United States-Russia-Syria

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: JinMI

It makes sense for Trump to warn Russia. He's making a stand but at the same time trying to let Putin know it's nothing against him.

As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

AGAIN, I ask -- WTF is the benefit to turning nearly 200 hundred governments and billions of people against you on the damned eve of peace talks?

Not even the tinfoiliest of guesses can answer that one.

Hello!

That's not happening!

Everyone is doing the exact opposite!

You're basing your opinion on what should have happened; not on what is happening!

That's why the move is so brilliant! Everyone is thinking like you!

It can't be brilliant just for the sake of brilliance, there has to be a goal. Which is what in your estimation? We have to assume he is a rational actor and I don't see any benefit. It seems like you want to view the move in a vacuum of any possible consequences or benefit.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: intrptr

I wasn't trying to make it sound like anything, just explaining why these people sometimes go over there. He could well have been doing some nefarious #, but that's all speculation. The tax breaks are documented fact.

Mmm hmmm, "nefarious", right. United states has no business in Syria, a sovereign state, uninvited, in violation of US and International Law.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not arguing that one way or the other. I merely pointed out that officials and celebrities sometimes make trips to war zones for monetary gain. Sorry that doesn't play into your pretend narrative that you have zero evidence of. You will be ok, I promise.

a reply to: TarzanBeta
As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

At this stage in the game to use chemical warfare would be political suicide, dictator or not. This thing smells of misdirection and subterfuge.

Look at how the world responded the first time chemical weapons were used. Almost instantly the call was for the removal of Assad. Had Russia not stepped in than i really do believe there would have been a regime change.

What is so Important about Syria?
Location, location, location! The importance of Syria is not because of the resources it have, but because of the countries that borders it. It is the port by which Russia extends its influence into the Middle east. Syria is imperative to Russia's Oil influence as well as an important Weapons Market for Russia. To use chemical weapons, Syria would risk alienating Russia and breakdown their coalition. This is the part that makes no sense. I see Russia removing Assad before letting Assad use chemical weapons and risk further sanctions that are no doubt influencing Russia's economy. To continue to back that sort of dictator will Alienate Russia from the rest of the World.

a reply to: face23785

Keep reminding everyone, shows your colors.

a reply to: PainGod

I see Russia removing Assad before letting Assad use chemical weapons and risk further sanctions that are no doubt influencing Russia's economy.

"Remove" Assad (with Putin involved that carries certain undertones), then what? Annex the area around the port?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: PainGod

I see Russia removing Assad before letting Assad use chemical weapons and risk further sanctions that are no doubt influencing Russia's economy.

"Remove" Assad (with Putin involved that carries certain undertones), then what? Annex the area around the port?

Either or, resulting in a division of the country, maybe. Like Korea, Vietnam, Yemen (once upon a time).

That way we at least get half, for now. How much pain will it take for the Syrians to acquiesce?

a reply to: Phage "Remove" Assad (with Putin involved that carries certain undertones), then what? Annex the area around the port?

The removal of Assad would be as simple as pulling support. Russia is unwilling to do so at the moment because of what it has invested into Syria.
Now what in the world could Assad do to remove that oh so important Russian support? Maybe launch a chemical attack that further demonizes and isolates Syria and its Russian Allies.

What part of this makes any sense.

I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. Just looking at it logically.

originally posted by: PainGod
a reply to: Phage "Remove" Assad (with Putin involved that carries certain undertones), then what? Annex the area around the port?

The removal of Assad would be as simple as pulling support. Russia is unwilling to do so at the moment because of what it has invested into Syria.
Now what in the world could Assad do to remove that oh so important Russian support? Maybe launch a chemical attack that further demonizes and isolates Syria and its Russian Allies.

What part of this makes any sense.

I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. Just looking at it logically.

i want to make sure i'm understanding you correctly.

why would he want to remove russian support? you're making the case that he wouldn't right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: PainGod

I see Russia removing Assad before letting Assad use chemical weapons and risk further sanctions that are no doubt influencing Russia's economy.

"Remove" Assad (with Putin involved that carries certain undertones), then what? Annex the area around the port?

if given the freedom and opportunity, wouldn't the united states do the same?

the only "cohesive trouble" left for the united states at that point would be iran.

Satire:

a reply to: facedye
What possible positive outcome could come to Assad for using chemical weapons. Was chemical weapons we're used? Yes.
Now the question begs. Why? Why would Assad do this knowing that the world would seek his removal. Are there groups inside Syria seeking to usurp Assad?Yes. Could they gain what they are seeking by using a banned weapon in the name of the man they are seeking to remove?

a reply to: intrptr

What colors would those be? We've seen how imaginative you are making things up. I can't wait to hear your baseless assumptions, should be quite a hoot. Or you can just act like an adult and admit you have zero evidence what McCain's trip was for.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: intrptr

What colors would those be? We've seen how imaginative you are making things up. I can't wait to hear your baseless assumptions, should be quite a hoot. Or you can just act like an adult and admit you have zero evidence what McCain's trip was for.

US has no business meddling inside Syria. Mccains secret trip was just that, a secret.

Theres your sign.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: intrptr

What colors would those be? We've seen how imaginative you are making things up. I can't wait to hear your baseless assumptions, should be quite a hoot. Or you can just act like an adult and admit you have zero evidence what McCain's trip was for.

US has no business meddling inside Syria. Mccains secret trip was just that, a secret.

Theres your sign.

OK so what I said had nothing to do with whether we should be in Syria or not. Still zero evidence to back up your insinuations on McCain. Signs indeed.

a reply to: face23785

OK so what I said had nothing to do with whether we should be in Syria or not.

That is the issue, the whole issue you are obviously avoiding, yes.

originally posted by: intrptr

US has no business meddling inside Syria.

not according to the Federal Reserve who sees not having a global monopoly as being an Existential Threat

see:

there is one more underlying reason for Western military intervention in Syria that is rarely discussed publicly, even among many alternative media outlets - the goal of total domination by the private central banking system....

Although currently facing the brunt of Anglo-American operations, Syria is not the only country to find itself in the crosshairs of destabilization and direct military confrontation with Western powers where the presence of a government-owned central bank may stand as a significant deciding factor for invasion. Cuba, North Korea, and, notably, Iran all maintain such government banking systems. Coincidentally, all three of these nations, particularly Iran, have become major targets of Western imperialism as of late.

RE:

www.blacklistednews.com...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: face23785

OK so what I said had nothing to do with whether we should be in Syria or not.

That is the issue, the whole issue you are obviously avoiding, yes.

No, the issue is you are arguing something I did not address. I made no claim as to whether the US belongs in Syria. I suggested a possible alternate motive for McCain's trip to Syria. There's as much evidence for my theory as there is for yours. Zero is equal to zero. You are the one avoiding the fact that you are simply parroting a baseless conspiracy theory.

a reply to: St Udio

Correct, these nations you mentioned, Iran, Syria and Korea maintain private central banking systems. That is why the focus is on them to 'regime change' them, making them debt slaves to the IMF, World Bank and US Aid.

Iraq and Libya went the same way, the US military and NATO are the enforcement branch for the Banksters.

a reply to: face23785

I suggested a possible alternate motive for McCain's trip to Syria.

So what is the ulterior motive?