Posted on 04/15/2018 3:21:08 PM PDT by McGruff
FULL TITLE: Russian reinforcements head for Syria: Warships laden with tanks, military trucks and armoured patrol boats sail towards the Middle East as the world awaits Putin's response to airstrikes
Project 117 Alligator-class landing ship was spotted at Bosphorus, Turkey en-route to Syria on Sunday
The Russian vessel was laden with tanks, ambulances and IED radar after Friday's US-led Syrian air strikes
A RoRo Alexandr Tkachenko was also seen carrying high-speed patrol boats, temporary bridge and trucks
US, UK and French forces backed strikes that obliterated three targets in response to chemical weapon attack
Vladimir Putin warned there would be 'consequences' to military action against him and Bashar al-Assad
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
” it aint over till it’s over “
LOL IT IS OVER.
Once you realize that the Russians are impotent against the US and the West, you understand all that they do is for PR Propaganda purposed.
The Civil War is mostly over. Assad has one.
The US struck chemical targets only.
This is just a pseudo show of force that Russia is “projecting”, so they can claim a victory when Assad finishes off the opposition.
Russia didn’t even lock their radar onto US planes or cruise missiles.
All for show - means next to nothing.
If the rebels used the chemicals against civilians, they’ll do it again, hoping President Trump hits Assad’s Syria again...
On the other hand, if Assad used the weapons against the civilians and Trump destroyed his chem munitions available, it won’t happen again....
We are already involved in war over there, in case you missed that fact. Unlike you I trust that President Trump did not act out of haste, but rather in the best interest of this country.
None of us know who, if anyone, used chemical weapons or what their motivation was for using them. Neither are we privy to intelligence President Trump saw to convince him that it was Assad that was the culprit that used them. So again I will not second guess President Trump's decision to strike back.
As to why we should care, we have stated that we would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons. So unlike Obama, President Trump decided that he needed to do something rather than nothing like Obama. Doing nothing only emboldens them to use them again. How many times has Assad said he didn't use them when it was later proven that he did. Russia is a proven liar in many horrific acts as well that they claim they had no role in.
While I will stipulate we are heavily in debt, we are not broke, and certainly not totally broke. Even Greece is not totally broke. But I will agree, we cannot nor should we play the world's policeman. But neither can we sit back and allow evil to gain in power & influence around the globe either.
As I stated before it was a small measured attack that targeted chemical weapons production facilities and stockpiles. Russia should have zero motivation to retaliate. They didn't in the previous attack, though they bleated that there would be consequences to pay just like they did this time. Relax, this did not provoke Russia anymore than the previous attack did. No escalation from either side will result from this message sent. The message was sent not just to Russia but other bad actors as well. America will not be intimidated by threats. Peace through strength is more effective in obtaining that objective, than doing nothing. Doing nothing is what they want our response to be.
But let us not fight among each other and call those who disagree with our position names. Let us not use the leftist tactics on those who are on the same side yet do not necessarily agree 100% on certain issues. I realize you are convinced you are the one with the correct opinion, just as those with the opposing opinion are convinced their opinion is correct. The minor battles pale in comparison to the bigger picture. More importantly, your faith should be in God only, because without God's guiding hand we will not realize the bigger picture anyway.
Instead, save using that tactic for those who truly are the enemy, the leftists.
I just don’t buy the Globalist point of view - we can’t just go into a tizzy every time some US haters show us pictures of children - that’s what Germany did with the ‘refugees’, now they’re changed forever - one stupid kid washed up on a beach and now MILLIONS of German-hating ‘refugees’ destroying the country.
Obama had NO REASON to start that war, and Trump shouldn’t be continuing that - that was Hillary’s war, and it should have ended with her defeat.
Very well said....
So, in your opinion, Trump should not have nearly wiped out ISIS in Syria?
That was a campaign pledge which he enacted upon.
As far as the chemical weapons. Gen Mattis stated clearly that he had seen conclusive evidence that Syria used chemical weapons and that Russia assisted them.
Great post.
I don’t think people were bothered regarding Trump fighting ISIS - the Syrian government was doing the same.
It’s when Trump started fighting the Syrian government is when he reverted to the ‘wonderful’ Obama/Hillary policies that WE THOUGHT we had finally discarded with the election.
...but I guess not, like Reagan was to a large extent, Trump seems controlled by the Deep State - at least in this case, as long as they can show pictures of little children ‘suffering’.
Nah. He’s making a big show of moving in all this hardware. That’s to save face. “So there. Now try to take out a chemical weapon stockpile that we swore no longer existed the next time Assad uses it (Gilligan hat slap to Assad off camera).” But he’ll use the hardware against the rebels, sans gratuitous chemical weapons use, and end the whole thing, and treat Syria the same way America treats Japan, as an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
It is time to quit the phony wars. Shooting missiles is claiming we did not kill any children it a big joke. Obama spent 8 years killing children with drones. Syria knows that and blames us. This was a big mistake.
But we both know that that isn't the way the world works. The narrative will be that 'sneaky Assad somehow did it again' and 'let's bomb him'.
The Ghouta atrocity was revealed - by MPs in the Turkish parliament! - to be a Turkish false flag.
The Khan Sheikoun incident - carried out just as Assad's forces had cleared another fanatic enclave - is vastly more likely to have been an Al-Nusra operation than an Assad one.
But no - our media and governments are simply not interested. They have a compelling interest in deposing Assad, and they don't care what it costs in blood and treasure.
So I have no confidence that people will start getting the message even after a dozen more false flags. Assad will be winning a fight, or Trump will declare a withdrawal from Syria - and then another mysterious gassing will occur.
“I don’t think people were bothered regarding Trump fighting ISIS - the Syrian government was doing the same.”
Incorrect. Syria nor Russia fought ISIS. Russia fought the opposition groups internal to Syria who were attempting to overthrow Assad.
“It’s when Trump started fighting the Syrian government.”
Trump is not fighting the Syrian government. If he wanted to he could have crippled Syria in about 3 days.
“Trump seems controlled by the Deep State”
Simply ridiculous. Trump has been fighting the Deep State since he’s been elected. Assad screwed up and used chemical weapons...again. He was hit proportionately for that at chemical sites only.
“Incorrect. Syria nor Russia fought ISIS.”
LOL. Sorry, but you lost me there.
That is what reading RT and Pravda will get you.
Lost.
You can make fun of those sites, but they have MUCH MORE CREDIBILITY here than CNN, NYT, and the rest of Deep State media.
DING!DING!DING!DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
"Rant" (not necessarily directed at you!):
I agreed with the view of "competing pipelines" causing much of this trouble for a long time, and I'm sure that still holds with respect to Saudi vs. Iran, with Europe probably favoring the Saudi pipeline too (less chance of Putin being able to exert leverage on flow through it.) But other than Iran being a useful tool for Putin (which may blow up in his face someday), and the US having a somewhat / sometimes useful alliance with Saudi, as well as likely not wishing Europe to be subject to Putin's leverage, there is not economic much upside for the US or Russia to see either pipeline be built. The US might not oppose the Israeli pipeline -- I suspect it's costs will be very high, mitigating its detriments to the US oil industry -- but I bet we are not very actively pushing it along, either.
Of course there is some benefit to the US in terms of geopolitical strategy to not having Europe potentially blackmailed for gas by Putin, but, that is only one factor.
Further... I rather strongly suspect the Russkis are playing the Iranians for fools -- helping them just enough to keep their alliance going, but not actually forcefully pushing to an outcome whereby the pipeline Iran wants gets built through Syria.
I suspect Trump has seen through this, and either thinks it's all pretty sick, or concludes that the Saudis (and their allies) plus the Russians, Iranians, and local discontent, all add up to turmoil the US has no need to assist in the forment of. Or, both. In any event, his disinclination towards unnecessary foreign involvements is (mostly) a good instinct. However, there HAS been (and still remains a bit of) ISIS to contend with, there is Turkey looking like it is going to be a big time problem, and... contrary to the view of many here on FR, there are VERY solid reasons dating back as far as WW1 why chem weapon proliferation and usage just HAS to be met head on. It is NOT in the same category as other horrors in other places and times (as awful as many of those horrors are), and the fact we ("the West") have abrogated that responsibility in some cases of chem warfare does NOT mean we were right to do so.
Nor have the uses of chem weapons in Syria been limited to a couple of "headline" incidents which (at least if looked at superficially) could have been false flag ops. The US report makes clear Assad has been using chem weapons in many smaller casualty attacks since the Russians (and good 'ol Kerry) claimed Syria was free from such. This is in some respects a separate issue: Chem weapons are not (at least @ present) the reason we are assisting the Kurds.
But, back to our President's dilemma: Unfortunately, it'd be pretty tough for even Trump to go on TV and announce that the US assisted in creating prolonged turmoil in Syria resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths... ...to help block a pipeline and gain geopolitical advantage. (That's actually a too harsh view & highly oversimplified -- perhaps I can address it further someday.) Such a statement would badly damage our country.
There is one other question I've mentioned on FR before, but not for a while, and not quite in enough detail, perhaps. It begins with another question: Coldly setting aside the Syrian lives lost, how much has the Syrian conflict cost the West, and Saudi Arabia and it's allies? There are the non-Syrian "Allies"' lives lost, the refugee problems, Russia again prowling about the ME, and would anyone here have even a rough guess as to the price of all the military hardware and operations expended on the anti-Assad side, as well as ops vs. ISIS? Assign / consider all as economic costs.
Now, take that figure and add the projected cost of the Saudi-backed pipeline and operational costs (including likely security needs), for, say, the next 20 years, and compare that total to the cost of a tanker fleet to do the job(any new ships needed and operational costs for such.)
How do these costs compare? If one has a soul, they can try to factor in the death and destruction in Syria, too.
I find it hard to believe that with the above taken into account, the tanker fleet does not make sense. Why not build it?
With both the Iranian pipeline and a Saudi(?) tanker fleet operating, plus continued US innovation / production, and one would presume a recovery in Venezuela sooner or later, I will hazard a guess that global petro prices would be driven down to the point Saudi's revenue will fall to unbearable (for them) levels. This despite their higher export quantities.
Not true, Assad still has more chem weapon "capability" than do the rebels, can rebuild / resupply (esp. if Iran assists), and may (may) consider the losses acceptable.
It also depends on what you post. GDP is not the same as GNP, which is the measure you referenced in your post 22. Also the figures you linked are adjusted for purchasing power. Actual GDP tells a different story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
You just called General Mattis a liar, as well as the UN investigators of Ghouta, as well as....
Well .. it's of course possible that he's lying. It's also possible that he's been given fake intel.
For those who may not have been following this: here's what General Mattis said (from the CSPAN transctipt - ALL CAPS unfortunately).
"I AM CONFIDENT THE SYRIAN REGIME CONDUCTED -- A CHEMICAL ATTACK ON INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THIS LAST WEEK, YES, ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT OF IT. WE HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE WE NEEDED TO CONDUCT THE ATTACK."
All I can say is: if there is evidence so damning that it can change the tenor of Mattis's public statements in a single day, let it be released.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.