Trump on Syria
Comments
-
I'm okay with thisPurpleThrobber said:Trump is going to divide up Syria and let Russia keep their naval base. Then he and Putin are going to go Rambo/Red Dawn/Three Kings and wipe ISIS clean. Then they may agree on a joint-venture in overthrowing Saudi Arabia in return.
He's got a fucking oil guy as his Secretary of State. It's all about the oil. Kicking it back to when the British and the Dutch controlled the petrol. Russia gets half, the US gets half.
He's also going to also cut a trade deal with China and they'll take care of the Korean problem.
Then Russia and the US will fuck China on the price of oil.
Deal makers make deals. -
Not sure there is a good option. It doesn't make sense that Assad would use sarin gas after he had a path to stay in power...on the surface it makes a lot more sense that they bombed a place that had it or the AQ type rebels did it to blame him.
That said, Trump either had to come out and say Assad didn't do it (which would be a mess in the current political climate) or respond. Otherwise he looks weak to all the other 3rd world dictators. I hope this is a bomb the base, say stop, and move on...the place is a mess and there are no good options.
And it's not about oil...it's about natural gas. Several ME countries want to put a gas line through to get to Europe and Russia wants to block that to limit competition. We shouldn't give an F.
Probably the best option is to convince Russia to agree to push Assad out with the stipulation that they can put somebody else in that agrees to block the pipeline. -
Let's just overthrow the government and occupy the country for 15 years. What could go wrong there?
-
For those swallowing the CNNNBCMSNBC propaganda let's review:
In 2013 and 2014 the US tried to frame Assad with using chemical weapons and both times proven to be hoaxes.
Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons in 2014, confirmed by the UN and Ketchup Boy Kerry.
Assad is on the verge of winning the war as well as support from Trump. He would not risk starting an all out war with the neocons by using chemical weapons on the enemy, much less his own people. There is no benefit.
BTW, investigative reporter Seymor Hirsch published a report in 2014 explaining how Hillary Clinton had taken the sarin gas weapons from Libya after the invasion and sold them the the "moderate rebels" in Syria.
In the end, if Trump wants to allow the military to unload old Tomahawk inventory on an airstrip to keep the neocons happy, I am ok with that.
-
Agree on 'energy' in general as the theme behind the whole who gives a fuck about the ME.HoustonHusky said:Not sure there is a good option. It doesn't make sense that Assad would use sarin gas after he had a path to stay in power...on the surface it makes a lot more sense that they bombed a place that had it or the AQ type rebels did it to blame him.
That said, Trump either had to come out and say Assad didn't do it (which would be a mess in the current political climate) or respond. Otherwise he looks weak to all the other 3rd world dictators. I hope this is a bomb the base, say stop, and move on...the place is a mess and there are no good options.
And it's not about oil...it's about natural gas. Several ME countries want to put a gas line through to get to Europe and Russia wants to block that to limit competition. We shouldn't give an F.
Probably the best option is to convince Russia to agree to push Assad out with the stipulation that they can put somebody else in that agrees to block the pipeline.
Oil is the easy label - but Russia supplies many gazillion mcfs of natural gas to Europe, fo' sho. Can we just agree to speak in terms of BOE's to include both black gold and natural gas?
-
Dude61 said:
For those swallowing the CNNNBCMSNBC propaganda let's review:
In 2013 and 2014 the US tried to frame Assad with using chemical weapons and both times proven to be hoaxes.
Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons in 2014, confirmed by the UN and Ketchup Boy Kerry.
Assad is on the verge of winning the war as well as support from Trump. He would not risk starting an all out war with the neocons by using chemical weapons on the enemy, much less his own people. There is no benefit.
BTW, investigative reporter Seymor Hirsch published a report in 2014 explaining how Hillary Clinton had taken the sarin gas weapons from Libya after the invasion and sold them the the "moderate rebels" in Syria.
In the end, if Trump wants to allow the military to unload old Tomahawk inventory on an airstrip to keep the neocons happy, I am ok with that.
Holy shit. Now I've seen everything. @HockeyPuck61 just cites Seymour Hersh.Dude61 said:For those swallowing the CNNNBCMSNBC propaganda let's review:
In 2013 and 2014 the US tried to frame Assad with using chemical weapons and both times proven to be hoaxes.
Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons in 2014, confirmed by the UN and Ketchup Boy Kerry.
Assad is on the verge of winning the war as well as support from Trump. He would not risk starting an all out war with the neocons by using chemical weapons on the enemy, much less his own people. There is no benefit.
BTW, investigative reporter Seymor Hirsch published a report in 2014 explaining how Hillary Clinton had taken the sarin gas weapons from Libya after the invasion and sold them the the "moderate rebels" in Syria.
In the end, if Trump wants to allow the military to unload old Tomahawk inventory on an airstrip to keep the neocons happy, I am ok with that.
We are through the looking-glass, fer shurr -
trump needs to stop listening to the GOP establishment and start listening to his base. they got him elected. -
Fuck that. GOP MO has been "play to the rubes and get richer" for quite some time now.dhdawg said:
trump needs to stop listening to the GOP establishment and start listening to his base. they got him elected. -
-
