US, France, Britain launch strikes on Syria

Correct, but it's related as you brought up days ago. Why can you bring up Israel but no one else can?

 

You are obviously against war period - so if around 1940 or so we adopted your strategy we'd have pictures of the current Fuhrer up on our walls now. No, we have to stand up to tyrants, and there are RULES to warfare. Not sure that you fully appreciate that.

 

Russian won't let the UN inspectors in......but Russia is innocent!!! Rrrrrirght. If those totalitarian thugs (Russia/Syria) were innocent they'd be bending over backwards to allow access....but they are doing just the OPPOSITE of what innocent parties are doing. They are just like Saddam - denying UN access to chemical weapons areas.

Stop defending the tyrants.

Syria: chemical weapons inspectors denied access to Douma site
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons unable to access sites controlled by Russia and Syria.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...attack-inspectors-unable-to-access-douma-site

 

Exactly.....well said!

 

It wasn't a civil war, furthermore, I'm not opposed at any war, for instance, I don't think that war in Mali was that bad. Why ? Because we could work with Malian government ?
When the american came in Europe, they had a peace plan through an occupation plan. They could work with a lot of people through Europe, and put back in place legitimate government. There is no such government in Syria, there is no occupation/peace plan for Syria.

Nobody want to spend billions at sending soldiers in Syria for enabling peace. It's just sending a few bombs.

 

In this case the tyrant is a lot better than the alternative. We are again repeating history. I'm all for war when us or our allies are directly threatened as was the case in WW2. Also if it's agreed there is a genocide occurring and there is a clear plan which does not have a high probability that someone worse will take over. In this case that someone else is ISIS. All other declarations of war are criminal and immoral as is the case with the recent bombings in Syria. The US cabinet should be tried for war crimes but they won't be as we've gotten away with this stuff since WWII.

 

As everyone knows now chemical weapons were not found in Iraq,so I wonder to which chemical weapons Saddam was supposed to provide access?
I find it rediculous and hypocritic, that two countries, one of which used weapons of mass destruction in Japan (US) and another one (UK), which favored use of poisson gases "against uncivilised tribes" are now whining about use of chemical weapons by Assad.

 

You can't find chemical weapons if you are not allowed in to look for them.

 

That's what Islam gives us - the best alternative is apparently a murderous, brutal, barbaric, chemical-weapons using psycho. I blame Mohammad. Saddam was ALSO often considered the "best" alternative in Iraq.
Muslims don't believe in democracy, because Mohammad didn't understand that democracy was best for the world. I blame Mohammad.

 

1. KJU used chemical weapons to kill his innocent half-brother
2. Putin/al-Assad are using chemical weapons to kill innocent civilians
3. Putin used chemical weapons to try to kill that British former Russian spy.
So Trump is laying down the law - no chemical weapons use. Obama didn't have the guts to do that, but Trump does. We can't let the totalitarian thugs normalize use of chemical weapons.

 

Stop supporting terrorism.

 

The Putin and Assad apologists don't care if totalitarian thugs use chemical weapons....their support for those monsters is greater than their respect for the lives of the victims of such weapons!

 

I'm assuming she said nothing....or perhaps the usual deflections!

 

Cynical certainly, but not silly.

We agreed stone-age instincts like unreasoning self-interest, and fear of the other (notice how often the word "trust" comes up in this forum), are a powerful force, yet you balk at establishing the machinery required to manage the negative aspects of these instincts, in a global context.

I presume you have nothing against the Russian people, and yet I am still waiting to see any mention of policies that might improve their poor economic status (other than getting rid of Putin); indeed you have no such policies because you cannot conceive of the elimination of poverty even in your own country, despite the fact you have the resources and know-how, to achieve exactly that within the decade.

No - it seems Trump has no solution to these economic problems except a trade war with other nations, some of whom are much poorer than the US (eg Mexico).

 

It is silly.....that because I favor dumping the UN doesn't mean that I somehow embrace a "return to the good old days of total war"....that's totally nuts....the latter doesn't necessarily result from the former, and neither do I wish for it!

 

I'm concerned less about poverty in Russia than I am about Putin's international aggressiveness & trouble making. The Russian people supposedly overwhelmingly elected the guy....they need to approach him to solve any problems they are experiencing!

 

Yep.
With all the natural resources Russia has its residents should live as comfortably as those in Canada or Australia.

 

With people like Russian apologist Jeannette constantly bragging about Russia's massive natural resources, you would think that the Kremlin would have everyone living like Czars by now....of course they will argue that the sanctions have hurt tremendously even though Putin and his regime claim there's been no effect at all!

 

Would you care to explain how you can avoid total war, in the absence of a body set up to manage effective international law and maintain the peace?

Hint: China is a proud developing nation with impressive infrastructure capabilities (they have built an efficient, national high speed rail network in a decade, are soon to open the world's longest sea bridge, are currently launching an impressive navy, is only the 3rd nation to launch its own astronauts in space, etc, and China will not forever accept being subject to US military directives. When that time comes.... watch out.

I notice you avoided the issue of unnecessary poverty in the US, though you are quick to blame the Russians for their own poverty. (And I note you admit to not being much interested in the issue of poverty, even though in a world of abundance it's a matter of simple justice (equality of opportunity) - and please, none of that Right wing 'equality of outcome' socialist bogeyman nonsense.)

Of course national economies are subject to international forces, indeed Trump's tariffs show that the current global neoliberal competitive free trade system is itself dysfunctional and urgently needs international oversight to allow prosperous development in all nations.

BTW, the cause of Syria's initial descent into civil war was related to drought and a failing local economy, proving the need for an international body to assist nations through times of economic hardship.

Instead of such a global institution necessary to manage issues of international trade, and competition, in conjunction with national development, all we have is the US imposing sanctions - when the inevitable chaos begins to make itself felt overseas and affects US interests - sanctions that only make matters worse for the local population. The genocide of Iraqi children caused by US led sanctions is well documented (apart from the Iraq war itself).

Or worse, the Pentagon arming their preferred combatants in the dispute, thereby prolonging the war indefinitely.

You will need to think more creatively.

 

Sure, in Iraq, after removing Saddam everything was opened. And? Nothing found. I guess the same situation will repeat in Syria if Assad is removed.

 

I read once that a nuclear weapon in flight, if destroyed by another missile, wont detonate. I'm not knowledgeable on that but I'd assume that cant blow up in their silo. But could be rusty and a relic. Fit for tourism.

 

A smell of arrogance my friend.
Russia has created its own problems. Had it not adopt such a dim view of the west, built subs that explose under the Arctic ocean, tried to keep up militarily with the US, thousands of nuclear weapons and relied on such a low GDP to do it....they might not have NATO knocking on the door. Russians have been ruthless and their support for that monster Assad is only one example. Putin is hopefully the last of the Tsars. ...waiting for the now young Russian gen to the rescue

 

Indeed, we can only hope that Putin is the last of the Czars....how many decades must the Russian people fall behind before democracy is finally able to flourish for the first time?

 

Why do you think that democracy is what Russia needs? Since ages Russia had Czars, so it get used to it.