Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, April 7, 2017

FEATURED QUESTION: Missile Strikes Against Syria

Last night, President Trump ordered our military to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles to strike Al Shayrat Airfield in response to chemical weapons having been deployed in Syria.

The complete text of President Trump's post-strike statement....
Text: Trump statement on U.S. military strikes in Syria

My fellow Americans: On Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.

Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.

Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.

Tonight, I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. And we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail.

Goodnight. And God bless America and the entire world. Thank you.

(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
For his part, Bashar al-Assad has long claimed that he is quelling a dangerous uprising within his nation.

And, as we would expect, Putin Calls U.S. Syria Strike Aggression, Stops Air Cooperation.

FEATURED QUESTION (in two parts): 
(1) Was this military strike the right move? Why or why not?   
(2) Are you in agreement with the above statement by President Trump?

142 comments:

  1. The strike was the right move, unlike the cowardly FORMER President who draws Red Lines in the sand and does nothing about it when the "RED" Line is crossed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

      The initial chemical weapons attack under Obama's administration that was ascribed to Assad was really ISIS trying to suck us into the Syrian conflict.

      In this instance, Obama acted correctly and prudently.

      Delete
    2. Ducky: I would characterize Obama's reaction to the first gassing as not wise, or strategic. It was just Obama being afraid to do anything. If he could launch one drone and kill one person that would have been his path. Otherwise, he was just afraid.

      Delete
  2. Donald J. Trump:

    The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A - 5 SEP 2013

    AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING! - 9 SEP 2013


    The list goes on.

    The intrepid armchair commando's will no doubt beat their chests and mindlessly chant USA! USA!......but this strike does nothing but imperil Trump's stated goal of working more closely with the Russians in deconfliction and countering ISIS.

    - CI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      That is certainly one view of all this.

      Time will tell, IMO.

      Delete
    2. Is it part of a long term strategy or just an expedient political act?
      My reaction is the latter and that will likely just muddy things going forward.

      If Obama had called a similar strike early on, who knows but that's passed and gone.

      Delete
    3. Gen Jack Keene and many others with years of experience feel quite differently. Important to hear them, too.

      I hate the idea of attacking anywhere but to send this message that gassing people isn't acceptable by anyone TO anyone is important. I'm heartened that so many feel he did just the right thing.
      Regardless of his ridiculous ramblings in the Abdullah presser.

      Delete
    4. Ah, I just read some of the headline stories on this situation....RUSSIA IS MAD...IT WASN'T ASSAD WHO GASSED BUT REBELS IN THE AREA....
      Oh, yes...can't tick Russia off even if the Syrian people are dying by the day.

      I hate ALL of this but it's time we let generals who know far better than us what's going on to do what's got to be done. It was easier for America to cower and whine and never follow through on threats, at least Russia was then allowed to do whatever it wanted to do...but.....not so smart in the long run?

      Delete
    5. Yesterdays actions strike at the very question of our role in international relations. Syria is a bad actor. But they've been killing their own for years and few voices in the US have called for direct action.

      Why now? Is it because we abhor this most recent way they've killed their folks? At the end of the day, dead is dead.

      AOW, I don't think your question about the "right action" can be answered without knowing what the objective of the US was in this action.

      And that's the problem. Trump has not articulated a global view of what is the role of the US in these situations. His argument that chemical weapons in Syria could destabilize the Middle East and as such endanger us is ridiculous. We've been the leaders in destabilization there for years.

      But he's the Pres, so it's his call. I just wish he'd heed the words of his own tweet from Aug 2013 and get Congressional Approval.

      What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

      Delete
    6. Dave,
      Yes, a lot of this comes down to we don't know what we don't know. We are not privy to what the generals know.

      Delete
    7. I hate ALL of this but it's time we let generals who know far better than us what's going on to do what's got to be done.

      Sure, but this again just reinforces my point above on Trump's hypocrisy. And how much longer are we going to tolerate, irrespective of political party, the abrogation of Congress in allowing a POTUS to launch offensive actions against an entity that is not a threat to the U.S.?

      Delete
    8. CI... that is the question isn't it? And it's one that has been haunting the US since Korea. Failure to act with Congress essentially ensures there is no buy in from the American people.

      However I don;t see a change in this policy coming soon, do you?

      Delete
    9. Since long before Korea. Don't forget that there's been invasions and "interventions" throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries tat they don't really teach in our school system.

      Delete
    10. The Banana wars for instance.
      I'm not a fan of this strike which seems to reflect the will of the president than the will of the people.
      We were under no imminent threat.
      Granted, if he had gone to congress he never would have gotten agreement. That's the way it's supposed to work.

      Delete
    11. I am involved in all mankind ...
      If a piece of the continent is washed away,
      Europe is the less.
      Ask not For Whom the Bells Tolls.
      IT TOLLS FOR THEE.


      ~ John Donne (1573-1631)

      Delete
  3. Earlier this morning, I made this comment at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

    Question: how did the video footage and the photos of the gassed Syrians get released so quickly to the Western media? The quality of the video footage looked better than the footage taken by a SmartPhone.

    Help me out here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This morning, I've been reading and hearing that the missile strikes sends a strong message of deterrence to North Korea, which is also doing a lot of saber rattling.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1) I say it was right given the circumstances leading up to it and, in particular, the inaction of the previous Administration. The results, however, remain to be seen.

    2) YES; how could anyone disagree? That said, however, I wouldn't be surprised to see some disagreement as this thread grows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon,
      Did you notice that Trump said to end terrorism of all kinds and all types?

      Is that phrasing significant in light of all the Bannon vs. McMasters news this week? McMasters objects to the term "radical Islamic terorism." So, will that latter phrase, which Trump used to proclaim loudly and clearly, disappear from Trump's lexicon?

      Delete
    2. Question: how did the video footage and the photos of the gassed Syrians get released so quickly to the Western media? The quality of the video footage looked better than the footage taken by a SmartPhone.


      AOW, I really think this happened for a reason and it wasn't something that just happened with the sarin gas "attack". Things were leading up to it and phony attacks have happened in the past which showed to be false. No reason to think anything has changed here, just new actors in the White House.

      It all seems too perfect. And why would the leader of a smaller nation attack his own citizens with banned chemical weapons. Makes no sense, since it would only give the United States of America the long awaited "reason" to step in and remove him.

      I'm not impressed with this apparent charade. All the preening and strutting by the so-called arm chair experts on the likes CNN and FoxNews is disgusting.

      What other nation has upwards of 700 military bases in assorted countries around the world, pretending to be the police man of the world, but acts instead like the last bully?

      Delete
    3. Although I have zero indication to believe this was some sort of false flag operation....I don't disagree with most of what Waylon has said.

      Delete
    4. Waylon,
      I don't know much about the capability for quality of video and images via SmartPhones. Are these devices even capable of reproducing the videos and images we've seen, then transmitting them so rapidly?

      What you said in your paragraph beginning with "It all seems too perfect has been on my mind since the Tuesday news reports. Furthermore, it is difficult for me to imagine that Assad would see any advantage to gassing women and children. He HAD to know that the news would get out.

      On the other hand, the Assad Family have the reputations of being butchers.

      Delete
    5. If one only listens to the "official" story proclaimed loudly in the Mockingbird media it would be difficult not to conclude this was the actual true story.

      But to step back and put this into a larger context it becomes just another episode in the ongoing saga of the underlying true intent to depose another Middle East state state and remove its leader. It's an ongoing and disgusting tragedy, and it's about time it stopped, since it's a proven FAIL in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

      Delete
    6. AOW, I think Smart Phones are capable of taking good quality photo and video images.

      I haven't watched the video from the scene of the crime, so to speak, but it would be interesting to know who made it and when.

      Delete
    7. If one only listens to the "official" story proclaimed loudly in the Mockingbird media it would be difficult not to conclude this was the actual true story.

      Quite true. My position is not based upon that source. And spot on in your last sentence, but hey....we look "tough"....and that is the entire aim of the current decider.

      Delete
    8. In today's world there is a movie camera for every person. It should be no surprise that videos of the gassing appeared almost immediately. Some people believe everything is staged, and it is hard to give them credibility.

      Delete
  6. Trump is so concerned about Syrians being slaughtered you'd almost think he's moved to accept refugees.

    No, just bomb things up a little more.
    Nothing was accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you listen to his words, and the words of military experts, and anything but leftwing news, you'd be surprised how much might have been accomplished. Perhaps you could have heard King Abdullah and Trump talking about safe zones for refugees. Perhaps you'd understand why accepting refugees who want to stay home might be termed inhumane?

      Delete
    2. Well it is instructive that we don't give two warm farts in hell about the children being killed and starved in our proxy war in Yemen.
      The right seems to support only aggressive action against Shi'a. Probably because it makes the Saudi/Israeli side happy.

      So I put it to you about this latest victory.

      1. Is this a one off? If so, what long term goal was accomplished and are we prepared to expand the war in Syria if it isn't?

      2. Weaken Assad --- Strengthen ISIS. Do you see a dilemma here?

      3. We have troops in Syria. What is their status and what would their status be if we had killed Russian personnel during the raid?

      4. Will this increase the likelihood of terror attacks in Europe and America ,it happened today in Sweden, coincidence?

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      Number 2 was my first thought last night when the news about the missiles strike was first reported.

      Delete
    4. Considering that we have troops in Syria to support a strike on Raqqa which will surely require Russian cooperation, it seems like an inopportune time to weaken a shaky cooperation.

      Delete
  7. https://gma.yahoo.com/eyewitness-says-syrian-military-anticipated-u-raid-080200931--abc-news-topstories.html

    Here's a good one...implying leaks from the military to Syria? REALLY?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably leaked because it was absolutely necessary that the Russians be warned to clear away from the airbase.

      Delete
    2. At some point today, I heard that Trump gave Russia a warning. I didn't hear anything about a leak when I heard that news this morning. Has the warning now morphed into a leak -- according to reports now?

      Delete
    3. I just heard on the news that the Pentagon officially notified Putin an hour before the attack. So, no leak.

      Delete
    4. Both sides have talked about how if we did bomb then Russia should be warned. Makes total sense. Yes, Putin should have been told...and was. We don't need to risk relationships being even worse than now with any country. I'm glad they did.

      Delete
    5. Z, as far as I know Assad has not approved American interference in the affairs of the country, since their previous involvement turned out to be more aid to the terror groups that the Syrian government was fighting.

      He's approved Russian involvement in Syria.

      Somehow the so-called democracy imposed by the United Staes of America in the Middle East in Iraq, Libya and Syria just isn't too pretty. If fact it's downright ugly.

      Delete
  8. 1) No. We're getting reactions from Moscow instead of a radioactive crater.

    2) LOL

    ReplyDelete
  9. If Donald Trump wanted to do the right thing he would have offered to help restore order in Syria by assisting Assad defeat the bloody terrorists. Apparently America has ceased to be a civilized nation. Attacking a smaller nation that has been under attack by a blood thirsty group that has not entirely been opposed by the United States of America.

    It's particularly disconcerting watching the arm chair military experts in the media repeating like mockingbirds the lines handed to them cheer-leading the ultimate bully on the planet using its military might to actually depose the leader of a much smaller nation on phony pretenses that have almost become shop worn from over usage. But I guess they still expect the public to lap up their bull shit.

    Seems more are questioning it than actually lapping it up, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many voted for Trump precisely because he was opposed to nation building AND to meddling in the Middle East.

      Delete
    2. This guy, LOL.

      Show me in the US Constitution where it says Syrian dictators have the right to disobey a direct order from the President of the United States.

      Delete
  10. President Trump invoking the deity in attempting to put this cowardly act of bullying a smaller country under attack by American supported enemies for several years in some sort of sacred light is a disgusting spectacle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. QUESTION: Blogger is intermittently wonky for me the past hour or so, and I'm sometimes getting an error message. Is anyone else having that problem?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS: I seem to be able to access Blogger via iPhone only right now.

      Delete
    2. It disallowed me from making a reply to one of your previous messages directed to me. It was: "Did you notice that Trump said "to end terrorism of all kinds and all types"? No I didn't but I assume it was just said to embellish his point. I see no end to "terrorism" per se.

      Delete
    3. Jon,
      McMcasters apparently objects to the words "radical Islamic terrorism." Bannon uses the term, but it APPEARS that his star is waning within the Trump administration.

      Delete
    4. What we call something pales entirely in comparison to what we do about it.

      Delete
    5. CI,
      Isn't there value in naming the target?

      Delete
    6. No. If the target is to destroyed, it doesn't matter what you call it. If your conducting information operations, the malicious deeds are quite sufficient. Generic labels don't really add value, except for the emotional gratification of some.

      Delete
  12. Neocons resurgent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You actually fell for that Trump will take on the Establishment bullshit?!

      Damn. Talk about needing to eat an IQ test with ExLax in order to pass it....

      Delete
    2. TC,
      Hoping for it is not the same as falling for any candidates' promises.

      I didn't see any possibility of that happening with any other electable candidate.

      Delete
    3. TC: It was a simple choice: Trump over Hillary.

      Justice Gorsuch, Pipelines, No TPP, No President Shrillary. That alone has already made President Trump a better choice

      Now go back to pleasuring yourself with your Newt Gingrich blow-up doll.

      Delete
    4. I don't get why you are so thrilled about Gorsuch, Curt.
      If you consider protecting American democracy (what's left of it) and protecting the most vulnerable to be important functions of the law, he completely fails on both counts.
      He's very hostile to voting rights and soft on gerrymandering and hostile to rights for the disabled while consistently being pro corporation. I see little to cheer there.

      Where in the Constitution does it ay that corporations are people? He seems to have sussed out that "original intent".

      Delete
    5. Congress makes laws--humane, inhumane, for the big guy, against the little guy--Judges decide cases based upon that law, and strike it down if it is unconstitutional.

      Delete
    6. I don't think Hillary Clinton would have made Reince Priebus her WH Chief of Staff. Ya against the Republican Establishment or naaaah?

      Delete
    7. Politics is dirty business, they are all slimy weasels, you make the best choice you can among the options and then get on with your life.

      I make jokes about Gingrich, but had it been him against Hillary (or the hated Lindsay Graham) I would have voted for Gingrich or Graham.


      Delete
    8. But Trump was supposed to be anti-politician beholden to no one. The only "enemy" he's called out by name has been the libertarians that didn't want to rename Obamacare "Trumpcare" and call it a day. He's vowed to support primary challengers against them.

      What would be different if Hillary had won? You'd still have a left-wing gasbag throwing tantrums in the White House.

      Delete
    9. But Trump was supposed to be anti-politician beholden to no one. The only "enemy" he's called out by name has been the libertarians that didn't want to rename Obamacare "Trumpcare" and call it a day. He's vowed to support primary challengers against them.

      What would be different if Hillary had won? You'd still have a left-wing gasbag throwing tantrums in the White House.

      Delete
    10. I already gave a list of what we now have that we would not have had with Hillary:

      "Justice Gorsuch, Pipelines, No TPP, No President Shrillary. That alone has already made President Trump a better choice"

      I'll add in that many feared Hillary's gang would attempt to nibble away at first and second amendment rights. I don't see Trump trying to do that.

      There are many disturbing aspects to Trump, which I have already addressed. He appears very malleable on issues he has not previously thought about or does not hold a strong opinion on.

      Whoever has his ear, controls all the crushing power of the US Government, and yes, that is scary.

      Delete
    11. Psst. Trump's already greenlighted ISPs selling logs of your internet activity. Going after net neutrality next. Freedom of speech? Not on Trump's watch, sucker.

      Delete
    12. Psssst... Google and other internet powerhouses already sell logs of your activity. They spy on your e-mail, too.

      Delete
    13. * - Selling your private information is not an infringement of free speech. It is a 4th Amendment violation.

      Delete
    14. Coupled with chokes and firewalls impeding access to internet content. Do you read blogs you have to pay extra to access? Do you pay extra to write a blog? Do you want the government deciding if people should access your blog or if you can access others? Without net neutrality, suppose the government decides you shouldn't make phone calls to your family? (VoIP)

      Delete
    15. Net Neutrality is a separate issue, but no, I don't want my voip packet being treated the same as a packet returning the results of a google search.

      Delete
  13. Progressives should be cheering. President Trump is following the previous president's policy of having no coherent Syria policy.

    On the bright side, whoever makes Tomahawk cruise missiles just got a nice fact multi-million dollar replenishment order

    * Cha-Ching!*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Maybe YOU can tell me what advantage it was for Assad to have gassed women and children? Or could he have done so because of Trump's many earlier statements that he opposed involvement in Syria's civil war?

      In other words, to whose advantage was it for Assad to have gassed that particular location? I've heard that it was a rebel stronghold, including AQ rebels.

      Delete
    2. On the bright side, whoever makes Tomahawk cruise missiles just got a nice fact multi-million dollar replenishment order.

      ------
      That would be Raytheon.

      Delete
    3. AOW - The rationale is difficult to discern. What was the reasoning behind Assad's previous chemical attack? Saddam Hussein"s?

      Delete
    4. AOW: I asked the same question about motive.

      Maybe Assad interpreted President Trump's statements--and the last administration's pathetic dithering--as a green light.

      It could be a false flag. Islamists have no problems killing women and children for propaganda purposes.

      I also wonder if they dropped conventional weapons on a facility that stored chemical weapons.

      Fiery explosions and chemical weapon effectiveness don't go together. That's another factor. How bad was the attack?

      There are many clues intel people pieced together. Unfortunately, we can't trust the Government-Intel Complex. Remember Iraq's "WMDs?"

      I don't know what to believe, other than I believe we need to crush ISIS and get the hell out.

      Viewing how we are building an Afghan Air Force, I have come to the sad conclusion (that liberals came to long ago) that it's all about feeding the Defense industry.

      Afghanistan isn't paying for all that equipment, weaponry. materiel and training. Uncle Sam is. It's a direct line from the taxpayers' pockets to the defense industry.*

      *-I have nothing against the defense industry. We need them, but our government is misusing taxpayer funds on such useless enterprises and arming Afghanistan and other governments that will fall apart and turn all the US-funded toys over to our enemies when we leave.

      Delete
    5. What chemical weapons? Obama said they were all gone lol

      Delete
    6. SF,
      Fiery explosions and chemical weapon effectiveness don't go together.

      Hmmmm....

      Delete
  14. Tacony Palmyra Bridge said

    I was completely blocked from all blogs for at least two hours. Regular websites like DRUDGE and Lucianne.comNewsForumHomePage were accessible. Blogger needs to upgrade its software.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trump may see a foreign war as a means to shore up his record-breakingly low approval numbers and lasso back into the fold those Republicans whose donor base is heavily made up of companies that stand to profit from a war.

    Trump tweeted to Obama a few years back against military action in Syria. Then after the strikes this week, he blamed Obama. And he still won't accept refugees, so he really doesn't give a damn about the innocents being killed. His 'strike' was all for show; they were warned and the areas which were bombed were evacuated. Russia then issues a vague condemnation. This is all to deflect from the fact that  Trump and his administration are all a bunch of kleptocrats.

    "Airstrike carried out so it wouldn’t hurt Russia’s long-term plans in Syria: US military official:"

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/airstrike-carried-out-so-it-wouldnt-hurt-russias-long-term-plans-in-syria-us-military-official/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Silverfiddle...You sound like CNN! (no offense) "A COMPANY WILL GET RICH BECAUSE WE DID THIS!" WAIT... so companies must do things free so's not to give that impression?

    Would you have kept up the Obama non-plan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: We have no compelling national interest in the fate of Assad.

      Syria didn't threaten us, so we have no legal basis to attack them.

      We are funding billions in armaments and training for the failed tribal cludge known as Afghanistan. It is a gross and unconscionable waste of taxpayer money.

      If somebody else want to buy their toys for them, fine. As I said, I have nothing against the defense industry. I do object to sleazy multi-billion dollar government orgies with them.

      Delete
  17. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/05/in-emotional-interview-syrian-who-survived-2013-chemical-attack-pleads-with-trump-rips-obama/

    May not suit some of the moods here, but important to know all sides....Pray for the Syrians!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now that we lobbed a few cruise missiles at an airfield it's safe for Syrians to return?

      The killings over?

      Delete
    2. Z, I watched the interview. I guess it's a safe bet that he didn't vote for Bashar Assad. But I find it odd that he's campaigning outside his country for a bigger bully to grant him his political wishes. He even states that he's been all over the American media, including 60 Minutes.

      When Obama was elected did it strike you to go out into the world and seek political support from foreign sources?

      Delete
    3. Ducky..um...what? Who said that?

      Waylon....Are you calling America the 'bigger bully'? He's come to this country for help, supposedly.
      When Obama was elected, I wasn't seeing my people killed, gassed, starved....Yes, I might have, had I. Yes

      Delete
    4. In this context I'd call America the bigger bully,Z. Yes, I know it likes to pretend it's the world's policeman, but when you look at the aftermath of it's policing in the Middle East it is nothing but destruction, and Bashar Assad is small potatoes in comparison.

      Delete
    5. I think Glen Beck should stuff his fat ass in a uniform and charge into Syria. He can take Bill Kristol and the other armchair generals and summer soldiers with him.

      Delete
  18. Would you have kept up the Obama non-plan?

    What was the "non-plan"? Because except for this particular entity, the last Administration has been bombing targets in Syria for the last couple of years. In fact, Trump hasn't veered an iota from the previous plan, since he's taken office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't Obama's primary concern, ISIS?

      In that regard he had a reasonable plan that rolled them back and kept U.S. participation at a minimum. Right now I'm concerned about Trump's handling of the Iraqi situation when Mosul falls. Does he have any idea how to reconcile Shi'a and Sunni in that country?
      Not an easy issue for sure. Can't be resolved with cruise missiles.

      Delete
    2. Does he have any idea how to reconcile Shi'a and Sunni in that country?

      We've learned since 2008, that even the Iraqi's don't know how to do that. Or in some cases are explicitly opposed to it.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't Obama's primary concern, ISIS?

      It may well have been. He did a fine job of abandoning military equipment that mysteriously ended up in the hands of ISiS.

      So in that sense he definitely had concern for ISIS.

      Delete
    4. He abandoned nothing. That equipment was abandoned by the Iraqi army. Not that it did them much good.

      Now, with ISIS being rolled back in Mosul which means they will have no significant presence in Iraq, their camps in Libya destroyed by air strikes and an attack on Raqqa being mounted just what was wrong with Obama's initiative.

      Delete
    5. I guess it's obvious that you'll make any excuse to make Obama comfortable on your curvy couch, eh?

      Delete
  19. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-media-critics-praise-syria-strikes-154025787.html

    Now we KNOW Trump did the wrong thing. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuckie Schumer (D - Goldman Sachs) and Nancy Pelosi (D - Raytheon) also praised it.

      Delete
  20. Question 1:
    I am not in favor of engaging the moslem vermin outside of removing every one of them from the face of the Earth, but OTOH, sending the message that America is not being run by a moslem loving pussy anymore is a plus.
    Question 2: I pay no attention to statements, only actions.
    Hope you are feeling better AOW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      I pulled out the last of the stitches inside my upper lip this morning. The headache is easing off, but I still have a lot of pain in my lip and in the bridge of my nose -- such that I'm blogging in fits and starts. P Thanks for asking.

      Delete
  21. __ IDIOCY REIGNS SUPREME __

    __ Or What’s So Especially Bad __
    ___ About Chemical Weapons? ___

    Apparently, it’s AOK
    To mow ‘em down with bullets,
    But don’t dare try to kill ‘em off
    By poisoning their pullets.

    It’s all right too when bombs
    Rain from aloft or on the level,
    But when you kill with poison gas,
    You’re in league with the Devil.

    Lock ‘em in a building,
    Then burn it to the ground.
    By judges at The Hague
    You’ll not be guilty found.

    Go drag them from their cells
    Into a courtyard to be shot.
    The World Court will not chide you,
    Nor tell you “Thou shalt not.”

    Take mothers, babies, toddlers ––
    Grandmas –– anyone who thrives ––
    Then hack them with machetes
    And bayonets to end their lives.

    Rape and loot and strangle,
    Garrote or stab at will ––
    Of you The World Community,
    I promise, won’t think ill.

    Set ‘em loose in wood or field,
    Then hunt ‘em down like game;
    Let half-dead bodies lie unhealed.
    You won’t lose your good name.

    Rob and cripple, maim at will ––
    Dislocate their joints.
    Multiculturalists will know
    You must have your good points.

    Gouge their eyes out, slit each tongue.
    Sodomize, impale their young.
    Club ‘em down, then crush with tractors.
    Brussels won’t call you bad actors.

    BUT, urinate upon the corpse
    Who tortured your best buddy,
    And you’ll be tossed in the stockade
    With nose broken and bloody.

    And should you dare to wipe yourself
    With leaves from the the Koran,
    ‘Tis YOU The World Community
    Will call BARBARIAN!


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      Being gassed is a terrible and painful way to die -- slow suffocation, from what I understand.

      Delete
  22. Beware those beating war drums who have never been to war."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI: Thank you

      I know I'm a broken record, but I will continue to repeat it.

      Maybe we could form up a Summer Soldier Brigade for all those war porn addicts and armchair generals and ship them out to wherever they were screaming for us to invade...

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete












































  23. @Kid,

    "I am not in favor of engaging the moslem vermin outside of removing every one of them from the face of the Earth"

    YES, many problems solved!


    ReplyDelete
  24. Why I am against foreign interventions

    (reprise from my comment at FreeThinke's)

    Let's face it. The rest of the world hates us, and much of it is out of envy, but they still all want to come here.

    We have borne many burdens, paid the price in blood and treasure, suborned many friends, and empowered our foes.

    We have earned nothing but opprobrium, scorn and outright hatred for our many attempts (clumsy, often well-intentioned, sometimes nefarious) at "helping" other nations of the world.

    We need to stop it. We haven't won a war since 1945, and we did that in partnership with the Soviet Union, who paid a heavy price to help us defeat Hitler.

    All our financial largess and supposed benevolence has purchased us no safety, no security, and no goodwill.

    So, we must learn to tell the rest of the world--especially those gassed, raped, burned, displace and murdered by co-religionists and proximate tribes--to leave us alone, stop with the propaganda pictures and video crafted to tug at the heartstrings, and go seek help from the sanctimonious pricks and America-haters in Europe and at the UN.

    When those dithering poobahs--who are good for nothing but feel-good gestures and self-praise for their correct thinking--fail, we can pour out our scorn and scalding criticism upon THEM from our own commanding heights of Mount Sanctimony.

    We must maintain strategic and beneficial military, economic and social ties with Australia, Japan, and other responsible nations of clear-eyed adults, even as we cut sling on the delusional, infantile fabulists in Europe and leave them to their own slowly deflating fantasy bubble.

    The Old Word Order, so brilliantly crafted--post WW II--by the last generation of competent Americans who knew what they were doing, has collapsed, but the neocons cannot escape the clapped-out ideology. They are educated fools mired in discredited dogma.

    New times require new thinking, and the Western world's Foreign Policy Establishment is not up to it. Clean out the State Department--fire them all--and hire young military veterans and the latest graduates from Hillsdale College.

    Once we were superman. Not anymore. The weight of the world will pull us down if we don't cut sling.

    ReplyDelete
  25. AOW, here's a post that I posed at FT's blog on this topic:

    Interesting article regarding the topic of your blog post on the bombing of the Syrian air base.

    "Although Western media immediately accused Bashar al-Assad of participating in a gas attack against his own people, the evidence indicates that the intended target was not immediately in a civilian area and was in fact a location where Syrian White Helmets were on the scene with rebel groups at what observers have claimed was a storage facility for conventional and chemical munitions. Additionally, evidence indicates that rebel groups may have had prior knowledge of the attack and knew that there was a risk of chemical weapons being unleashed. The attack also came in the aftermath of a trip by Senator John McCain to meet with groups known to associate with radical jihadist factions in Syria, at a time when the United States government has been engulfed in a power struggle between different political factions who disagree strongly over what should be appropriate policy in regards to the Syrian civil war."

    Not only that but none other than John "tokyo Rose" McCain had only recently made a "business" trip to northern Syria, likely to set things in motion. And with the White Helemts on the ground and waiting to record the action, it's looking more ans more that President Trump has been had by his own internal enemies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link above is from ZeroHedge, I guess it didn't copy correctly.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/evidence-calls-western-narrative-about-syrian-chemical-incident-question

      Delete
  26. ... more

    "The trip to meet with rebel groups is not McCain's first. On May 27th, 2013, The Daily Beast ran an exclusive report revealing that Senator John McCain had made another secret trip into Syria to meet with "assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army." McCain made the trip in spite of the fact that documents obtained by Judicial Watch which state that the United States was fully aware of the growing jihadi presence among Syrian rebel groups, and reports emerging in the American press indicating that rebels were increasingly engaging in war crimes. In August 2013, three months after McCain's visit, civilians in the Ghouta neighborhood of Damascus were hit with a chemical attack after rockets containing sarin struck the area. Though most of the mainstream press immediately blamed the Syrian government for the tragedy, German paper Die Welt has since run a report alleging that the sarin did not come from the Syrian government, but from stockpiles held by jihadist rebel group Al-Nusra."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Waylon,

    Thank you for the links. Assad is a murderous tyrant, he has used lethal gas before, but it makes no sense for him to do this now, when he has various powers fighting ISIS for him.

    Has anyone seen definitive proof that Assad's forces did this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has anyone seen where Syrian opposition forces have access to chemical agents/munitions? ISIS has aspirations, but even they haven't cracked the code on something like this.

      Delete
    2. CI,
      There's always a first time, a break-out moment I'm not saying that such is the case with Tuesday's gassing in Syria, but pointing out that perhaps such is the case.

      I HAVE read that some of Assad's officers have gone rogue.

      Delete
    3. Waylon,
      Thank you! Tomorrow, when I'm using my laptop instead of this mini iPad, i shall thoroughly read that material.

      Delete
    4. I'm not one of those insisting this was a false flag, but it makes no sense for Assad to do this now, and it is possible some of Assad's weaponry fell into rebel hands.

      Delete
    5. Pardon my skepticism, but our government--regardless of which party's grimy paws control it--has a reputation of distorting intelligence and lying to us.

      I tore up the "trust me" card years ago.

      Delete
    6. SF,
      Totally with you on those last two comments!

      So much smoke and mirrors -- and much of it generated by governments, including our own. The media are no better.

      Delete
    7. SF, I believe that the onus of ABSOLUTE proof lies with the United Staes when it commits an act of war against another country, such as this bombing of Syria.

      And no, I haven't seen this. It's not likely to be presented either, since the mockingbird media already has "the story" and they are continuing to carry it. Following the rules of propaganda of Goebbels and "the big lie", I suppose.

      With the White Helmet brigade being on site for the bombing of the chemical factory, to me, that's a little too convenient, and would not consistent absolute proof, since that group already has a previous track record in supplying "proof" against the Assad regime that has proven to be less than trustworthy.

      It's sickening to hear the unrelenting propaganda being transmitted out to the public to reenforce the official story line.

      Delete
    8. Here's an interesting link from the Zero Hedge article above. This discusses the White Helmets, and their record.

      "The Syrian White Helmets, or Syria Civil Defense Force are lauded by mainstream news sources for their humanitarian work during the Syrian Civil War. But research by Disobedient Media reveals that the White Helmets are an organization supported by the United States for the purpose of regime change in Syria. We have also directly tied this group to varying levels of involvement with war crimes committed by rebel groups in Syria as well as uncovered evidence of their potential involvement in an effort to intentionally use millions of residents in the besieged city of Aleppo as bargaining chips with the Syrian government.

      The White Helmets are described by media sources such as Time as being “ordinary Syrians” who simply wanted to band together and help mitigate the damage caused by Assad’s Syrian government forces.

      This could not be further from the truth. The Syrian White Helmets are an organization funded by the United States with the intention of using the group as part of America’s wider objective of forcing regime change in Syria.

      The Syrian Civil Defense Force is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Included here are two links showing contracts awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will be to use the funds for managing a “quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria.” The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the “Syria Regional Program II” which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV) program."

      Delete
    9. Waylon,
      the mockingbird media already has "the story" and they are continuing to carry it

      Every news network as far as I can tell.

      Good point about the White Helmet brigade being on site for the bombing of the chemical factory.

      This morning, I read this over at Rick Wells's site: Report McMaster, Petraeus Planning For Unilateral War With Syria – 150,000 US Troops.

      And this morning, The Last English Prince posted Congratulations! You have twins!, which reads as follows:

      Any ground forces military action against Syria is military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

      Syria serves as a convenient land bridge for black market armaments, land mass with IRG chain of command oversight, refuge for HizbAllah, and source of dabbling about with nuclear weapons acquisition.

      Seeking to “remove Assad” is like using a trowel to take down an oak tree. Iran is an oak.

      We will not be successful in this venture and Trump may end up with an undesirable twin meme of his own:

      LBJ had his Vietnam. Trump had his Syria.

      Delete
    10. And here we were told that Trump wouldn't start WWIII....that it was just the ravings of wild eyed Leftists.....

      Delete
    11. CI,
      We don't yet know if WWIII has started. Time will tell.

      Delete
    12. CI: As Thought Criminal already snidely pointed out earlier, people like me were hopelessly naive thinking a President Trump could overcome the the neocons, the establishment, and our house of mirrors multi-tentacled globalist intelligence apparatus.

      Since the end of the Cold War, we have had in the White House, Democrat-Republican-Democrat-and now Republican again, but nothing has changed.

      The US is still the staggering, stupid giant on the world stage, crashing around, pissing everybody off, destroying whole nations and killing people on a shocking scale.

      Trump has not called for an Afghanistan exit. The War Department wants more troops for that doomed project.

      Outside of Kandahar I saw the wreckage of fighter jets with the Afghan national symbol on them. I guess I'm the only person with a sense of history and irony...


      Well... This is why I try not to get too upset about it. I can rant and rave in forums like this and on facebook about one more endless, illegal war, but then I pick up my banjo and it all fades away.

      I picked up my guitar and joined friends to play at the brewery last night. Good crowd. Politics never came up one time...

      Delete
    13. You put a Republican label on a lifelong Democrat and expected a conservative revolution.

      You're goddamn right I'm gonna make fun of you.

      Delete
    14. Pay attention. I never said I expected a "conservative" revolution. I did hope for some kind of DC Shakeup.

      Conservatism hasn't been a functioning ideology or government philosophy here for over 100 years. We have some fools in the District of Criminals calling themselves "conservatives" but governments and debts continue to grow.

      Wishing for the GOP to inject some conservatism into government?

      As they say, wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.

      Delete
    15. SF,
      Conservatism hasn't been a functioning ideology or government philosophy here for over 100 years.

      That seems to be the sorry truth -- functioning being the key word.

      It seems to me that FDR pretty much killed off conservatism. Maybe I'm wrong....

      Delete
    16. Well, Reagan was a bit of a left-wing squish with all that "talk to Russia instead of nuking them" nonsense. But I don't think you'd get many people to agree he wasn't conservative. Most shocked would be the left if you tried to tell them their arch-rival ideology that they are always disparaging and campaigning against hasn't existed in a century.

      I think you're trying to slither out of skin that never fit you out of convenience. You're the ones that let people get away with calling Trump right-wing / conservative / libertarian.

      Shut up and eat your gruel.

      Delete
    17. Well, Reagan was a bit of a left-wing squish with all that "talk to Russia instead of nuking them" nonsense. But I don't think you'd get many people to agree he wasn't conservative. Most shocked would be the left if you tried to tell them their arch-rival ideology that they are always disparaging and campaigning against hasn't existed in a century.

      I think you're trying to slither out of skin that never fit you out of convenience. You're the ones that let people get away with calling Trump right-wing / conservative / libertarian.

      Shut up and eat your gruel.

      Delete
    18. TC, I put up with you because you are funny, sometimes intentionally. Go dig up where I ever called Trump right wing, conservative or libertarian. I don't even like the term "libertarian-conservative," because it is an oxymoron.

      So, blowhard, wipe the egg off your face and go find any quote from me that supports your idiotic allegation.

      Delete
    19. Reagan grew government and doubled the national debt.

      This is why I've kicked "conservatives" like you to the curb. You've lost your faculties for logic and reason.

      There is an arch-rivalry between Dems and Repukes... to see who can control the government and be in charge of blowing all the money and controlling the Police State Intelligence Apparatus and the War Porn Machine.

      DemonCraps and the GOOP are swarms of ants fighting over the same rotten log.

      Delete
    20. SF,
      DemonCraps and the GOOP are swarms of ants fighting over the same rotten log.

      I came to that conclusion decades ago and declared a boycott on following politics. Then along came 9/11, and I started paying attention to politics again.

      And yet again, I've came to the same conclusion about the fight over the same rotten log. And I smell the stink!

      Great metaphor of the ants attacking the log, SF!

      Delete
    21. AOW, Yes indeed, and thanks.

      Still and all, President Reagan was far better than the alternative. Imagine, that is our only consolation now. Candidate A slows down the train heading for the abyss, so I'll vote for him.

      Unfortunately, our electorate is still stuffed with ideological team sport true believers.

      Delete
    22. SF,
      Still and all, President Reagan was far better than the alternative.

      The reason that I twice voted for him.

      Candidate A slows down the train heading for the abyss, so I'll vote for him.

      And that is the sorry situation.

      And so often, we elect a Congress critter candidate that (1) is corrupted within shortly after arriving to Capitol Hill or (2) is rendered politically impotent because the good ol' boys hold sway.

      We seem to be having better success at the state level -- but not in the blue states. Here is Virginia, Northern Virginia rules because of the population. The rest of the state ain't happy with that situation.

      Delete
    23. You're okay with Trump being labeled right-wing / conservative / libertarian as long as it serves to smear the right-wing / conservatives / libertarians. Congratulations. Shake up achieved. You get to commiserate with your fellow leftists.

      Delete
    24. CI: "Thought Criminal" is chasing the little goblins in his head. I've never called President Trump any of those things. He's a New York Democrat.

      I've already explained to him once that conservatives and libertarians are two distinct things... breath. wasted... bla bla bla

      Delete
  28. AOW, kim John. Yep that was one of the items on the plus side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      I wonder if that weird little man is capable of heeding a warning.

      Delete
  29. For what it's worth:

    Russia May Have Been Responsible for Chemical Attack.

    Excerpt:

    ...Now, senior military officials at the Pentagon are looking into whether staunch Syrian ally Russia may have played some sort of role in the atrocity — and evidence of a drone overflying the attack site might prove it, according to The Associated Press....Should it be proven that the drone seen hovering and airstrike that hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack were in fact operated by the Russians, they will have been shown to have been complicit in a terrifying war crime. If not, then they simply did a shoddy job of recovering and removing the Assad regime’s stockpile of chemicals....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The film of Syrian planes using the airstrip just after the bombing are interesting.

      Delete
    2. Only to the untrained eye, Ducky. It's good propaganda to show the airstrip in use, but it's fun off camera when those planes have to be refueled, rearmed, and maintained elsewhere because all there is there now is an airstrip.

      Delete
  30. From PolitiFact (dated April 5, 2017, emphases mine):

    ...The outcry leads us to revisit a 2014 claim from former Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, "we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out."

    Syria had agreed in 2013 to an ambitious program to destroy its chemical stockpiles under international supervision, as part of a deal brokered by Russia. When Kerry spoke in July 2014, the process seemed far along. Based on reports from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- which later won the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts -- we rated that claim Mostly True. There were caveats about incomplete information, but at the time, international experts said the claim largely held up.

    Given recent events, we have pulled that fact-check (you can read an archived version here) because we now have many unanswered questions.

    We don’t know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses.

    One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong.

    In fact, international investigators concluded last year that the Syrian government had gamed the system....

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective