Trump and Bolton are assembling an Arab force to replace the US contingent in Syria..

[LongTermGuy]

`Egypt, UAE and others asked to contribute millions of dollars and or troops`

https://images.wsj.net/im-7230?width=620&aspect_ratio=1.5
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seeks-arab-force-and-funding-for-syria-1523927888


http://www.cetusnews.com/news/U-S--Seeks-Arab-Force-and-Funding-for-Syria-.HJ8iXAG2f.html

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

[revelarts]

Couple of points here.

1. I'm having DeJa vu here. Didn't we go to Saudi Arabian states to get fighters and money to defeat Russia in Afghanistan?
Didn't they become (always were) American hating terrorist?
Do we ever learn here? Why exactly will it be different now?

2. Why send Arabs in when the Russians forces, the Syrian Army and the Kurds have already defeated Isis? They didn't need Arab or U.S. help before. Just the opposite, the Arab countries (and the U.S.) were funding, supplying and manning and ISIS/AlQaeda/Al Nusra/rebels. maybe we should punish the Arab states for that rather than send them in to "secure" the north.

3. And This is so important and clear that i really don't get the disconnect here for many in the U.S..
Syria never asked for Saudi or Arab or U.S. "help" to "secure jack squat. How do you "VOLUNTEER" troops into another country that never asked for it. By any objective definition that's called an Invasion. why do we think we have "a right" to do it?
Especially since The Saudis and other Wahhabi terrorist supporting states just want to defeat Assad and then oppress/control/kill the Alawite and Shia Muslims as well as the Christians and Kurds in Syria. the Alqeada flag will fly over Damascus just like it does in Libya.

4. Trump said in the campaign, "let Russia do it... defeating ISIS is the main thing.", and lets stay out altogether. He promised to stay out of Syria and other kinds of nation building. "It's a waste." Those were as serious a promise a "build a wall". I'm not sure why anyone should cheer and support his change here any more than if he said suddenly that we're not going to build a wall we're going to build more roads and bridges from Mexico and let more in, but Mexico is going to pay for them.

5. Bolton and the Neo-cons/Neo-libs only want the Arabs in Syria becasue the Arabs will work with the Western Oligarchs instead of the Russian and Chinese. As Palin said, follow the money.

Did i mention that the Saudi's arabs are where the terrorist came (still come) from, NOT Syria, or Russia. There were no beheadings in Syria, woman could drive and go to school, Christians had churches openly and lived peacefully. Syria was not paradise but it was better than Shari Law and Saudi Arabia.




https://www.sott.net/image/s7/150274/large/1002179_588782957832074_210069.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/43/d2/3c/43d23c7f66405b214933f26bd6b12956.jpg
Heart eating "moderate" Syrian "rebel".

[Kathianne]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

Yeah, at least in Iraq most saw us as 'liberators,' which never was true in Afghanistan or would be in Syria or with ISiS fighters. Even the Kurds have generations of reasons to not believe anything said by an American.

[LongTermGuy]

Isn't that exactly what they tried in Iraq, and Afghanistan?

How has that worked out?

We will see..."​Until its done its not real.....`art` of the deal"

[Drummond]

Couple of points here.

1. I'm having DeJa vu here. Didn't we go to Saudi Arabian states to get fighters and money to defeat Russia in Afghanistan?
Didn't they become (always were) American hating terrorist?
Do we ever learn here? Why exactly will it be different now?

2. Why send Arabs in when the Russians forces, the Syrian Army and the Kurds have already defeated Isis? They didn't need Arab or U.S. help before. Just the opposite, the Arab countries (and the U.S.) were funding, supplying and manning and ISIS/AlQaeda/Al Nusra/rebels. maybe we should punish the Arab states for that rather than send them in to "secure" the north.

3. And This is so important and clear that really i don't get the disconnect here for many on the right.
Syria never asked to Saudi or Arab or U.S. "help" to "secure jack squat. How do you "VOLUNTEER" troops into another country that never asked for it. By any objective definition that's called an Invasion. why do we think we have "a right" to do it?
Especially since The Saudis and other Wahhabi terrorist supporting states just want to defeat Assad and then oppress/control/kill the Alawite and Shia Muslims as well as the Christians and Kurds in Syria. the Alqeada will fly over Damascus just like it does in Libya.

4. Trump said in the campaign, "let Russia do it... defeating ISIS is the main thing.", and lets stay out altogether. He promised to stay out of Syria and other kinds of nation building. "It's a waste." Those were as serious a promise a "build a wall". I'm not sure why anyone should cheer and support his change here any more than if he said suddenly that we're not going to build a wall we're going to build more roads and bridges from Mexico and let more in, but Mexico is going to pay for them.

5. Bolton and the Neo-cons/Neo-libs only want the Arabs in Syria becasue the Arabs will work with the Western Oligarchs instead of the Russian and Chinese. As Palin said, follow the money.

Did i mention that the Saudi's arabs are where the terrorist came (still come) from, NOT Syria, or Russia. There were no beheadings in Syria, woman could drive and go to school, Christians had churches openly and lived peacefully. Syria was not paradise but it was better than than Saudi Arabia.




https://www.sott.net/image/s7/150274/large/1002179_588782957832074_210069.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/43/d2/3c/43d23c7f66405b214933f26bd6b12956.jpg
Heart eating "moderate" Syrian "rebel".

To summarise where you're going with this, then (the conclusion seems a remarkably simple one) ...

You're against US forces playing any part in Syria, and you want them to leave Syria alone. Syria, with Russia's assistance, is / has taken care of ISIS in that land .. they can be left to their own devices, in that regard.

So, basically -- it adds up, in practical terms, to Syria and Russia being left alone to 'do their own thing'.

Well, what IS 'their own thing', anyway ?

Assad has enemies. Some are ISIS. Some are others loosely called 'rebels'. And some, judging by the recent chemical attack, are innocent children ...

... but, that's all 'OK' ... because they're all anti-Assad (the ever-reputable Assad, says so !). Meaning, they're all ripe for chemical attacks, which you'd rather US forces were NOT on hand to in any way address ...

Revelarts, there's nothing from you in your posting which suggests opposition to Russia helping Assad. There's nothing from you about the wrong involved in gassing innocents. Nothing at all, that I can see.

But you are reasonably clear on the point that America has no need or reason for a presence in Syria.

Revelarts. I've repeatedly asked you for your own, 'better', alternative to the Allied attack on Syrian chemical facilities, and our strong objection to chemical attacks on civilian populations. Do I understand - in place of an actual ANSWER - that your preference is the current status quo in Syria ?

I'm sure there are many children in Syria who'd appreciate your thinking ... ? :rolleyes:

I'd REALLY like you to tell me why the Left so enjoy defending tinpot dictators, regardless of the atrocities they commit.

H'm. Maybe you'd rather not answer this post, either, eh, Revelarts ? ...

[revelarts]

To summarise where you're going with this, then (the conclusion seems a remarkably simple one) ...
You're against US forces playing any part in Syria, and you want them to leave Syria alone. Syria, with Russia's assistance, is / has taken care of ISIS in that land .. they can be left to their own devices, in that regard.
So, basically -- it adds up, in practical terms, to Syria and Russia being left alone to 'do their own thing'.

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

[LongTermGuy]

We will see..."​Until its done its not real.....`art` of the deal"

​Translation: > who knows with Trump....it could be disinformation (using media) or..it could be real...Trump and company `do have records of past history` of all actions good and bad.

[revelarts]

Revelarts. I've repeatedly asked you for your own, 'better', alternative to the Allied attack on Syrian chemical facilities, and our strong objection to chemical attacks on civilian populations. Do I understand - in place of an actual ANSWER - that your preference is the current status quo in Syria ?
I'm sure there are many children in Syria who'd appreciate your thinking ... ? :rolleyes:
H'm. Maybe you'd rather not answer this post, either, eh, Revelarts ? ...
well Drummond 1st off all I think we should have sent medical and humanitarian aid to help the victims 1st, rather than missiles don't you think?
After that how about some independent proof that the Assad Gov't is the guilty party of the attacks in the 1st place, and that he had chem weapons facilities even. At that point we can start talking about Constitutional and international laws based "alternative" punishments.
Does that make sense to you?

[Drummond]

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

[Kathianne]

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

Didn't Aleppo happen during the election? I'm pretty certain that someone didn't know about it at the time?

[Drummond]

well Drummond 1st off all I think we should have sent medical and humanitarian aid to help the victims 1st, rather than missiles don't you think?
After that how about some independent proof that the Assad Gov't is the guilty party of the attacks in the 1st place, and that he had chem weapons facilities even. At that point we can start talking about Constitutional and international laws based "alternative" punishments.
Does that make sense to you?

There's one very big problem with all of that.

Assad, and particularly Russia, OPPOSE ANYONE GOING TO THE AREA. OPCW investigators themselves have so far been denied access .. they MAY get access tomorrow !!

Perhaps you've 'overlooked' the fact that Russia vetoed a UN-based drive to investigate what had happened at the site of the gassing ? So what makes you think that Russia, or Assad, will let humanitarian workers of any description anywhere near there ?

Revelarts, really ... WAKE UP to the realities involved.

[revelarts]

Situations evolve. So should responses.
What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?
We were told that Assad gassed his people in 2013, Trump told Obama not to strike. during the campaign he had the same message.
nothing changed.

But what you think of the UK conservative Nigel Farage's advise to Trump to stay out of Syria. He hasn't changed his mind either.
Seems nothing has evolved in his estimation either
What alternative does he have that would satisfy you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZuYoosLYoY&feature=youtu.be

[Kathianne]

Situations evolve. So should responses.

What gassings were being committed, during Trump's campaign ?

Yep, this is from after he was President-elect: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aleppo-syria-safe-zones-2016-12

It was Gary Johnson, Yea, that one, that was taken by surprise by Aleppo.

[Drummond]

Didn't Aleppo happen during the election? I'm pretty certain that someone didn't know about it at the time?

It did. But then, we were all assured it was 'terrorists' who were chiefly being combatted. Aleppo was even then a war zone. I'm guessing that Trump assumed that civilians had long since departed the area.

Were there reports of any chemical attacks against Aleppo, specifically ? I don't recall any.

Even so ... none of that addresses the current situation. That of Russia, in particular, having a zero moral compass when it comes to chemical attacks on civilians. Maybe there are some here who think this doesn't deserve remedial consideration ... but, as a citizen of a country that's been on the receiving-end of where that leads (!!) ... I don't think I can be expected to greet the Russian outlook with casually-minded equanimity !

[Drummond]

Yep, this is from after he was President-elect: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aleppo-syria-safe-zones-2016-12

It was Gary Johnson, Yea, that one, that was taken by surprise by Aleppo.

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?

[Black Diamond]

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?
Good luck with that one.

[revelarts]

There's one very big problem with all of that.
Assad, and particularly Russia, OPPOSE ANYONE GOING TO THE AREA. OPCW investigators themselves have so far been denied access .. they MAY get access tomorrow !!
Perhaps you've 'overlooked' the fact that Russia vetoed a UN-based drive to investigate what had happened at the site of the gassing ? So what makes you think that Russia, or Assad, will let humanitarian workers of any description anywhere near there ?
Revelarts, really ... WAKE UP to the realities involved.

But OK so how exactly can you be sure there was chemical attack and that Assad did it if you don't have independent inspectors on the ground again? "Rebel" reports?

And i asked early isn't the area a "REBEL" controlled area, Because Assad BOMBED the rebels and children there right? So Are you sure that the Russians and Syrian army have control now? Is it safe for inspectors? it is an active war zone right? do you need to wake up to the realities here?

But lets say you're right, it's all safe and the Russians and Syrians are blocking entry becasue they are GUILTY as sin.
Is the best alternative, if you can't inspect or send medical aid, to send a 100+ U.S., U.K. and French missiles? really?

[revelarts]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNWDd_rdf6g

[Kathianne]

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?
Here's the thing. I actually agree with the bombing in retaliation for those innocents targeted. I think US, FR, UK were correct in the response. Same with removal of Russian diplomats in EU and US. What I don't think is right now or in the past, is ignoring the threats to our troops under the guise of 'training' the home team that we should have learned our lesson from regarding Iraq and particularly Afghanistan.

As Gunny has repeatedly stated; either commit to the hard job or get the hell out of there.

[revelarts]

More from Nigel Farage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN_SLvJGFKY

[Drummond]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNWDd_rdf6g

Nigel Farage is an ex-Party leader, now relegated to a talk show host (and he was never a Conservative as such .. at best, he had 'Conservative leanings'). He is, and largely by his own design, a spent political 'force'.

So, I don't agree with him. What of it ?

[Drummond]

But OK so how exactly can you be sure there was chemical attack and that Assad did it if you don't have independent inspectors on the ground again? "Rebel" reports?

And i asked early isn't the area a "REBEL" controlled area, Because Assad BOMBED the rebels and children there right? So Are you sure that the Russians and Syrian army have control now? Is it safe for inspectors? it is an active war zone right? do you need to wake up to the realities here?

But lets say you're right, it's all safe and the Russians and Syrians are blocking entry becasue they are GUILTY as sin.
Is the best alternative, if you can't inspect or send medical aid, to send a 100+ U.S., U.K. and French missiles? really?

Well, how come you are so sure of the opposite ?

The point, Revelarts, is that the Assad regime, backed fully by its Russian facilitators, have done what they can to BLOCK access to the 'disputed' area. Now, if no chemical attack happened, why is that so ?

The 'is it safe for inspectors' question is a crock. Those inspectors could make their own determination if they wanted to. If unsafe, they'd find that out in short order. Fact is, Assad, the Russians, now apparently you, aren't keen to see inspectors go in and check the area (and the victims) out.

As for sending missiles ... well, the missiles sent were not sent THERE !! They were sent to buildings and research facilities run by Assad's people for the creation of chemical weaponry !! Now, how on earth can it be 'wrong' to neutralise Assad's chemical weapons program ?

I'd really like to know why you're so keen to defend Assad's regime, to say nothing of Russian support for it. And if you're not, then understand that something needs to be done about it all.

Trump DID act. And, oh, how you hate him for it ...

[Drummond]

Here's the thing. I actually agree with the bombing in retaliation for those innocents targeted. I think US, FR, UK were correct in the response. Same with removal of Russian diplomats in EU and US. What I don't think is right now or in the past, is ignoring the threats to our troops under the guise of 'training' the home team that we should have learned our lesson from regarding Iraq and particularly Afghanistan.

As Gunny has repeatedly stated; either commit to the hard job or get the hell out of there.You have a point.

Gunny certainly does.

The only difficulty is in considering to what extent we defy the Russian presence, also there. Because neither Assad nor the Russians would welcome any significant US presence without their prior approval of it.

I think that what Trump's done is reasonable and proportionate, and definitely better than completely standing on the sidelines and tolerating it all. Doing THAT would've sent out the worst possible message.

[Kathianne]

You have a point.

Gunny certainly does.

The only difficulty is in considering to what extent we defy the Russian presence, also there. Because neither Assad nor the Russians would welcome any significant US presence without their prior approval of it.

I think that what Trump's done is reasonable and proportionate, and definitely better than completely standing on the sidelines and tolerating it all. Doing THAT would've sent out the worst possible message.

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

[Elessar]

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

Then there is the notion that things might have changed internally with Syria through increased
reports and Intel that is not necessarily privvy to the general public. The MSM hates not being
spoon-fed everything. It does not allow them to pass judgement prematurely.

You don't play all of your cards openly for all to see.

[Kathianne]

Then there is the notion that things might have changed internally with Syria through increased
reports and Intel that is not necessarily privvy to the general public. The MSM hates not being
spoon-fed everything. It does not allow them to pass judgement prematurely.

You don't play all of your cards openly for all to see.

Yep, we agree, same as he said about Obama. Speaking of which, while he was my least favorite president, I don't think we saw such defense of his positions, regarding his having intel the rest of the US doesn't.

[mundame]

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

I sure don't. I love it. Bravo, Trump, again.

What are our real interests there? NO ISIS. So far, so good.

NO normalization of chemical warfare. So far, Trump is making that real, real clear, and we do not need anything but the USS Donald Cook cruise missile launcher sitting out in the Mediterranean to enforce that. I believe Trump has adequately made that point, and a WHOLE lot better than Obama did, and if Assad doesn't get the message, he can easily do it again. Myself, I'd like to see the missiles rain down on the Syrian Presidential Palace, but then, I'm a hothead. What he did will work, IMO.

[Drummond]

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

His statement 'caused the crisis' .. ? That's quite a reach, surely ?? Ok, you don't like Trump ! I get it !!

Back to the plot: the crisis ACTUALLY came about as a result of Assad launching a chemical attack, and our seeing news reports of victims of it suffering its effects. I don't believe, especially with Russia backing him, that Assad allows every utterance of Trump's to determine his every move ! Assad wants to commit acts of such an atrocious nature, so, he'll do it.

And, he did.

We have news that the OPCW has now, finally, ELEVEN days later, been allowed into the zone of attack. Our own media is already making obvious comments to the effect that Russia has had ample time to remove traces of chemicals from that environment.

Trump, along with the UK and France, has sent Russia and Assad a valuable message. We on our side WILL NOT tolerate the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.

That we have taken such a stance is something we can be proud of. It astonishes me that such a move invites any level of scorn, considering what doing the opposite invites, instead ... the continued TOLERATION of such acts to be readily inferred and relied upon, most especially by Russia.

[mundame]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNWDd_rdf6g

I don't know who Nigel Farage is, but the name doesn't sound American, and if he isn't, he doesn't matter. To us. A true Trump supporter stays LOYAL. In this time of continual leftwing attack against Trump, we have to support him faithfully, or we will lose him. Probably will anyway, but I sure hope not: he's doing great.

[revelarts]

Well, how come you are so sure of the opposite ?
Seems neither of us can be. SO it's not wise to attack then is it?
seems pretty standard common sense here.



The point, Revelarts, is that the Assad regime, backed fully by its Russian facilitators, have done what they can to BLOCK access to the 'disputed' area. Now, if no chemical attack happened, why is that so ?
the details here are murky as we'll drummond, unless you simply buy one side or the others story.
Officials Trade Charges as Chemical Inspectors Fail to Reach Douma
OPCW delegation met with Syrian officials, state media says.
Expectations were that the inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would enter Douma on Monday, but this did not happen. Exactly why is a matter of serious contention.
British Prime Minister Theresa May is claiming (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/world/middleeast/syria-douma-chemical-attack.html) the Russians blocked the OPCW, saying that Russia and Syria are “not cooperating.” The Russians and Syrians are both denying (https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-allegations-inspectors-denied-access-douma-groundless-122439709.html) this. Russia says the UN ordered the visit stopped for security reasons, and Syrian officials say they’ve been meeting with the OPCW delegation.
It’s not totally clear what is happening. The UN Security Council already rejected (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/western-nations-reject-russian-proposal-for-investigation-into-syria-chemical-allegations/) a resolution calling for an investigation, but it’s not clear they can stop the OPCW visit. At the same time, Syria and Russia have supported it from the start, anticipating it would discredit (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html) the Western allegations of a chemical attack.
The US seems to be anticipating the OPCW probe not going their way, and is already accusing Syria and Russia of plotting to tamper with the site (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria/u-s-suggests-russia-syria-may-tamper-with-douma-evidence-moscow-denies-it-idUSKBN1HN1EC). There’s no evidence of tampering of any kind. The US suggestion was based on the fact that Russian military police visited the site. The visit, however, was done days ago, and Russia said it was meant to deter the West from attacking Douma and destroying* evidence.
The US, France, and Britain appear to have little reason to want the OPCW visit to be successful. They already used the alleged attack as a pretext to strike Syria Friday, so clearly they weren’t interested in getting the facts before bombing.
link (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/16/officials-trade-charges-as-chemical-inspectors-fail-to-reach-douma/)

...


Those inspectors could make their own determination if they wanted to. If unsafe, they'd find that out in short order.
maybe so, frankly I tend to agree


Fact is, Assad, the Russians, now apparently you, aren't keen to see inspectors go in and check the area (and the victims) out.
I want them them there, I'd MUCH rather have them there RIGHT now finding out the FULL story, than the knee jerk shooting of 100+ missiles off without much thought, investigation or legal authority.
And please stop trying to make me a liberal or Assad and Russia supporter.



As for sending missiles ... well, the missiles sent were not sent THERE !! They were sent to buildings and research facilities run by Assad's people for the creation of chemical weaponry !! Now, how on earth can it be 'wrong' to neutralise Assad's chemical weapons program ?
Again PROVE it 1st. then go by the LAW and get it done. there are any number of horrible facilitates AROUND the world. Some in the UK no doubt. Some suspect Porton Down likely houses some ILLEGAL Bio and chemical weapons Drummond. Maybe that should have missle dropped on it from some country that has taken upon itself the role of enforcer of international standards. Or simply "the safety of it's people becasue of what the U.K. MIGHT do.
do you see the problem?
i suspect not. It really does seems like wearing the other countries moccasins, or applying the rules EQUALLY to all countries is not something folks like yourself take seriously.



I'd really like to know why you're so keen to defend Assad's regime, to say nothing of Russian support for it.
there ya go again Assuming i have other motives. WHY?
Why can't you Understand that I'm VERY serious about Trump following the constitution, Keeping his promise to leave Syria alone, And the U.S. and all nations following the rules dealing with other nations that use chemical weapons?
Which starts with an IMPARTIAL investigation and public PROOF.
Why doesn't that penetrate you mind as being "the REAL" reason Drummond"?
I'm continually baffled by your idea that there MUST be something more. I just don't get it. Can't you imagine that someone can take the constitution seriously and believe we can be SAFE (Safer IMO) within it's boundaries?



And if you're not, then understand that something needs to be done about it all.
Trump DID act. And, oh, how you hate him for it ...
There's an old saying among black people here that's used when someone says someone else "has to" do something.
It's "I don't have to do nothing but stay black and die.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNlmQ98ie4
Trump didn't have to do jack.
The U.S. U.K. and France has ignored ANY NUMBER of atrocities of other countries, some happening Right now, --coughYemanEgyptcough-- others going back decades and hundreds of years. Not to mention committing some atrocities of our own in the not too distant past.

But, I've already pointed out the proocess that could have been followed. you just don't like it.
As far has hating Trump, well I've never really like the guy as a presidential candidate. But i did support his position on Syria and a few other issue. And as being somewhat better than Hillary. who I like even less. but now Trump's FLIPFLOPPED on Syria, so that doesn't make me like him anymore. But bottom line Drummond, i don't like the FACT that ANY president pisses on the constitution and Assumes more power than granted.
Others here and elsewhere will make excuses for it IF THEY LIKE the person in power, or they like what they've done. Constitution be D@mned "something had to done"
That's their choice. I think it's leading us to ruin.

I get the impression that you and few other would prefer Trump to be King. And that he'd simply send the military around the world "fixing" everything they don't like with bombs and bullets. No laws or stupid rules nothing but the sword (becasue thats what all boils down to anyway Arragggghh) and the whim of a "wise", Manly Man leader with plenlty of secret intel who just knows better.
But hey, the U.S. revolution was started and constitution was set up so that WOULD NOT happen. And i do HATE IT when presidents and other officials pretend they can ignore it or pretend to "honestly" read it in ways that always justify literally ANY and everything they do.

So Drummond, final question for you, Why do you like America bombing and invading other countries so much, what's your REAL motive there?

[Drummond]

I don't know who Nigel Farage is, but the name doesn't sound American, and if he isn't, he doesn't matter. To us. A true Trump supporter stays LOYAL. In this time of continual leftwing attack against Trump, we have to support him faithfully, or we will lose him. Probably will anyway, but I sure hope not: he's doing great.

He's British. The ex-leader of the UK Independence Party (it existed to facilitate our leaving the European Union).

He counts himself as a friend of Trump's. But Farage is well known for being a maverick figure.

[Drummond]

Seems neither of us can be. SO it's not wise to attack then is it?
seems pretty standard common sense here.


the details here are murky as we'll drummond, unless you simply buy one side or the others story.
Officials Trade Charges as Chemical Inspectors Fail to Reach Douma
OPCW delegation met with Syrian officials, state media says.
Expectations were that the inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would enter Douma on Monday, but this did not happen. Exactly why is a matter of serious contention.
British Prime Minister Theresa May is claiming (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/world/middleeast/syria-douma-chemical-attack.html) the Russians blocked the OPCW, saying that Russia and Syria are “not cooperating.” The Russians and Syrians are both denying (https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-allegations-inspectors-denied-access-douma-groundless-122439709.html) this. Russia says the UN ordered the visit stopped for security reasons, and Syrian officials say they’ve been meeting with the OPCW delegation.
It’s not totally clear what is happening. The UN Security Council already rejected (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/western-nations-reject-russian-proposal-for-investigation-into-syria-chemical-allegations/) a resolution calling for an investigation, but it’s not clear they can stop the OPCW visit. At the same time, Syria and Russia have supported it from the start, anticipating it would discredit (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html) the Western allegations of a chemical attack.
The US seems to be anticipating the OPCW probe not going their way, and is already accusing Syria and Russia of plotting to tamper with the site (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria/u-s-suggests-russia-syria-may-tamper-with-douma-evidence-moscow-denies-it-idUSKBN1HN1EC). There’s no evidence of tampering of any kind. The US suggestion was based on the fact that Russian military police visited the site. The visit, however, was done days ago, and Russia said it was meant to deter the West from attacking Douma and destroying* evidence.
The US, France, and Britain appear to have little reason to want the OPCW visit to be successful. They already used the alleged attack as a pretext to strike Syria Friday, so clearly they weren’t interested in getting the facts before bombing.
link (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/16/officials-trade-charges-as-chemical-inspectors-fail-to-reach-douma/)

...

maybe so, frankly I tend to agree

I want them them there, I'd MUCH rather have them there RIGHT now finding out the FULL story, than the knee jerk shooting of 100+ missiles off without much thought, investigation or legal authority.
And please stop trying to make me a liberal or Assad and Russia supporter.


Again PROVE it 1st. then go by the LAW and get it done. there are any number of horrible facilitates AROUND the world. Some in the UK no doubt. Some suspect Porton Down likely houses some ILLEGAL Bio and chemical weapons Drummond. Maybe that should have missle dropped on it from some country that has taken upon itself the role of enforcer of international standards. Or simply "the safety of it's people becasue of what the U.K. MIGHT do.
do you see the problem?
i suspect not. It really does seems like wearing the other countries moccasins, or applying the rules EQUALLY to all countries is not something folks like yourself take seriously.


there ya go again Assuming i have other motives. WHY?
Why can't you Understand that I'm VERY serious about Trump following the constitution, Keeping his promise to leave Syria alone, And the U.S. and all nations following the rules dealing with other nations that use chemical weapons?
Which starts with an IMPARTIAL investigation and public PROOF.
Why doesn't that penetrate you mind as being "the REAL" reason Drummond"?
I'm continually baffled by your idea that there MUST be something more. I just don't get it. Can't you imagine that someone can take the constitution seriously and believe we can be SAFE (Safer IMO) within it's boundaries?


There's an old saying among black people here that's used when someone says someone else "has to" do something.
It's "I don't have to do nothing but stay black and die.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNlmQ98ie4
Trump didn't have to do jack.
The U.S. U.K. and France has ignored ANY NUMBER of atrocities of other countries, some happening Right now, --coughYemanEgyptcough-- others going back decades and hundreds of years. Not to mention committing some atrocities of our own in the not too distant past.

But, I've already pointed out the proocess that could have been followed. you just don't like it.
As far has hating Trump, well I've never really like the guy as a presidential candidate. But i did support his position on Syria and a few other issue. And as being somewhat better than Hillary. who I like even less. but now Trump's FLIPFLOPPED on Syria, so that doesn't make me like him anymore. But bottom line Drummond, i don't like the FACT that ANY president pisses on the constitution and Assumes more power than granted.
Others here and elsewhere will make excuses for it IF THEY LIKE the person in power, or they like what they've done. Constitution be D@mned "something had to done"
That's their choice. I think it's leading us to ruin.

I get the impression that you and few other would prefer Trump to be King. And that he'd simply send the military around the world "fixing" everything they don't like with bombs and bullets. No laws or stupid rules nothing but the sword (becasue thats what all boils down to anyway Arragggghh) and the whim of a "wise", Manly Man leader with plenlty of secret intel who just knows better.
But hey, the U.S. revolution was started and constitution was set up so that WOULD NOT happen. And i do HATE IT when presidents and other officials pretend they can ignore it or pretend to "honestly" read it in ways that always justify literally ANY and everything they do.

So Drummond, final question for you, Why do you like America bombing and invading other countries so much, what's your REAL motive there?

You're WAY too determined to argue against Trump. So, you're another Trump hater. Obviously. WHY does this have to translate into injustice ? WHY can't we all accept the need to crack down on this unlawful form of atrocity ??

WHY are you so determined, Revelarts, to see NOTHING done to remedy what's been happening ?

Fact: Russia has done everything in its power to prevent the UN from investigating. Fact: ELEVEN days later, finally, the OPCW is allowed on to the scene !! Seriously, you don't find any of that suspect ??

Why ? Because YOU DON'T WANT TO.

[revelarts]

I don't know who Nigel Farage is, but the name doesn't sound American, and if he isn't, he doesn't matter. To us. A true Trump supporter stays LOYAL. In this time of continual leftwing attack against Trump, we have to support him faithfully, or we will lose him. Probably will anyway, but I sure hope not: he's doing great.
Trump no matter what, sounds kinda ..well .. cult like. but Obama had followers like that too though.



You're WAY too determined to argue against Trump. So, you're another Trump hater. Obviously. WHY does this have to translate into injustice ? WHY can't we all accept the need to crack down on this unlawful form of atrocity ??
WHY are you so determined, Revelarts, to see NOTHING done to remedy what's been happening ?
Fact: Russia has done everything in its power to prevent the UN from investigating. Fact: ELEVEN days later, finally, the OPCW is allowed on to the scene !! Seriously, you don't find any of that suspect ??
Why ? Because YOU DON'T WANT TO.

Drummond no offense, but you're an odd fella .

All the best to you.

[LongTermGuy]

Trump no matter what, sounds kinda ..well .. cult like. but Obama had followers like that too though.




Drummond no offense, but you're an odd fella .

All the best to you.



.....were all "Odd"...cause we think everyone else is odd....:thumb:

[Drummond]

Drummond no offense, but you're an odd fella .

All the best to you.

I believe in justice.

I believe that wrongdoers should be accountable for their actions.

I believe that chemical weapon attacks against civilians, perpetrated by Governments, causing injury, suffering,death, is an atrocity ABSOLUTELY needing a remedial correction.

I believe that hatred of one political figure I happen to feel about in that way, is NO good reason to see all of the above overridden !!

Who else but an agenda-driven Leftie would think any or all of that to be 'odd' ... ??

And, do you realise where your pontifications lead you ? You're effectively saying ... if someone (no matter how obviously they're doing it !) can erase all telltale signs of a crime (think eleven days' delays), then it must be expected that they have the freedom to GET AWAY WITH THAT CRIME !

To put it more simply ... with sufficient care, a criminal is free to believe that crime DOES pay.

[Kathianne]

I believe in justice.

I believe that wrongdoers should be accountable for their actions.

I believe that chemical weapon attacks against civilians, perpetrated by Governments, causing injury, suffering,death, is an atrocity ABSOLUTELY needing a remedial correction.

I believe that hatred of one political figure I happen to feel about in that way, is NO good reason to see all of the above overridden !!

Who else but an agenda-driven Leftie would think any or all of that to be 'odd' ... ??

And, do you realise where your pontifications lead you ? You're effectively saying ... if someone (no matter how obviously they're doing it !) can erase all telltale signs of a crime (think eleven days' delays), then it must be expected that they have the freedom to GET AWAY WITH THAT CRIME !

To put it more simply ... with sufficient care, a criminal is free to believe that crime DOES pay.

Here's the thing, Rev said the same things when Obama was considering the same issues and drawing his 'line in the sand.' He's consistent. Which should tell you his position isn't about Trump or Obama, but is exactly what he's saying it is, the way he views the Constitution. None of which makes him a liberal or conservative, but rather a strict constitutionalist. See the Gorsuch ruling so many were upset with, until Trump gave them the OK, to badger Congress, not Gorsuch.

[aboutime]

Let's see a show of hands from members reading this...and we can solve this now.

How many members of DP work in the Pentagon, or White House, and have access to classified information that allows any of you to tell any of us...WHAT TRUMP, and BOLTON are really doing???

I live in a military (heavy) area with many friends on both Active, and Civilian connections to the military in many ways. None of them KNOW what any of us, here on DP are talking about. So, who wants to be the FIRST to share the sources from the MSM.???

[LongTermGuy]

Here's the thing, Rev said the same things when Obama was considering the same issues and drawing his 'line in the sand.' He's consistent. Which should tell you his position isn't about Trump or Obama, but is exactly what he's saying it is, the way he views the Constitution. None of which makes him a liberal or conservative, but rather a strict constitutionalist. See the Gorsuch ruling so many were upset with, until Trump gave them the OK, to badger Congress, not Gorsuch.

Good for rev...were talking about revs comment about Drummond ...and my nice cute response back to rev..and Drummonds back to rev (about himself)...But not your dislike for Trump and your feelings about folks who `understand and voted` for Trump....

**You know what Im talking about dear...But its ok..I know you caint help it....you make me smile...and laugh sometimes :)

[Kathianne]

Good for rev...were talking about revs comment about Drummond ...and my nice cute response back to rev..and Drummonds back to rev (about himself)...But not your dislike for Trump and your feelings about folks who `understand and voted` for Trump....

**You know what Im talking about dear...But its ok..I know you caint help it....you make me smile...and laugh sometimes :)

You really need to get a relationship going or something, I feel sorry for you, it's very creepy how obsessed you seem to be.

Nothing in this thread is about my feelings about Trump, your obsession is beyond obvious.

[LongTermGuy]

You really need to get a relationship going or something, I feel sorry for you, it's very creepy how obsessed you seem to be.

Nothing in this thread is about my feelings about Trump, your obsession is beyond obvious.

Dont feel sorry for me deer...just an opinion...your dislike for Trump is well known...and "Creepy"(Trust me)....

No hard feelings dear...I call it like it is....Most here know what Im talking about...Forget about Trump Kat and get a life...You and I been through this so many times already....Trump won the election ...deal with....and let it go...take up knitting or something....sigh.....:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

Here's the thing, Rev said the same things when Obama was considering the same issues and drawing his 'line in the sand.' He's consistent. Which should tell you his position isn't about Trump or Obama, but is exactly what he's saying it is, the way he views the Constitution. None of which makes him a liberal or conservative, but rather a strict constitutionalist. See the Gorsuch ruling so many were upset with, until Trump gave them the OK, to badger Congress, not Gorsuch.

'Consistent' or not, Revelarts is, nonetheless, taking an anti-Trump position. And he's bending over backwards to even deny fact, in order to try and defend it.

Here's a portion of a Revelarts posting ... consider what it says, for what it's worth ...



British Prime Minister Theresa May is claiming (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/world/middleeast/syria-douma-chemical-attack.html) the Russians blocked the OPCW, saying that Russia and Syria are “not cooperating.” The Russians and Syrians are both denying (https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-allegations-inspectors-denied-access-douma-groundless-122439709.html) this. Russia says the UN ordered the visit stopped for security reasons, and Syrian officials say they’ve been meeting with the OPCW delegation.
It’s not totally clear what is happening. The UN Security Council already rejected (https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/10/western-nations-reject-russian-proposal-for-investigation-into-syria-chemical-allegations/) a resolution calling for an investigation ...

Revelarts evidently wants to believe this stuff. But, WHY ?

The Russians have done all in their power to stop the area attacked by a chemical weapon from being visited by 'outsiders', by anyone able to adjudicate the truth of what happened impartially. The UN was FORCED to act as it has ... nor because, for the most part, they wanted to ... but, because Russia exercised its veto, binding the UN's ability to act.

According to Revelarts' rot, the Russians and Syria are denying non-cooperation. But that just isn't the truth.

Yet, Revelarts seemingly wants to believe the opposite of the truth. Such as, historically:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/russia-uses-veto-end-un-investigation-chemical-attacks

.. there y'go. From the Guardian, yet. 'So it must be true' ....


Russia has vetoed a US-drafted resolution that would have extended by a year an investigation of who is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
It was the ninth time Russia has used its veto power at the security council to block action targeting its ally, Syria.

Russia opposed renewing the mandate of the joint UN organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons (OPCW) panel before it releases a report on a sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhun expected on Thursday.

Britain, France and the United States have accused President Bashar al-Assad’s forces of carrying out the 4 April attack on the opposition-held village, killing scores of people, including children.

After Russia used its veto the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, said Moscow was “once again” siding “with the dictators and terrorists who use these weapons.

“Russia has once again demonstrated it will do whatever it takes to ensure the barbaric Assad regime never faces consequences for its continued use of chemicals as weapons,” Haley said in a statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43781954


On 10 April, Russia blocked a resolution to identify who was responsible for the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma in Syria.

Russia, voting against the measure, said the US was misleading the international community about the attack.

Brandon Lewis, chairman of the Conservative Party, tweeted about Jeremy Corbyn saying that "he knows full well Russia veto at the UN".

But Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, told the BBC that in the past, some resolutions on Syria had won support of all members of the Security Council, including Russia, and that had led to the destruction of chemical weapons.

So, how often does Russia veto resolutions on Syria?

Russia has used its veto 12 times regarding Syria since the conflict began in 2011 on issues including condemnation of the bombing of Aleppo and ceasefires.

And it's not the first time it has blocked a vote concerning the use of chemical weapons. Almost one year ago, Russia vetoed a UN resolution proposed by the US, UK and France that would have imposed sanctions on Syria after a reported chemical weapons attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Shaykhun.

Russia has a consistent track record of blocking any efforts which could result in Syria ever being accountable for its chemical weapons use. If we waited for Russia to ITSELF serve the cause of justice, we'd be waiting forever.

So - Trump, with allies, acted. He did the only thing possible, short of just caving in to the Russians. There was a principle at stake: do powers continue, unimpeded and unaccountably, continue to gas civilian populations as they see fit ? Or, should justice, decency, the law, count for something, instead ?

How come Revelarts isn't seeing this issue as it needs to be seen ? How is he blind to any facts underpinning the need to take on Assad and the Russians on this ?

[Kathianne]

'Consistent' or not, Revelarts is, nonetheless, taking an anti-Trump position. And he's bending over backwards to even deny fact, in order to try and defend it.

Here's a portion of a Revelarts posting ... consider what it says, for what it's worth ...



Revelarts evidently wants to believe this stuff. But, WHY ?

The Russians have done all in their power to stop the area attacked by a chemical weapon from being visited by 'outsiders', by anyone able to adjudicate the truth of what happened impartially. The UN was FORCED to act as it has ... nor because, for the most part, they wanted to ... but, because Russia exercised its veto, binding the UN's ability to act.

According to Revelarts' rot, the Russians and Syria are denying non-cooperation. But that just isn't the truth.

Yet, Revelarts seemingly wants to believe the opposite of the truth. Such as, historically:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/russia-uses-veto-end-un-investigation-chemical-attacks

.. there y'go. From the Guardian, yet. 'So it must be true' ....



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43781954



Russia has a consistent track record of blocking any efforts which could result in Syria ever being accountable for its chemical weapons use. If we waited for Russia to ITSELF serve the cause of justice, we'd be waiting forever.

So - Trump, with allies, acted. He did the only thing possible, short of just caving in to the Russians. There was a principle at stake: do powers continue, unimpeded and unaccountably, continue to gas civilian populations as they see fit ? Or, should justice, decency, the law, count for something, instead ?

How come Revelarts isn't seeing this issue as it needs to be seen ? How is he blind to any facts underpinning the need to take on Assad and the Russians on this ?


You're missing the point. He's citing what he's citing simply to back up his position, one you and I don't agree with. Nevertheless, his position is not that of a liberal, he's not arguing that the allies haven't 'a just position,' simply that in his opinion, they haven't proven it with certainty-sort of what Mattis was saying a couple days before the attack by the allies.

I don't know that you can understand the strict constitutionalist, for the simple reason you haven't lived under a written one. Doesn't mean that yours isn't a grand one, yep the founders learned more than a thing or two from the mother country, but it is different.

Rev is far from liberal, that is what I've been saying. To tell the truth, other than the policy of bombing, I didn't see him bring up Trump much at all. It's not his thing.

Contrary to what a few here insist upon, one can not be crazy about Trump, even find him pretty disdainful, yet agree with some of his positions and even his results.

[mundame]

He's British. The ex-leader of the UK Independence Party (it existed to facilitate our leaving the European Union).

He counts himself as a friend of Trump's. But Farage is well known for being a maverick figure.


Oh, yes, I recall now: he did Brexit.

He's plainly not a very good friend of Trump's if he's got all these caveats.

When anyone is as hunted as Trump is now, what he needs most is loyalty. I don't run around caveating here and caveating there: I support Trump root and branch, because he is being set upon by a pack of wolves, and that is how things are.

[mundame]

There's an old saying among black people here that's used when someone says someone else "has to" do something.
It's [I]"I don't have to do nothing but stay black and die.".


That's quite good; I never heard it before. Could be a movie meme, though.

[Drummond]

You're missing the point. He's citing what he's citing simply to back up his position, one you and I don't agree with. Nevertheless, his position is not that of a liberal, he's not arguing that the allies haven't 'a just position,' simply that in his opinion, they haven't proven it with certainty-sort of what Mattis was saying a couple days before the attack by the allies.

I don't know that you can understand the strict constitutionalist, for the simple reason you haven't lived under a written one. Doesn't mean that yours isn't a grand one, yep the founders learned more than a thing or two from the mother country, but it is different.

Rev is far from liberal, that is what I've been saying. To tell the truth, other than the policy of bombing, I didn't see him bring up Trump much at all. It's not his thing.

Contrary to what a few here insist upon, one can not be crazy about Trump, even find him pretty disdainful, yet agree with some of his positions and even his results.

Whether knowingly or not, he's playing the Russian game as THEY want it played. Russia has done all in its power to stop proof of Assad's activities being provable, to shield Assad from culpability. The argument seems to be, if Russia covers Assad's tracks well enough, then Assad must remain protected from any actions Trump takes to remedy the situation of Assad's freedom to gas his own people !!!!

This is too similar to the Left's position when it tried to stop Saddam and his regime from being harmed, back in 2003. And don't tell me it was 'constitutionalists' who acted, back THEN.

You can try to hide behind the Constitution as a means of trying to rubbish what Trump has done. But the reality is that, at almost no cost to anyone's wellbeing (there were just three injuries), three sites were comprehensively obliterated ... each dedicated to chemical weapons production.

Conservative realists will consider this a GOOD thing.

But, does Revelarts ?

I'm sure he feels about it in much the same way that the Left felt about the 2003 Iraq invasion.

[Kathianne]

I remember when folks could hold different positions and others could argue and try to change their minds without resorting to name calling. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Rev has consistently maintained a constitutionalist outlook regarding 3 presidents and numerous candidates since I've known him.

I remember being a constant thorn in his side when he was pushing Ron Paul, even back then, maybe moreso as I really cared then, I was good at looking things up and providing links. Pretty much turned that old board anti-Paul. ;)

I doubt though that either of us are likely to have our minds changed by name calling or that type of thing. I engaged in such before the election, that wasn't one of my best choices. I've made my amends with those that I respect, but it was a lesson learned.

[Drummond]

I remember when folks could hold different positions and others could argue and try to change their minds without resorting to name calling. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Rev has consistently maintained a constitutionalist outlook regarding 3 presidents and numerous candidates since I've known him.

I remember being a constant thorn in his side when he was pushing Ron Paul, even back then, maybe moreso as I really cared then, I was good at looking things up and providing links. Pretty much turned that old board anti-Paul. ;)

I doubt though that either of us are likely to have our minds changed by name calling or that type of thing. I engaged in such before the election, that wasn't one of my best choices. I've made my amends with those that I respect, but it was a lesson learned.

'Name calling' isn't involved here. Recognising truth, IS.

In 2003, the Left's argument against any invasion of Iraq was that the UN inspection team, under Hans Blix, should be given as much time as possible to complete their work. This, in realistic terms, would've meant them continuing on for many more months, possibly even years, before it would've been possible for their small team to have had any chance of being sure that Saddam's WMD's weren't around.

In other words, they were protecting Saddam to the best of their ability.

Revelarts' position regarding Syria is essentially the same. He's saying that no action should've been taken by Trump, because of zero proof that the Syrian gas attack happened as reported. We were supposed to wait for proof of it, before any possibility of action .. and, THIS to be decided, anyway, through a more bureaucratic route.

He ignores, of course, Russia's strenuous efforts to always protect Assad's actions from scrutiny.

You could JUST slide a wafer-thin sheet of paper between the two arguments .. 2003, and now. JUST. But the pro-Leftie stances involved are basically a match for each other. Each protects an aggressor ... and for as long as possible.

I'm not name calling. I'm acknowledging truth. It's that simple.

[Drummond]

Here's a little something that Revelarts will want to ignore, or argue against ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/evidence-shows-syria-attacked-people-chemical-weapons-say-us/


The Syrian regime used barrel bombs dropped by helicopter in a chemical weapon attack on its own people in the city of Douma, according to the US, France and Britain yesterday.

Justifying the decision to mount air strikes against Syria the three governments laid out evidence that the regime had used chemical weapons in the attack earlier this month, which opposition activists, rescue workers and medics say killed more than 40 civilians.

In a statement the White House said: “Multiple government helicopters were observed over Douma on April 7, with witnesses specifically reporting a Mi-8 helicopter, known to have taken off from the Syrian regime’s nearby Dumayr airfield, circling over Douma during the attack

“Numerous eyewitnesses corroborate that barrel bombs were dropped from these helicopters, a tactic used to target civilians indiscriminately throughout the war. Photos of barrel bombs dropped in Douma closely match those used previously by the regime. These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack.”

Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

"The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

France has also said it has similar proof that "chemical weapons were used in the attack - at least chlorine - and that they were used by Bashar al-Assad's regime.

[Drummond]

Here's a little something that Revelarts will want to ignore, or argue against ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/evidence-shows-syria-attacked-people-chemical-weapons-say-us/

... no reply, I see.

Well ... I believe my case rests, then !

[revelarts]

Here's the thing, Rev said the same things when Obama was considering the same issues and drawing his 'line in the sand.' He's consistent. Which should tell you his position isn't about Trump or Obama, but is exactly what he's saying it is, the way he views the Constitution. None of which makes him a liberal or conservative, but rather a strict constitutionalist. See the Gorsuch ruling so many were upset with, until Trump gave them the OK, to badger Congress, not Gorsuch.


You're missing the point. He's citing what he's citing simply to back up his position, one you and I don't agree with. Nevertheless, his position is not that of a liberal, he's not arguing that the allies haven't 'a just position,' simply that in his opinion, they haven't proven it with certainty-sort of what Mattis was saying a couple days before the attack by the allies.

I don't know that you can understand the strict constitutionalist, for the simple reason you haven't lived under a written one. Doesn't mean that yours isn't a grand one, yep the founders learned more than a thing or two from the mother country, but it is different.

Rev is far from liberal, that is what I've been saying. To tell the truth, other than the policy of bombing, I didn't see him bring up Trump much at all. It's not his thing.

Contrary to what a few here insist upon, one can not be crazy about Trump, even find him pretty disdainful, yet agree with some of his positions and even his results.


Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... to see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor because WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed because it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply because if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground, no mitigating facts, or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.

[Kathianne]

Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor becasue WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed becasue it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply becasue if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.
True dat. He's not alone, here or in the country writ large.

[LongTermGuy]

... no reply, I see.

Well ... I believe my case rests, then !
Dont worry...its coming....and not only from him....

[revelarts]

... no reply, I see.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/evidence-shows-syria-attacked-people-chemical-weapons-say-us/
Well ... I believe my case rests, then !

seems there's a lot of conjecture and no solid proof in that report Drummond.

...the "regime" has used those type of bombs in the past...
... reports of "regime" helicopter were seen in the area...
..."These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack."
..."chemicals used ... at least chlorine"...
... U.S. U.K. France "we can't tell you everything"...
Sorry Drummond that's much better than Russia's and Assad's claim of "irrefutable proof" (without providing details) to the opposite.

To you it may seem like case closed but objectively speaking it's not really.
I can give you FAR more proof that there were bombs on the inside of "Oklahoma City Building" and that Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy.

[Drummond]

Dont worry...its coming....and not only from him....

So it seems !

I had hopes that, even if not done directly, a concession to obvious truth might follow more indirectly. Still ... seems this must go on, then.

Fair enough. In fact .. fine !! I've nothing whatever against Revelarts doing all he chooses to argue his corner. After all, doesn't this forum exist for such exchanges ?

I just would've preferred greater candour as to what was truly driving him, that's all ...

[Drummond]

Thanks Kath, but it's been clear for a long time that Drummond is unwilling ...or unable... to see beyond a very narrow left/right paradigm.

Part of which is an anything is permissible ...and should be applauded... if the enemy/'the left"/Islam/Russia/etc are weakened.
It seems it's all pretty black and white.
Fair and objective application of justice is not a factor because WE KNOW who the enemies are already.
Proof? They are enemies (some subhuman even) therefore no proof is needed because it only gives them opportunity to attack us and kill us... dead.
Constitution, Common Law, International Law, Signed Treaties, Morals? They don't apply because if we foolishly adhere to them then we're just playing in to the enemies hands, appearing weak to them and the enemies will gain ground on us to our ultimate destruction.
"if you're not for us, you're against us."
There are no other serious perspectives, no isolated issues, no middle ground, no mitigating facts, or even other options.
That's "Reality" for Drummond it seems to me.

I haven't seen a break in that perspective since he's been here. He's been very consistent as well.

The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' exist for a reason. They exist to broadly quantify the nature of political argument and position-taking the proponent of it all IS taking.

I'd suggest this:

1. There are those who pick and choose those rules they have 'particular reverence' for, because it just so happens to fit their agenda to do so, and for no other ultimate reason. Opportunism, in other words ..

2. The truth can be discerned from - yes - the consistency of position-taking that follows, over time.

In your case, Revelarts, I'd suggest that the majority of positions you do take, just 'happen' to coincide with what the Left would want.

I do owe you thanks, though, for recognising my own consistency. I fail to see why that shouldn't be something I take pride in.

It means that I stand for what I SAY I stand for.

[Drummond]

seems there's a lot of conjecture and no solid proof in that report Drummond.

...the "regime" has used those type of bombs in the past...
... reports of "regime" helicopter were seen in the area...
..."These barrel bombs were likely used in the chemical attack."
..."chemicals used ... at least chlorine"...
... U.S. U.K. France "we can't tell you everything"...
Sorry Drummond that's much better than Russia's and Assad's claim of "irrefutable proof" (without providing details) to the opposite.

To you it may seem like case closed but objectively speaking it's not really.
I can give you FAR more proof that there were bombs on the inside of "Oklahoma City Building" and that Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy.

And ... it seems to me, Revelarts, that you're clinging as a matter of tenacious will to the position that such reports MUST be questioned, and even doubted. Why such a determination to do so ? H'mm ?

I see nothing wrong with the gathering of evidence to determine truth. I see nothing wrong with observations which show a consistent pattern, and drawing conclusions from them. However .. because it doesn't suit your agenda, you refute all (to the extent you possibly can) that you ARE doing.

I still ask: WHY ?

I come back to the example of 2003, Iraq. Hans Blix's people hadn't positively come to any conclusions about Saddam's WMD's ... and so feeble was their presence in Iraq that it might well have taken them years to complete their task. So, the US, who decided along with allies that Saddam had mucked the UN around enough, thought it was high time to finally conclude the matter, which they did, through invasion, regime change, occupation for a time. It was a bold, decisive move, one which brought matters to a head.

And, oh, how the Left hated the prospect ! They quite literally mobilised their activists on a worldwide scale to march in their MILLIONS to oppose any change to Saddam's status quo.

Need I ask ... dare I ask ? What, Revelarts, was YOUR 'take' on the 2003 invasion ? You opposed it, didn't you ?

Tell me I'm wrong. Go on ...

My case is this, Revelarts ... your position-taking on issues may ostensibly appear to be for one reason, but instead, it is taken as a matter of loyalty to something else. And ... CONSISTENTLY so.

Show me I'm wrong. Go on. I invite you to.

[revelarts]

The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' exist for a reason. They exist to broadly quantify the nature of political argument and position-taking the proponent of it all IS taking.


but they don't quantify all political positions. (at least not by normal definitions)
And some people have specific issues where they may be considered on one side or the other or niether.



I'd suggest this:
1. There are those who pick and choose those rules they have 'particular reverence' for, because it just so happens to fit their agenda to do so, and for no other ultimate reason. Opportunism, in other words ..
And other people are sincere to the core of their belief systems and simple left and right political views do not fit their beliefs.
In other words, To some people their are ideals MORE important than POLITICS. And don't fit the labels.

Do you understand that?

Some people on the Left and Right cannot becasue their politics (or "nation" or "people") basically IS their religion.
And they can't see past it. I think you fall into that category.

[Drummond]

but they don't quantify all political positions. (at least not by normal definitions)
And some people have specific issues where they may be considered on one side or the other or niether.

That's only rarely true.


And other people are sincere to the core of their belief systems and simple left and right political views do not fit their beliefs.
In other words, To some people their are ideals MORE important than POLITICS. And don't fit the labels.

Do you understand that?

Not really. Political thought defines one's political ideals ! It IS political, and quantifiable ...

Some people are to the Right of 'Left' Some people are to the Left of 'Right'. The majority are loyal to specific beliefs, and are readily defined by what these are standardised as being.

It's a sliding scale. Or, a spectrum, if you prefer. But you'll undoubtedly be SOMEWHERE on that spectrum.


Some people on the Left and Right cannot becasue their politics (or "nation" or "people") basically IS their religion.
And they can't see past it. I think you fall into that category.

Truth be told, you're trying to fudge things.

How many times do your arguments agree with Left wing thinking, and can be said to further that cause ? How many agree with Right wing thinking ?

I think the real truth about you is discernible from the answer to that question [I note that you've sidestepped my Iraq War question, by the way. You DID take a pro-Left stance on that one, didn't you ?].