Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
There is some extreme stupidity being posted in here 
Official Syrian Conflict Thread
I don't see it.
This operates under the assumption that strongmen, dictators, and despots do not have a long history of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and attacking their own citizens (including chemical warfare) that puts them in a precarious position or completely undermines their control.
Last edited:
They are sovereign nations whether we like the leaders or not. We should not be in the business of regime change because we don’t like how a leader treats his own people.
America, especially has no moral right to criticize how a nation treats its citizens when black people were living in an apartheid state well into the 1960s.
Look how outraged we are because Russia interfered in our election. Now imagine if Russia had deposed a US president and propped up a dictator like we did in Iran and a bunch of other countries.
As black people, we more than any one else, have first hand experience of America’s hypocrisy and injustice.
Then say you don't support intervention. That statement holds on its own and is a better argument then suggesting this was a false flag attack. I don't completely agree ,but I do respect the position.
Since you mentioned Americas history, answer me this:
If during the civil war the south was summarily winning would you have opposed foreign intervention in support of the union or would you maintain this position? Is the right to rule over your people as you see more important than human rights in general ?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
There is some extreme stupidity being posted in here
usual bushed posters come back and do the same bs again
My problem with America’s intervention is that it’s done for the interests of business and imperialism, but then justified as innocent and altruistic actions done to help oppressed people or in the name of spreading democracy.
We will intervene in rich oil countries in the case of the Middle East or to push back against an ideology, as we did all over the world during the Cold War, but turn our backs when atrocities are happening in Defur or Rwanda.
Plus history has shown that these interventions result in more chaos and violence than if we had not intervened.
We should have learned our lesson after the disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam, but no, here we are making the same damn mistakes.
A lot of the problems that we see in the Middle East are due to the borders that were drawn in the region by the British and the French after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I think it’s ultimately fruitless and destructive to try and impose our views in the region. Whoever wins is going to turn around and resent America’s involvement and presence. This happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It’s going to happen in Syria even if the rebels were to prevail.
Ultimately, a long lasting peace in these countries is only going to happen after they sort out their own issues and mend their own internal divisions.
well said. I agree woth this perspective. Dapped, rep'd, thanks for the conversation. Always a good time
You can't be black one day then American the other.
This is part of the deal.
I'm a black American. I'd rather be in a country making the terms, not accepting them.
A 24 hour hotline ensured superpowers did not clash militarily over Syria air strikes
A 24 hour hotline ensured superpowers did not clash militarily over Syria air strikes
In the aftermath of the bombing of Syrian targets, America, Britain and France were all at pains to point out that the so-called “deconfliction channel” - a continuously open line of communication between Washington and Moscow - had been repeatedly used.
The strategic hotline was set up after Russia began offering military support to President Bashar Assad in September 2015. It is intended to help avoid any potential misunderstandings as both sides operate over the region, ensure airspace control is respected and so prevent the possibility of clashes between Russian and Western forces.
Although the “deconfliction line” has occasionally been closed due to disputes between the two countries, it has proven invaluable while Russia targets those opposed to Assad’s rule, and the West has supported attacks against Islamic State in the region.
Prime Minister Theresa May during a press conference in 10 Downing Street after the air strikesCredit: Simon Dawson/PA
And, that hotline appeared to have played an essential role in ensuring that Russia’s high-tech defence systems and its military might understood to be in the north of Syria was not deployed against the allied forces during the air strikes.
In a press conference, Joseph Dunford, American's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US “specifically identified” targets to “mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved”, adding that that in no way amounted to any consultation or planning with Moscow over the military action.
He said: “We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace, we did not coordinate targets.”
Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to Moscow, said: “Before we took action the United States communicated with the Russian Federation to reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties.
“This is not about a conflict between superpowers but about the principle that the use of chemical weapons is simply unacceptable,” he said.
A Typhoon aircraft prepares for landing at the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, early Saturday, April 14, 2018. Credit: Petros Karadjias/AP
Florence Parly, the French defence minister, also said: “We do not seek confrontation and we refuse any possibility of military escalation and that is the reason why, with our allies, we have ensured that the Russians were warned beforehand.”
The Russian defence ministry said that only Syrian forces came into direct conflict with allied forces launching the strikes, and “not a single one of the cruise missiles entered the zone of Russian air defence systems”.
Asked by The Sunday Telegraph whether either Moscow or the Russian military had been informed prior to the airstrikes, Theresa May said at a press conference, “full and proper planning was put in place before the airstrikes were undertaken to ensure we could mitigate and minimise the impact on civilians and ensure the strikes were absolutely targeted at their aim”, adding that UK had not been involved in those communications.
Moscow appeared to be relieved that the damage from strikes appeared limited and no escalation threatening armed conflict with the United States was imminent.
Russian president Vladimir Putin condemned the strikes, but his remarks were relatively tempered, and he did not speak of retaliation.
Russian President Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are long standing allies Credit:Sputnik Photo Agency/Reuters
“History will put everything in its place,” he said in a statement, adding that Russia will call an urgent session of the United Nations security council to “discuss the aggressive actions of the United States and its allies”.
The Russian defence ministry, however, did threaten to reconsider giving advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Syria and other allies in light of the strikes. Russia cancelled a shipment of such missiles under Western pressure in 2013.
Later, a Pentagon spokesman said that line of communication between Russia and America remained open.
A 24 hour hotline ensured superpowers did not clash militarily over Syria air strikes
- Steve Bird
- Edward Malnick
- Alec Luhn, Moscow
In the aftermath of the bombing of Syrian targets, America, Britain and France were all at pains to point out that the so-called “deconfliction channel” - a continuously open line of communication between Washington and Moscow - had been repeatedly used.
The strategic hotline was set up after Russia began offering military support to President Bashar Assad in September 2015. It is intended to help avoid any potential misunderstandings as both sides operate over the region, ensure airspace control is respected and so prevent the possibility of clashes between Russian and Western forces.
Although the “deconfliction line” has occasionally been closed due to disputes between the two countries, it has proven invaluable while Russia targets those opposed to Assad’s rule, and the West has supported attacks against Islamic State in the region.
Prime Minister Theresa May during a press conference in 10 Downing Street after the air strikesCredit: Simon Dawson/PA
And, that hotline appeared to have played an essential role in ensuring that Russia’s high-tech defence systems and its military might understood to be in the north of Syria was not deployed against the allied forces during the air strikes.
In a press conference, Joseph Dunford, American's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US “specifically identified” targets to “mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved”, adding that that in no way amounted to any consultation or planning with Moscow over the military action.
He said: “We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace, we did not coordinate targets.”
Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to Moscow, said: “Before we took action the United States communicated with the Russian Federation to reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties.
“This is not about a conflict between superpowers but about the principle that the use of chemical weapons is simply unacceptable,” he said.
A Typhoon aircraft prepares for landing at the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, early Saturday, April 14, 2018. Credit: Petros Karadjias/AP
Florence Parly, the French defence minister, also said: “We do not seek confrontation and we refuse any possibility of military escalation and that is the reason why, with our allies, we have ensured that the Russians were warned beforehand.”
The Russian defence ministry said that only Syrian forces came into direct conflict with allied forces launching the strikes, and “not a single one of the cruise missiles entered the zone of Russian air defence systems”.
Asked by The Sunday Telegraph whether either Moscow or the Russian military had been informed prior to the airstrikes, Theresa May said at a press conference, “full and proper planning was put in place before the airstrikes were undertaken to ensure we could mitigate and minimise the impact on civilians and ensure the strikes were absolutely targeted at their aim”, adding that UK had not been involved in those communications.
Moscow appeared to be relieved that the damage from strikes appeared limited and no escalation threatening armed conflict with the United States was imminent.
Russian president Vladimir Putin condemned the strikes, but his remarks were relatively tempered, and he did not speak of retaliation.
Russian President Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are long standing allies Credit:Sputnik Photo Agency/Reuters
“History will put everything in its place,” he said in a statement, adding that Russia will call an urgent session of the United Nations security council to “discuss the aggressive actions of the United States and its allies”.
The Russian defence ministry, however, did threaten to reconsider giving advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Syria and other allies in light of the strikes. Russia cancelled a shipment of such missiles under Western pressure in 2013.
Later, a Pentagon spokesman said that line of communication between Russia and America remained open.
How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria
How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria
More stories by Toluse OlorunnipaApril 14, 2018, 5:42 PM EDT
President Donald Trump’s outrage over another apparent chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was clear. And for the second time in his presidency, the U.S. commander-in-chief demanded retaliation.
As images of sick or dying children flooded global media all week, the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Winston Churchill churned toward the Mediterranean to join a flotilla of allied warships, including another U.S. destroyer, the USS Donald Cook.
It was a ruse.
While both vessels carry as many as 90 Tomahawk missiles -- the main weapon used in the Friday evening strike on Syria -- neither ship in the end fired a shot. Instead, according to a person familiar with White House war planning, they were part of a plan to distract Russia and its Syrian ally from an assault Assad’s government could do little to defend itself against.
Wreckage at the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) compound near Damascus on April 14.
Photographer: Louai Beshara/AFP via Getty Images
It worked. Pentagon officials on Saturday said they faced little resistance to their targeted attack on what they said were three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Most of the Syrian countermeasures, including defensive ballistic missiles, were fired after U.S. and allied weapons hit their targets, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie told reporters on Saturday.
“No Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did,” McKenzie said. He described the joint U.S., French and U.K. strike as “precise, overwhelming and effective.”
Read a QuickTake on whether the world can really stop chemical weapons
Brazen as it was perceived to be, the Assad regime’s decision to again use chemical weapons on own people didn’t by itself spur the U.S. to act. The Trump administration was also motivated by how closely the attack followed the use of a nerve agent to poison a Russian ex-spy and his daughter in England in March, an action the U.K. government and its allies blamed on Russia.
The English incident added to concerns held by Trump, his top aides, and leaders in the U.K. and France that not responding might encourage proliferation of chemical weapons, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations.
As the strategy of how to respond took shape, Trump appeared to telegraph his intentions to the world with a tweet on April 11: “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!”’
Analysts suggested Assad’s regime would respond to Trump’s threats by protectively moving weapons and personnel away from likely targets. An already difficult battle plan -- which required hitting Assad without provoking Russian reprisals or injecting the U.S. further into Syria’s seven-year civil war -- was getting harder.
‘Big Price’
In the White House, Trump met with military officials and made several calls to his French and British counterparts, President Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister Theresa May, with the goal of following through on a threat to impose a “big price’’ on Syria -- a vow made in an earlier tweet, on April 8.
During a meeting with the National Security Council and top military leaders early in the week, Trump had been presented five large target options -- called sets -- for potential strikes, according to the person familiar with the plans. The president largely listened as Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine Corps General Joe Dunford and other military leaders did most of the talking. New National Security Adviser John Bolton -- who started work on April 9 -- and Vice President Mike Pence were also on hand.
The president asked Bolton and the military leaders to justify each potential target, and was particularly focused on limiting the risk of escalation by Russia. There was unanimity among Trump’s top national security staff about conducting strikes but debate about how hard to hit the Syrians, the person said.
Haley’s Voice
Nikki Haley at a United Nations Security Council emergency meeting on April 14.
Photographer: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley was especially blunt in her assessment of the Syrian regime during meetings with Trump, the person said.
Haley told the UN Security Council on Friday that Assad and his Russian backers were to blame for the deaths of thousands of Syrian civilians. In a private meeting with Trump and national security officials earlier in the week, Haley was a leading voice pushing for a robust military response to the chemical weapons attack on humanitarian grounds, the person said.
Dunford told reporters Friday that the U.S. sought targets that would limit any involvement with Russian military forces in Syria and reduce the risk of civilian casualties.
Trump, who just a week earlier said he wanted to pull U.S. troops out of Syria “very soon,” didn’t want to become drawn into the civil war there and instead focused the military response on deterring the use of chemical weapons, according to the official.
Missile Barrage
Photographer: Raymond Maddocks/U.S. Navy
With the allies on board and the USS Winston Churchill arriving in the Mediterranean region, the attack was nearly under way.
As the president addressed the nation at 9 p.m. Washington time, on Friday, a barrage of 105 U.S., U.K. and French missiles converged on Syria. They came from the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean, homing in from three directions to overwhelm whatever missile defenses Assad’s regime might deploy. Russia’s more advanced air defense system didn’t engage the allied weapons.
According to the Pentagon, the allied weaponry included 19 new “Extended-Range” stealthy Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Attack Munitions launched by two B-1B bombers based out of Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, and six Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from the Virginia-class USS John Warner submarine. The bomber-launched missiles, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., had never been used in combat.
Red Sea Attack
USS Monterey fires a Tomahawk land attack missile at Syria on April 14.
Photographer: Matthew Daniels/U.S. Navy via Getty Images
The cruiser USS Monterey fired 30 Tomahawks and the destroyer USS Laboon fired seven Tomahawks from the Red Sea. The destroyer USS Higgins fired 23 Tomahawks from the North Arabian Gulf, according to McKenzie.
The weapons also included French SCALP-EG cruise missiles and British Storm Shadow standoff missiles launched by Tornado and Typhoon jets. Nine SCALP missiles were fired at what the Pentagon said was a chemical weapons storage complex at Hims-Shinshar, along with two SCALPS, nine Tomahawks and eight Storm Shadows.
Chemical weapons storage complex at Hims-Shinshar before the strike on April 13, left, and following the strike.
satellite image ©2018 DigitalGlobe
The morning after the barrage, Trump tweeted “Mission Accomplished!”, a phrase closely associated with President George W. Bush. The 43rd U.S. president prematurely declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in 2003 while standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of a large banner bearing those words.
Trump, like Bush, may live to regret using the phrase. The latest U.S.-led operation was narrow in scope, with little damage done to Assad’s war-fighting capabilities. The country remains a toxic brew of foreign forces, militias and terrorist groups. Haley, the UN ambassador, said this week that Assad has used chemical weapons dozens of times since war broke out in 2011. He might well use them again.
Nap gets off on his shyt. At east he's consistent. :MJFranc:
