Syria and the US's Motive
Comments
-
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Trump ordering the launching of 59 cruise missiles on a basically empty airbase, that was up and running within 36 hours, was the equivalent of Reagan parking the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon and lobbing some shells or stationing marines at the airport. And we all know how that ended.HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
No, it's not pretty clear. You said it's a photo during/after the China meeting. It is absolute fact now that it is NOT during a China meeting. It is in fact the National Security meeting when they were discussing the attack on Syria. That was confirmed by Spicer. So what exactly is 100% correct about your 100% inaccurate post? I assume you are trying to say it is 100% accurate because you said "during/after" the China meeting, and this Syria meeting did happen to be held later on the same day of the China meeting? Hmm. I don't think that quite works man.BS44325 said:
It's pretty clear what I meant and everything I posted above is 100% correct. No facts invented.PJ_Soul said:
So it's been confirmed that this is indeed a meeting about the Syria mission in the so-called Mar-a-lago situation room. I am curious as to what your comment means here. Were you inventing a fact, trying to suggest this isn't the full gang of idiots behind an act of war? Or simply wanted point out that this isn't in the WH war room?BS44325 said:
Funny indeed but that isn't the "war room" as I assume you are aware. That is Mar-a-lago during/after the China meeting. The military people are on video conference from the Pentagon of course. But please...continue.CM189191 said:
Someone please explain to me why the only military in the war room is the person watching the door?
And the reason I'm harping on it isn't to just try and prove you wrong, btw. It's because I think it is actually important to acknowledge/point out who exactly is running things when it comes to military actions.... and the truth of that point is disturbing at best.... something that you seem to have been specifically trying to mislead people about with your post.
See for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/white-house-photo-syria-briefing/Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
it is iraq all over again. stay awake and don't fall for it."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
here is my theory.
trump knows he is under investigation. i think they will find enough evidence to recommend impeachment and trial. this will take some time. trump knows if it gets to impeachment, with things as they are now, he is fucked. he is going to get us into a war and use the old republican standby of "you never change presidents in a time of war" thing. this will keep just enough republicans from voting to convict him.
this move is a distraction, nothing more."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...0 -
that airbase was used by syria a few weeks ago to defend against israeli air strikes ...Halifax2TheMax said:
Trump ordering the launching of 59 cruise missiles on a basically empty airbase, that was up and running within 36 hours, was the equivalent of Reagan parking the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon and lobbing some shells or stationing marines at the airport. And we all know how that ended.HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
0 -
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
0 -
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
0 -
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also?polaris_x said:
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.0 -
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.polaris_x said:
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
don't take this the wrong way but as I recommended to people - do a bit of objective research on Syria ... if you will only believe things from msm sites - then there really isn't much to add ... but there are a lot of independent media that is telling not only a different story ... but also showing direct evidence of the fraud being perpetrated there ... check out the video I posted at the beginning of this thread ... this is a delegation of the US Peace Council and their independent investigation into Syria ...fife said:
I agree that technically this is not a civil war but at the same time it is a civil war that the people are dealing with. yes the people are not uprising but can you expect that when one side you have a governemnt that is dropping bombs on them and on the other side they also have ISIS is attacking the people also?polaris_x said:
exactly ... there is none ... and I guarantee you no one has any ... it was the same in 2013 ... the same people went into iraq with no proof either ...Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
furthermore ... do you peeps who believe the msm line on syria actually know who the syrian gov't is fighting? ... it's Al Qaeda and ISIS ... there is no civil war there ... there is no uprising from the people ... russia/syria are fighting extremists ... the supposed chemical attack in idlib is an al qaeda strong hold ...
soo ... by supporting action against syria now - you are basically supporting terrorists ...
I don't think it is as simple as to say that if you support action against the Syrian government you are supporting the terrorist.
if the Syrian gov't falls - the country will be overun by terrorists ... it's similar to what is happening in iraq and basically every other country the US has orchestrated regime change ...0 -
i really don't think he's gonna get impeached ... especially for something like this ...HughFreakingDillon said:
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.polaris_x said:
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
although, if the possibility of trump using this as a wag the dog makes people actually dig a bit deeper into syria ... i'm all for it ...0 -
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.HughFreakingDillon said:
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.polaris_x said:
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself
we will find a way, we will find our place0 -
so ... the russians and americans agree today to investigate what happened the other day ... further cementing that there is no proof that assad dropped chemical weapons ... yet, everyone continues to peddle this myth ...0
-
Well Tillerson basically gave Russia an ultimatum at the G7 Summit. He essentially said Russia has to choose between the US and Syria. This would be good, except I think Russia will choose Syria.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
-
I agree.Degeneratefk said:
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.HughFreakingDillon said:
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.polaris_x said:
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
This is why in Trump's announcement of the attack, he said: "It is in the vital national security interest of the United states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons". He's attempting to link the attack with national security, to justify the bypassing of Congress.Degeneratefk said:
I really don't care if it had a 90% approval rating from the country. It's an illegal act. That sort of military action requires congressional approval.HughFreakingDillon said:
of course it doesn't. but it makes it more difficult to impeach a president on an event when it has widespread local and international approval.polaris_x said:
i didn't say you did or didn't ... i'm just pointing out that support from those nations doesn't necessarily legitimize it ...HughFreakingDillon said:
did I say I agree with it? it's an observation, and I was very surprised that it got support.polaris_x said:
the same allied nations that went into iraq? ... the same ones that continue to lend undying support for israel?HughFreakingDillon said:
from what I've read, he has received a lot of bi-partisan support and also from most allied nations.Degeneratefk said:
Who's everyone?HughFreakingDillon said:
not when everyone seems to be on board with the strike.Degeneratefk said:I have yet to find or see any proof that it was Assad that ordered the chemical attack. Does anyone have any? Furthermore, Trump launching a strike of that caliber without congressional approval is illegal. The president is allowed discretion to carry out acts of war without congressional approval ONLY when national security or the nation itself is under immanent attack. Syria clearly did not represent an immanent danger to the US. Impeachment hearings should start soon.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
this guy is an expert in syria ... university professor from Australia ... he's not russian ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF21hR0PgbQ 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help