U.S. says air strikes cripple Syria chemical weapons program

[tonbridgebrit]

On 15/04/2018 at 2:31 PM, Morch said:

 

There is an attempt to remove Assad? Seriously? Do tell. Assad's been in place since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Had the US really wanted him out, why wasn't he removed prior to the Russian intervention (which rendered the proposition unrealistic) and when he was most vulnerable? Weaken Assad "ineffective"? How exactly is that going?

 

You have demonstrated nothing. Assad is still in place. And, of course, you have not actually "answered" much regarding similarities between Iraq and Syria, even if you truly believe you have.

Morch, what's really happening ?

Washington has been trying to remove Assad from a very early stage. Washington was backing the rebels (whatever rebels) who were rebelling against Assad. Washington has carried out these air strikes, and claims that Syria's ability in whatever has been crippled. It's a pack of lies.

The invasion of Iraq was built on a lie, and Washington's continued presence in Syria is based on lies. Why is Washington still in Syria ? Why is Washington still heavily involved in Syria ? Why carry out this missile strike ?
Because, I think it's a case of, Washington refuses to have Syria as a country ruled by Assad. As long as Assad is still in charge of Syria, as long as Assad survives (with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah in Syria) then, Washington will continue to be heavily involved in Syria. These missile strikes are the latest chapter of Washington's role in Syria.

Edited April 17, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[HooHaa]

On 15/04/2018 at 8:53 PM, sirineou said:

Perhaps you need to bo back and reread the exchange for historical context as I believe what happen or did not happen to other countries in the area as it pertains to the subject is history and thus historical context and other than the fact that proxies are used rather than overt direct involvement is similar to what happen in Iraq as far as destabilization  is concerned. 

Dude, thats one massive sentence.

[metisdead]

A post commenting on moderation has been removed. 

 

Some more posts from questionable sources have been removed as well as the replies. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by metisdead

[Morch]

2 hours ago, quandow said:

ANY analogy always falls short, it's called poetic license.

 

The U.S. government lied about Iraq, it lied about Libya, and in this way it's doing EXACTLY the same thing in lying about Syria.

 

Other than claims that the US government lied/lies in this instance - what else is there?

 

There's no invasion on the horizon.

There's no indication the US got much interests getting further involved.

Assad is strongly backed by a rival super power, which deployed it's military to the country.

There was no serious attempt to depose Assad, even when it was a more realistic option.

 

It's not the your analogy falls short, it misses a whole lot much substance, leaving only a convenient meme.

 

None of the claims it doesn't apply actually deals with facts.

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, what's really happening ?

Washington has been trying to remove Assad from a very early stage. Washington was backing the rebels (whatever rebels) who were rebelling against Assad. Washington has carried out these air strikes, and claims that Syria's ability in whatever has been crippled. It's a pack of lies.

The invasion of Iraq was built on a lie, and Washington's continued presence in Syria is based on lies. Why is Washington still in Syria ? Why is Washington still heavily involved in Syria ? Why carry out this missile strike ?
Because, I think it's a case of, Washington refuses to have Syria as a country ruled by Assad. As long as Assad is still in charge of Syria, as long as Assad survives (with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah in Syria) then, Washington will continue to be heavily involved in Syria. These missile strikes are the latest chapter of Washington's role in Syria.

 

To follow the "reasoning" of several posters - the US managed to get rid of quite a few dictators, some of which were more powerful than Assad. And yet, many years well into the Syrian Civil War, Assad is still around. There weren't no continuous massive airstrikes on Assad's forces, there were no direct attack targeting Assad, there was no invasion.

 

If the US had been set on deposing Assad, he would have been out of the picture long ago. In fact, US agenda and policy on this point changed and shifted several times. When it became clear the various rebel groups could not provide a stable or even acceptable alternative, the notion pretty much died. That politicians repeated this BS every now and then - yes, but obviously, no effective measures to achieve that goal were taken.

 

That you call something a "pack of lies" means less than little.

 

The US presence in Syria is based on what "lie", exactly? The US presence in Syria, which Trump means to end, was mainly to do with fighting ISIS (mostly in cooperation with SDF/Kurdish fighters). The US presence in Syria amounts to about 2000 troops. Not quite an invading army, and apparently on the way out as well.

 

That you "predict" further US involvement is all very well, it just doesn't corresponds to facts, your "Washington" nonsense notwithstanding.

 

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt any of your pointless trolling amounts to "knowing", let alone "knowing more".

Objective facts are scarce, and even if they weren't they seldom resemble the truth.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Objective facts are scarce, and even if they weren't they seldom resemble the truth.

 

Sounds like a fortune cookie note.

[lannarebirth]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sounds like a fortune cookie note.

An Einsteinian riff. Same same, but different.

[Odysseus123]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

An Einsteinian riff. Same same, but different.

No more news about the chemical factory/kebab factory?

 

Any news of civilian deaths in the area after the air strikes?

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, Odysseus123 said:

No more news about the chemical factory/kebab factory?

 

Any news of civilian deaths in the area after the air strikes?

None that I've heard about. The damage assessment video looked like they hit an abandoned building in the middle of an empty field, which I guess was the whole point of the exercise. It is hard to know whether one should be outraged or embarrassed.

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

None that I've heard about. The damage assessment video looked like they hit an abandoned building in the middle of an empty field, which I guess was the whole point of the exercise. It is hard to know whether one should be outraged or embarrassed.

Just the facts..Lannarebirth...just the facts  

 

Hush hush news sources (Donald Trump and Twitter) transmitted from a US submarine under the Polar ice cap to specially selected members of this forum, appear to suggest that this was another great victory.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.