Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, May 18, 2017.
sorry no link now.
Last thing I wanted to see.
well, there's this (fwiw):
Here's a WaPo mention of the event:
U.S. officials say an American airstrike has hit pro-Syrian government forces in southern Syria as they were setting up fighting positions in a protected area.
The officials say the strike near Tanf hit a tank and a bulldozer and forces there, but it was not clear if they were Syrian army troops or other pro-government allies.
One official says the pro-regime forces had entered a so-called “de-confliction” zone without authorization and were perceived as a threat to U.S.-allied troops there. The officials say the strike was a defensive move to protect the U.S. allies. It wasn’t clear if U.S. forces were there.
we have no business there to begin with.
Extremely stupid at this point.
Actually you do, ever since the US invaded Iraq, put in place an unstable government, and then left the region. You break it, you pay for it.
That said, it is an apparently odd decision.
PRAY/SAY/TELL how the hell does Iraq have to do with removing Assad?
A few more details are starting to trickle out now. A briefing at the Pentagon has given reporters a little more detail on the strike; here's a quote from a WaPo article on the briefing:
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the attack was necessitated “by offensive movement with offensive capability of what we believe were . . . Iranian-
directed forces inside an established and agreed-upon deconfliction zone.”
If confirmed, it would be the first U.S. strike on Iranian proxies during seven years of war in Syria, signaling a possible escalation against Assad’s most important ally.
Some info on the aftereffects of the strike were also mentioned in the article:
Rebel commanders said the convoy, made up of Syrian and Iraqi militiamen who now form the bulk of Assad’s fighting force, retreated after the U.S. attack and had not attempted to advance again by sunset Friday.
More policy reversal by Trump?
Things are happening in the world?
Glad I can read; wouldn't know it from "news" programming tonight. Thanks for the link.
Does Trump actually have any policies? During the campaign, he seemed to plant himself firmly on both sides of every issue.
And after too. He is one conflicted guy.
Is it impeachable? (A question, not a desire)
Trump is right now in the Palace of the King of Saudi Arabia. Trust me…. the Muslim King will whisper sweet things into Trump's ear, which will result in the further American bombings on Syrian forces, Iranian forces, etc.
Do you understand that there is nothing in the world more desired by the House of Saud than to topple the Iranian and Syrian governments? This is common knowledge, right?
And right as I am posting this, Trump is right now (most likely) kissing the ring finger of the Arabian King, in the Saudi royal palace. No different (and no better) than his predecessors Obama and Bush. Tho I will admit, Hillary probably would have done the same, a globalist policy of appeasing the Saudi monarchy, securing the petro-dollar, and bombing whatever government Israel wants bombed, etc.
Fairly sure the house of Saud and Israel are in agreement on this subject.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
But three rights make a left.
It could become very much more dangerous. A Saudi - Israeli coalition strike on Iran for example. Although not an easy task.
Gotta go now. Here in timezone GMT+2, it is fast approaching time for a lively, Albarino fuelled lunch.
I would say Trumps got something do do with it.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the Saudi-Israel collaboration. It reminds me of the American-Soviet "alliance" during WW2.
The countries are ideological enemies, but they put aside their differences simply because they have a common enemy that they perceive is the greater threat. It's an alliance of convenience. It won't last forever.
Pretty sure that this is the case. Kushner helped broker Weapons deal to Saudi Arabia. Wonder what his cut was on that deal. Obviously there must have been some assurances that had to be made to Israel in return too.
Who needs a salary from the government when there are deals like this to be brokered through conflict of interest. I will fly along for this one lol..
Trump is ramping up the justification for his increased military actions in Syria. This from a speech in Saudi Arabia today:
President Donald Trump says that Syrian President Bashar Assad has committed “unspeakable crimes” bolstered by Iran.
In an address to Muslim leaders gathered in Saudi Arabia Sunday, Trump called upon countries around the world to work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Trump denounced Iranian aggression in the region, and said that the “longest-suffering victims” are the Iranian people.
He says the Iranian people have “endured hardship and despair under their leaders’ reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.”
So, I guess Assad is officially off the guest list at the White House now.
Doubt if his words will overcome the Sunni-Shia hatred.
Overcome? Nah. More likely Trump speech will further inflame the Sunni-Shia religious conflict.
Which is a shame, because Iran just re-elected a moderate/reformer, even though he was clearly not the Ayatollah's favorite candidate (the Ayatollah Khamenei clearly favored the hardline right-wing religious nutjob candidate).
This would have been a perfect opportunity to "reset" the relations with Iran, maybe even coercing them to tamp down their support for Hezbollah, etc. But more realistically, this opportunity will be wasted because Trump and Saudis will do everything to further aggravate Iran.
Neither Syria,Iran,Lebanon or Russia are happy about American forces that are illegally in Syria which have been targeting government forces. Would America accept or allow foreign forces on its soil which were attacking its own forces and national security interests against International law?