majorspark;1846382 wrote:Thankfully Obama made a deal with the Russians to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria.

Yeah, that was a big deal for Obama and Kerry that garnered much praise for the lead-from-behind strategy.

gut;1846384 wrote:Yeah, that was a big deal for Obama and Kerry that garnered much praise for the lead-from-behind strategy.

Not to mention that it failed......

Join Date: 02-24-06 Posts: 1,711

...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the Mediterranean and the two US destroyers that fired the cruise missiles.

...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the eastern Mediterranean and towards the two US destroyers that fired the cruise missiles.

...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the Mediterranean and the two US destroyer...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the eastern Mediterranean and towards the two US destroyers that fired the cruise missiles.

Con_Alma;1846388 wrote:...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the Mediterranean and the two US destroyer...and now there is a Russian frigate heading to the eastern Mediterranean and towards the two US destroyers that fired the cruise missiles.

Wait a minute I thought Trump was colluding with the Russians.

majorspark;1846389 wrote:Wait a minute I thought Trump was colluding with the Russians.

Honestly think I'd rather have Trump, Kushner, Tillerson and their better relationship with Russia than Hillary, Romney, Kerry etc. during this situation.

"Vlad! This is an integral step toward the West taking back Constantinople!"

LOL!

gut;1846384 wrote:Yeah, that was a big deal for Obama and Kerry that garnered much praise for the lead-from-behind strategy.

How ironic with the current political climate is it that the Obama Kerry deal was struck with the Russians.

Perhaps the frigate is approaching to give us back the uranium that Hillary gave to Uranium One in return for the tens of millions in payoffs to her foundation.

QuakerOats;1846394 wrote:Perhaps the frigate is approaching to give us back the uranium that Hillary gave to Uranium One in return for the tens of millions in payoffs to her foundation.

I wonder if it is one of Putin's coal fired frigates.

BoatShoes;1846370 wrote:She's already battled pancreatic cancer at least once (twice?)...

The grim reaper is knocking.

Pancreatic?! Damn, she is one tough SOB.

Colon and then pancreatic.

She's 84. I don't see her being around much longer.

I wonder if Assad thought he had a green light to do whatever he wanted due to President Trump's and Secretary of State Tillerson comments about Syria. Before the chemical attack they both stated a more of less hands off attitude toward Syria. Reminds me of the statement then Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie made to Saddam Hussein concerning Kuwait. Basically stating that the United States wasn't a great supporter of Kuwait. Quite possibly giving Hussein the idea he had the green light to attack Kuwait. The United State was a big supporter and supplier to Iraq in their conflict with Iran.

ppaw1999;1846402 wrote:I wonder if Assad thought he had a green light to do whatever he wanted due to President Trump's and Secretary of State Tillerson comments about Syria.

Or Assad watches CNN and believed Trump wouldn't do anything without Vlad's approval.

^^^ here, here

Spock;1846355 wrote:huh? We bombed a paved military airport. Do Syrians pitch tents on the tarmac?

If anyone died in this, it was Russian or Syrian military.

Do Syrian military personnel have families? Do Russians have families?

gut;1846377 wrote:No, we didn't. But Assad was clearly suddenly violating a treaty. If you're not willing to enforce your own agreements, then they are worthless.

It's somewhat hard to call something an agreement if its contents amount to: "Do what you agree to do, or we're going to fuck your shit up." That seems more like a threat or ultimatum.

If we look at an agreement the same way we look at a contract (and I suggest that we should), their violation of the agreement should free us up from any obligation involved therein.

Frankly, since any such treaties were entered into under a different leader, I really don't think it would be difficult to find an out, either. Hell, the speech practically writes itself. "Obama would have had us going in to MORE nation-building and MORE war. However, I believe that those things are bad for America, and I'm not here to contribute to the mistakes of the past."

That wouldn't have been bad for the approval rating, I don't think.

BoatShoes;1846391 wrote:Honestly think I'd rather have Trump, Kushner, Tillerson and their better relationship with Russia than Hillary, Romney, Kerry etc. during this situation.

"Vlad! This is an integral step toward the West taking back Constantinople!"

I don't care who you are; that's funny!

wildcats20;1846399 wrote:Colon and then pancreatic.

She's 84. I don't see her being around much longer.

I dunno. She seems like the cranky old neighbor lady that just won't die. I do think she has mostly checked out of her role, though. I don't think she gives a shit anymore.

O-Trap;1846483 wrote: It's somewhat hard to call something an agreement if its contents amount to: "Do what you agree to do, or we're going to fuck your shit up." That seems more like a threat or ultimatum.

If we look at an agreement the same way we look at a contract (and I suggest that we should), their violation of the agreement should free us up from any obligation involved therein.

Yes, and our "obligation" was to not "fuck you shit up" for violating humanitarian rights. Seriously, this is a black & white no-brainer.

No, you should not look at this as a contract but more like a regulatory agreement....if you don't abide, there are consequences.

like_that;1846398 wrote:Pancreatic?! Damn, she is one tough SOB.

i have never heard of someone living through pancreatic cancer

gut;1846485 wrote:Yes, and our "obligation" was to not "fuck you shit up" for violating humanitarian rights. Seriously, this is a black & white no-brainer.

No, you should not look at this as a contract but more like a regulatory agreement....if you don't abide, there are consequences.

If we have the power to administer consequences ... which IS, in effect, policing ... then it's not really an agreement at all.

The very notion of a sovereign state is that said states aren't subject to other states. I'm not saying what Assad is accused of doing is okay. I'm saying it's neither our job nor our right to exact the pound of flesh for it. We don't have the authority to do so, they haven't triggered any threat to our own nation (thus, they don't require us to defend our citizens or land), and we acted militarily without going through the defined process for declaring war. Again, not to mention the seeming double standard of going in there while ignoring decade-old atrocities being committed by other governments against their respective constituencies elsewhere.

I agree that this is a black and white no-brainer. At no point was there any good justification for this.

O-Trap;1846520 wrote: I agree that this is a black and white no-brainer. At no point was there any good justification for this.

There absolutely was, otherwise no future agreement would be worth a damn. It's more or less a conditional surrender before an actual conflict (because the outcome is already known in advance). If you aren't willing to enforce those conditions, then your involvement in every future conflict fails before it even starts.

It would be like laying down rules for your kids, but having no consequences if those rules are broken...the results would be very, very obvious.

Otrap a wise man once told me 'what you ignore you condone".

So you condone the massacre of millions of innocent people for the sake of political control? I suppose you would have just let Hitler keep doing what he was doing?

What Asad is doing is the EXACT same thing Hitler did.

We have more than 1,000 troops in the area functioning with the understanding that chemicals weapons were agreed not to be used. Once they were used, I would be pissed at our COmmander-In-Chief if he didn't make it know through military action like he did that the use of such weapons will stop immediately by choice or we will make sure that they are unable to be used.

This was just a "shot across the bow".

The Syria strikes are a political story.

The real military story right now is a complete Naval Strike Force group heading towards the Korean Peninsula.

Spock;1846527 wrote:Otrap a wise man once told me 'what you ignore you condone".

So you condone the massacre of millions of innocent people for the sake of political control? I suppose you would have just let Hitler keep doing what he was doing?

What Asad is doing is the EXACT same thing Hitler did.

Looks like 60 minutes actually ran an episode that didn't hug on the nuts of some liberal BS.

The South Sudan piece was terrible

I specifically remember you saying that about the South Sudan episode last month.

Assad gases and kills dozens and you say it can't be ignored. Two regions, but people being killed in both. What's the difference in your mind? Trump attacked one but not the other and you need to defend him?

Just watching a piece on CNN "Return to Mosul".

ISIS is no joke "jv team". It showed a manufacturing facility that was taken/abandoned - they were making munitions & ordinants, fake humvees out of WOOD to be decoys, and crude airplanes designed for suicide missions. Pretty amazing and scary stuff.