Just negotiated a deal that gives them a path to Nuclear Weapons and gave them $1.3 Billion in cash for a few hostages.  

path to nuclear weapons? please explain that whopper.  the money was theirs. 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

path to nuclear weapons? please explain that whopper.  the money was theirs. 

Not after they took our over our embassy and held American's hostage for 444 days.  You don't think American assets were taken by Iran in 1979?   

Do a little research on the Stuxnet virus.   You actually think they will stop developing a nuclear weapon and Russia will "watch over them?"   They already are breaking the deal with missile testing.   Even Huffpo gets that.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html

 

http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/irans-path-the-bomb

But look at the agreement from Tehran's perspective.

It is clear that before the deal, they were intent on building a nuclear weapons breakout capability. Sure, they acknowledge in the new deal they will never build a bomb. That's consistent with what the regime has said in the past: "We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani affirmed last year, "and we are not going to do so."

Nobody really believes that. If anyone did, there wouldn't have been a need for the negotiations to begin with. The nuclear and missile infrastructure the regime has built parallels the efforts made by both Pakistan and North Korea before they became breakout nuclear powers. There is no reason to assume Tehran's goal is any different.

So if Tehran wants a bomb, the real issue is do they believe this deal will keep them from getting one? The answer is no. We know that, because it's not hard to map out the path to how Iran will get a nuclear arsenal.

Iran already has the infrastructure it needs, and the deal doesn't require them to fully divest any of it. Further, Tehran can continue research and development and expanding its missile program.

Meanwhile, in the short term, the regime has every incentive to scrupulously comply with the deal. Why not? It comes at no cost and in return delivers sanctions relief and unprecedented access to global markets. By some accounts, Tehran can expect a $300 billion to $400 billion cash infusion into the country's cash-strapped economy. Much of that money will flow through the hands of the regime.

At the same time, fueled by a flood of greenbacks, Tehran can ramp up its aggressive foreign policy and strengthen its position in the region.

Given the stamp of credibility from the recent agreement, Iran can also ramp up its complaints about others. Since it has sworn off nuclear weapons, it can demand the West end its missile defense programs, cut off arms sales to other Middle East states, and crack down on other regional powers that might want their own nuclear weapons, as well as insist Israel divest its nuclear arsenal.

"Why not," Tehran will argue, "all these are a threat to us. The Vienna agreement proves we are peaceful. Everyone else needs to back off."

In a year or so, after it's filled its coffers, destabilized the balance of power in the region, and tightened its control over the people of Iran, the regime can reassess what it thinks about the Vienna Agreement. And it just might find the deal no longer makes sense.

Iran can team with other countries such as North Korea, China or Russia and quickly jump-start its program and become a declared nuclear power - but now from a position of strength - a regional hegemon, an iron-clad dictatorship, and a wealthy power that's part of the global marketplace - not isolated from it.

From Iran's perspective, this is a deal worth having - particularly if its goal is to be a powerful country and have a bomb.

[spin_dry]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Why was it in Libya?  The humanitarian crisis in Syria is 100x's worse.  

that was a mistake. let's not repeat the same. the situation in syria, while not perfect, has been improving. in the whole scheme of things this gas attack is rather minor compared to the carnage from small arms, artillary, barrel bombs, and other forms of death. someone over there isnt happy with the wind down, thus the gas attacks  

why is it that you jump from the UN to Nato and probably back to the UN again? do you ever criticize the US military for the role it's played in the destabilization of the middle east? or are you like many of the others here. a perpetual whiner because the UN or Nato won't fix what the US military, under civilian command, broke? 

[spin_dry]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not after they took our over our embassy and held American's hostage for 444 days.  You don't think American assets were taken by Iran in 1979?   

Do a little research on the Stuxnet virus.   You actually think they will stop developing a nuclear weapon and Russia will "watch over them?"   They already are breaking the deal with missile testing.   Even Huffpo gets that.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html

 

http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/irans-path-the-bomb

But look at the agreement from Tehran's perspective.

It is clear that before the deal, they were intent on building a nuclear weapons breakout capability. Sure, they acknowledge in the new deal they will never build a bomb. That's consistent with what the regime has said in the past: "We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani affirmed last year, "and we are not going to do so."

Nobody really believes that. If anyone did, there wouldn't have been a need for the negotiations to begin with. The nuclear and missile infrastructure the regime has built parallels the efforts made by both Pakistan and North Korea before they became breakout nuclear powers. There is no reason to assume Tehran's goal is any different.

So if Tehran wants a bomb, the real issue is do they believe this deal will keep them from getting one? The answer is no. We know that, because it's not hard to map out the path to how Iran will get a nuclear arsenal.

Iran already has the infrastructure it needs, and the deal doesn't require them to fully divest any of it. Further, Tehran can continue research and development and expanding its missile program.

Meanwhile, in the short term, the regime has every incentive to scrupulously comply with the deal. Why not? It comes at no cost and in return delivers sanctions relief and unprecedented access to global markets. By some accounts, Tehran can expect a $300 billion to $400 billion cash infusion into the country's cash-strapped economy. Much of that money will flow through the hands of the regime.

At the same time, fueled by a flood of greenbacks, Tehran can ramp up its aggressive foreign policy and strengthen its position in the region.

Given the stamp of credibility from the recent agreement, Iran can also ramp up its complaints about others. Since it has sworn off nuclear weapons, it can demand the West end its missile defense programs, cut off arms sales to other Middle East states, and crack down on other regional powers that might want their own nuclear weapons, as well as insist Israel divest its nuclear arsenal.

"Why not," Tehran will argue, "all these are a threat to us. The Vienna agreement proves we are peaceful. Everyone else needs to back off."

In a year or so, after it's filled its coffers, destabilized the balance of power in the region, and tightened its control over the people of Iran, the regime can reassess what it thinks about the Vienna Agreement. And it just might find the deal no longer makes sense.

Iran can team with other countries such as North Korea, China or Russia and quickly jump-start its program and become a declared nuclear power - but now from a position of strength - a regional hegemon, an iron-clad dictatorship, and a wealthy power that's part of the global marketplace - not isolated from it.

From Iran's perspective, this is a deal worth having - particularly if its goal is to be a powerful country and have a bomb.

where's your proof that they're on the road to nuclear weapons? btw, the same people saying this were convinced saddam had WMD and an active nuclear program. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by spin_dry

[Highmark]

Just now, spin_dry said:

that was a mistake. let's not repeat the same. the situation in syria, while not perfect, has been improving. in the whole scheme of things this gas attack is rather minor compared to the carnage from small arms, artillary, barrel bombs, and other forms of death. someone over there isnt happy with the wind down, thus the gas attacks  

why is it that you jump from the UN to Nato and probably back to the UN again? do you ever criticize the US military for the role it's played in the destabilization of the middle east? or are you like many of the others here. a perpetual whiner because the UN or Nato won't fix what the US military, under civilian command, broke? 

Yes, that's why I want them to take care of it and not us.

I don't want the UN or NATO fighting unless attacked.   I want them to create widespread safezones for civilians and distribute aide.  That was their mission in Libya.   Its rather them or someone else.   Never us again in a Muslim country as far as I'm concerned.