Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

If one wants war, as the US does, one can find a religious basis for this.

And if one doesn't, having a religious conflict ready to hand makes it much harder to avoid in times of trouble - such as climate change, or the release of old grudges and conflicts in the aftermath of war.

No, I don't. Bolton is part of a more radical faction of globalism - he wants the US to rule the world directly, by open use of military power

Of course. And he's in near-perfect alignment with Republican Trump's motives and preferences in that respect - like you've been told, over and over. What do you think fascism is, some kind of joke?

The only point where I see some reason to support Bolton is that his faction will help to destroy the cover the Obama faction uses. And without this cover, the US world rule will be essentially dead in short time.

That cover was blown in 2002 - with Bolton's loud contribution. It didn't work out like you seem to think it should. It won't this time, either.

The most dangerous thing is that the decision makers don't know what they do. That they think they can win a nuclear war, and therefore start it. But who is more probable to know the real situation about a nuclear war? Those who care a lot about military means to rule the world, and despise diplomatic means, or those who prefer "diplomatic" (terrorists) means?

The ones who advocate first strike use, believing they can control the consequences, are the most dangerous. The ones who build up and spread the means for disaster in the naive belief that accident and mishap are vanishingly unlikely are the second most dangerous. Republican Trump is in both categories. He can find generals who will cooperate with him.
And he is of course completely ignorant of the effects of nuclear war - even more than you are, in your world of propaganda analysis instead of climate research.

With "atrocities" you mean the Western claims about horrible bomb terror against the poor civilian in East Ghouta?

I never mean any of your idiotic invented presumptions. Just read the posts, why not.

Given the actual situation, one wonders why Trump is now again (after a quite long time saying "we want to stay forever") talking about leaving Syria

You keep taking what Trump says seriously, no matter how many times you are made foolish - you never learn.

The Kurds will suffer only if they don't give up.

The Kurds will suffer, then. So will the victims of sectarian war and internal religious persecution in the various countries involved - the Shia and Sunni will be thrown into conflict by climate change as well as their centuries of grudge, the Christians and Bahai and so forth as well.
But all of that is predicated on the US pulling out of the Middle East - leaving Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, to work things out without US presence. You would have to get rid of the Republican Party's dominance in the US government to arrange that. So not this year - we won't even be able to get rid of Trump for months yet.

 

[Schmelzer]

And he's in near-perfect alignment with Republican Trump's motives and preferences in that respect - like you've been told, over and over. What do you think fascism is, some kind of joke?

Your use of the word "fascism" is, indeed, some kind of joke.

That cover was blown in 2002 - with Bolton's loud contribution. It didn't work out like you seem to think it should. It won't this time, either.

I think the Iraq war has seriously harmed the unipolar US rule of the world. It has given Russia some years to recover from the 90s.

The ones who advocate first strike use, believing they can control the consequences, are the most dangerous. The ones who build up and spread the means for disaster in the naive belief that accident and mishap are vanishingly unlikely are the second most dangerous. Republican Trump is in both categories. He can find generals who will cooperate with him.
And he is of course completely ignorant of the effects of nuclear war

Just to clarify: I have not claimed that he is not ignorant. The place where I think the knowledge is better is the pro-war faction. I doubt Trump is part of it. He is pro-military. Give the US military a lot of money, and in 10 years it will be much better than now, American military being great again. But it is not a good idea to start the war now.

You keep taking what Trump says seriously, no matter how many times you are made foolish - you never learn.

Nice try. Reasonable people use all the information which is available. In particular also propaganda sources as well as statements from unreliable guys. Learn the difference between using such information and taking it seriously. As an example, see above, how I have used the SOHR data. I hope it is clear that I do not think these data have to be "taken seriously".

The Kurds will suffer, then. So will the victims of sectarian war and internal religious persecution in the various countries involved - the Shia and Sunni will be thrown into conflict by climate change as well as their centuries of grudge, the Christians and Bahai and so forth as well.

I'm more optimistic about this. Don't forget that most of the Syrian army is Sunni. And don't forget that the Kurds in Iraq have not even started a serious fight, but run away.

But all of that is predicated on the US pulling out of the Middle East - leaving Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, etc, to work things out without US presence. You would have to get rid of the Republican Party's dominance in the US government to arrange that. So not this year - we won't even be able to get rid of Trump for months yet.

The reason for the US to leave Syria will be military reasons. Too much dead US soldiers, in a situation where you have much less military power in comparison with Afghanistan and Iraq because there will be nearby supporters which cannot be attacked without risking a war with Russia. This will remember the Vietnam war, where Soviet weapon delivery by Soviet ships was not touched, Soviet aircraft (at least according to popular Soviet jokes, even with Soviet pilots) shooting American planes. Such military reasons to leave can be understood bipartisan.

 

[iceaura]

The place where I think the knowledge is better is the pro-war faction. I doubt Trump is part of it. He is pro-military. Give the US military a lot of money, and in 10 years it will be much better than now, American military being great again. But it is not a good idea to start the war now.

It's never been a good idea to start these miserable wars. That didn't stop Bolton and W, it won't stop Bolton and Trump. Besides: the war's already started.

Nice try. Reasonable people use all the information which is available. In particular also propaganda sources as well as statements from unreliable guys.

But you never do. You have been informed about Trump many times, and made no use of that information whatsoever. You still listen to the "content" of what he says, as if you knew nothing about him.

I'm more optimistic about this. Don't forget that most of the Syrian army is Sunni.

So is most of the Turkish army - always has been. So was the command of the Iraqi Army under Saddam. They all beat up on the Kurds anyway.

The reason for the US to leave Syria will be military reasons. Too much dead US soldiers, in a situation where you have much less military power in comparison with Afghanistan and Iraq because there will be nearby supporters which cannot be attacked without risking a war with Russia.

There aren't many dead soldiers, and the guys in charge aren't worried about that. They aren't worried about war with Russia either, at least not much - maybe Trump is, because of the puppet strings, but nobody else.

This will remember the Vietnam war, where Soviet weapon delivery by Soviet ships was not touched, Soviet aircraft (at least according to popular Soviet jokes, even with Soviet pilots) shooting American planes. Such military reasons to leave can be understood bipartisan.

The US did not leave Vietnam because of Soviet military action. It won't leave the Middle East for that reason either - and Basher Assad is no Ho Chi Minh.

Most wars the US has started since WWII have been extensions or projections of domestic politics.

 

[someguy1]

A country that murders peaceful political protestors doesn't deserve a say in who comes to their aid.

But enough about Waco. The US used poison gas against innocent children. You know this, right? I suppose that would give Syria the right to bomb the US, by your logic.

 

[sculptor]

I

This entire American theory that we can be running seven or eight low-key semi-secret wars, in which the CIA and the Pentagon are sometimes supporting opposite sides (as reported in the New York Times a while back) is not going to end well.

Can you name a war that ended well?

 

[someguy1]

Can you name a war that ended well?

Are you using this as a rhetorical point in support of the idea that the US being endlessly at undeclared war in multiple countries is perfectly ok?

 

[sculptor]

Are you using this as a rhetorical point in support of the idea that the US being endlessly at undeclared war in multiple countries is perfectly ok?

quite the opposite
end well .....................?
as long as it ends
(yesterday---would be good)

.............................................
the thing about the government
we have over 21 million people in government in this country
with that many, some are trigger happy homicidal maniacs

who, when one of them kills someone are usually immune from prosecution

.........................................
quicksand
when our government sends in the military---they fuck stuff up---break things and kill people--and create chaos
Then our government claims that we have to stay in to stabilize the area
as though they have ever actually accomplished that
............
damned if I can figure out any decent rational reason for them doing these criminal regime change wars.
...........................
go Tulsi
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
"
In 2012, the United States began a covert military campaign to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad in alliance with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey.

As a result of that regime change war, more than 400,000 Syrians have been killed and millions have fled their homes as refugees. Furthermore, because of the chaos and weakening of Syrian government forces by the United States and our partners, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations have been strengthened, presenting an even greater threat to the Middle East and the world.

Meanwhile, in 2014, the U.S. launched military operations with Kurdish and Syrian Arab forces to defeat ISIS in Syria.

As a result, the United States is now simultaneously involved in two contradictory wars in Syria. ... "

Ok so our leaders are criminals who will never be called upon to answer for the deaths they have caused.

(now comes a series of pre-deleted expletives)
At the very least, they are guilty of depraved indifference

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.

 

[someguy1]

Ok so our leaders are criminals who will never be called upon to answer for the deaths they have caused.

Yes definitely.

I read something the other day that made an interesting point. In the US, arms manufacture is a profit-making private enterprise. That's the underlying reason we're doomed to be in these endless wars.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's never been a good idea to start these miserable wars. That didn't stop Bolton and W, it won't stop Bolton and Trump. Besides: the war's already started.

Unfortunately, for some people, it is a good idea to start wars. Last but not least, the US has started a lot of wars, but it is one of the richest states. And for those in political power in the US, it is certainly useful even personally.

But you never do. You have been informed about Trump many times, and made no use of that information whatsoever. You still listen to the "content" of what he says, as if you knew nothing about him.

I do not consider what you write as information, it is propaganda too, of your own ideology. If it contains information (say, in form of a link), I take a look at this. Sometimes it is interesting. But your repeated claims without anything nontrivial information is simply dismissed as useless propaganda. You are unable to "inform" about what I have to think. All you can do is to give me interesting information. I prefer sources which give such information.

So is most of the Turkish army - always has been. So was the command of the Iraqi Army under Saddam. They all beat up on the Kurds anyway.

Of course, the Kurdish problem is not a religious one. It is classical nationalism but applied to an ethnicity which has itself no national unity but is ruled by family clans.

The US did not leave Vietnam because of Soviet military action. It won't leave the Middle East for that reason either - and Basher Assad is no Ho Chi Minh.

I have heard some ideas that going out of Vietnam had nothing to do with the military. Maybe there have been other important reasons. But I don't think that it the military situation on the ground did not play an important role.

 

[CptBork]

Bashar Assad doesn't have any Viet Cong to back him up with millions of sacrificial casualties. Everyone hates his guts except his Russian puppet masters and the Iranians who covet his land and send poorly-trained cannon fodder to seize it, so comparing the situation to Vietnam is a complete joke. The US stays until either its leaders decide otherwise, or it will take a full declaration of war on Russia's part with unpredictable results.

The only way for a regional power like Russia or its allies to fight a successful conventional war against a superpower such as the US or its allies, is to have lots of homes, schools and hospitals to hide their weapons in, and lots of international observers screaming when they go kablooey. Russkies don't have any such advantages in Syria.

 

[iceaura]

Unfortunately, for some people, it is a good idea to start wars. Last but not least, the US has started a lot of wars, but it is one of the richest states.

Not nearly as rich as if it had not invaded Iraq, or Vietnam. Not nearly as rich as if it had fostered democracy and freedom in Central and South America. And not nearly as rich as the corporate elite that calls America its home and claims to be American - it's easy to mistake their riches for American prosperity, but it's not the same thing.
America does not benefit from these miserable wars - not as a country.

I do not consider what you write as information, it is propaganda too, of your own ideology.

You don't consider anything visible here as information - except US rightwing agitprop, sometimes.

But your repeated claims without anything nontrivial information is simply dismissed as useless propaganda. You are unable to "inform" about what I have to think.

That's one of the things I keep pointing out to you - you seem to have the basic idea, but you can't get a grip on the significance of being unable to learn from people like me.

All you can do is to give me interesting information. I prefer sources which give such information.

You have never once succeeded in obtaining information from any sources in conflict with your inculcated presuppositions, or any sources linked by me. All such sources appeared to you automatically as propaganda, and falsehood at that.

Of course, the Kurdish problem is not a religious one. It is classical nationalism but applied to an ethnicity which has itself no national unity but is ruled by family clans.

So it's not nationalism, classic or otherwise.

And so what I posted in the first place was simply the situation. There is no more likely peace available from Assad winning than Assad losing - except that obtainable by atrocity against Assad's enemies, or by exporting the violence to the neighbors via refugee exclusion.

 

[CptBork]

go Tulsi
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
"
In 2012, the United States began a covert military campaign to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad in alliance with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey.

As a result of that regime change war, more than 400,000 Syrians have been killed and millions have fled their homes as refugees. Furthermore, because of the chaos and weakening of Syrian government forces by the United States and our partners, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations have been strengthened, presenting an even greater threat to the Middle East and the world.

Meanwhile, in 2014, the U.S. launched military operations with Kurdish and Syrian Arab forces to defeat ISIS in Syria.

As a result, the United States is now simultaneously involved in two contradictory wars in Syria. ... "

Ok so our leaders are criminals who will never be called upon to answer for the deaths they have caused.

(now comes a series of pre-deleted expletives)
At the very least, they are guilty of depraved indifference

If the US stayed out from the very beginning, you're saying no one would have died? The Syrian people would have hired taxis to drive themselves to the torture chambers instead of putting up a fight? Maybe if the US stayed out of WW2 there wouldn't have been a Holocaust or a Japanese invasion of China? Turkey wouldn't have sponsored ISIS while Assad watched it flourish and take on all his other enemies?

If you don't want to see military action, why does the US continue trading with and enriching people who want to destroy it and take away the freedoms its citizens enjoy, or trade with partners who then turn around and trade with these same folks?

 

[CptBork]

The Russian ministry of defense has claimed that they have information about the US preparing forces to attack Syria and that there is information about preparations to fake a gas attack.

There is informations from Russian ministry of fascist bullshit that Russia plans to attack some Assad targets and blame the attackings on Amerika.

 

[Schmelzer]

So, it looks like the US wants war with Russia. They have started again a fake chemical weapon attack, and are talking now about another attack against Syria. Russia has already said that it will retaliate if rockets are sent to Damascus.

That's one of the things I keep pointing out to you - you seem to have the basic idea, but you can't get a grip on the significance of being unable to learn from people like me.

You behave like if you are in a superior position, like a teacher, but unfortunately, you would be a very bad teacher, because a good teacher would not tell the pupils that they are stupid, but, instead, give them information.

You have never once succeeded in obtaining information from any sources in conflict with your inculcated presuppositions, or any sources linked by me. All such sources appeared to you automatically as propaganda, and falsehood at that.

Complete nonsense. I do this all the time. Because there are no sources in the world which propose a political line I completely agree with.

There is no more likely peace available from Assad winning than Assad losing - except that obtainable by atrocity against Assad's enemies, or by exporting the violence to the neighbors via refugee exclusion.

There is informations from Russian ministry of fascist bullshit that Russia plans to attack some Assad targets and blame the attackings on Amerika.

????????????? Completely off?

The fake gas attack has already happened. And Trump is again talking about some horrible pictures and plans an attack.

The guess is that this time they will start rockets from some submarine. At least the Russians seem to be afraid of this, they have already transferred some days ago some special planes for fighting submarines.

 

[sculptor]

Mattis:

While in no way detracting from the horror of what took place against innocent civilians in Syria, it is time for America to stop shooting first and asking questions later.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Russian MoD claims to have evidence that the video about the gas attack is faked. https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement/

The Russians have found two of the physicians who worked in the Douma hospital and appeared on the video. They said that there were no victims of any chemical attack, but some people with smoke intoxication caused by a fire. Then came some people with cameras and they said that there has been a chemical attack, which caused some panic among those in the room.

 

[exchemist]

Good piece of input here from the St Petersburg troll farm.

 

[sculptor]

No evidence of chemical attack.
None.

Will that even slow the war hawks down?
Are they so addicted to killing that they just can't stop?

 

[iceaura]

So, it looks like the US wants war with Russia.

The Republican Party wants a war here, yes. Trump needs one, Bolton has advocated heavy US military involvement in Syria his entire adult life, Pompeo et al have no objection. They're probably assuming Russia will back down a bit.

Will that even slow the war hawks down?
Are they so addicted to killing that they just can't stop?

The civilian Republicans don't factor in the killing - it doesn't register in their awareness outside of political repercussion potential. It's something untermenschen do to other untermenschen.

 

[exchemist]

No evidence of chemical attack.
None.

Will that even slow the war hawks down?
Are they so addicted to killing that they just can't stop?

Three civilians injured, apparently.