GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I find this kind of discussion nutty or extremely uneducated at best.
Like public polls. Typical idiotic poll: Did <US President> a right thing when he sent troops to <country>. How the heck can any man on the street answer this question? President has several very powerful agencies at his disposal, he has a team around him gathering intelligence. He has knowledge of facts and aspects never occur to an average Joe.
And of course, a brainwashed leftist made his/her mandatory statement. Leftists just can't tolerate any opinions or even facts that contradict their beliefs. No tolerance < low intelligence.
Brrr ... I feel sorry I clicked on this topic. Will stay away from political threads from now on.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
—Mark Twain
Well, sorry for not believing what the media and the establishment say about anything. They may have first hand information about what happens in the world, but this doesn't mean that what they say is true or what they do is correct. Allow me to remember you all the story about WMDs in Iraq: G.W. Bush administration assured that Hussein had WMDs and it was an excuse to go to Iraq and destroy it. Years later it's clear it was all a LIE, and even Tony Blair admitted that the "intelligence reports" they were using as proof were wrong. So, either intelligence agencies are too dumb, or they knew it was all a lie and decided to use these "intelligence" reports as a casus belli to invade Iraq.
So, the whole situation pretty much goes likes this: Country X has an strategic interest (because it has oil or other type of resources) and has a government that does not obbey the US diktat --> the media and the establishment create (make up, invent) a reason to invade said country (i.e a casus belli) --> War. (Rinse and repeat elsewhere).
Something else: do you really believe Trumps is concerned and heartbroken for the loss of lives in Syria? (Especially considering how much he clearly dislikes Muslims and people with an Arabic background). One day he bans a handful of nationalities from the Middle East (including Syria!) from entering the US and the next day he says "Oh, Assad is gassing his own people" and rushes to bomb Assad because he's concerned about the Syrian people. Doesn't it seem a bit too much hypocritical?
Well, sorry for not believing what the media and the establishment say about anything. They may have first hand information about what happens in the world, but this doesn't mean that what they say is true or what they do is correct. Allow me to remember you all the story about WMDs in Iraq: G.W. Bush administration assured that Hussein had WMDs and it was an excuse to go to Iraq and destroy it. Years later it's clear it was all a LIE, and even Tony Blair admitted that the "intelligence reports" they were using as proof were wrong. So, either intelligence agencies are too dumb, or they knew it was all a lie and decided to use these "intelligence" reports as a casus belli to invade Iraq.
All a lie - and completely reckless. I still do not understand why this tactic is being done yet again. It is clearly under false pretenses - and as I stated before - I know I am being dragged, but I am going to scream, yell, kick as much as I can in my displeasure and disapproval of this farce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odiseo77
So, the whole situation pretty much goes likes this: Country X has an strategic interest (because it has oil or other type of resources) and has a government that does not obbey the US diktat --> the media and the establishment create (make up, invent) a reason to invade said country (i.e a casus belli) --> War. (Rinse and repeat elsewhere).
This proves that it really does not matter who is in charge (president) - this was not properly authorised, but it was rubber stamped anyways. At this point I am sure many here in the states smell the outright bullshit - but those higher ups are still going to do it anyways, what do they care? I am scared to say they that they WANT some kind of confrontation with Russia at this point. I wouldn't put it passed them, these people are deranged. Its not like the so-called 'journalists' here are even MENTIONING the fact that Russia is still there (LEGALLY).
Quote:
Originally Posted by odiseo77
Something else: do you really believe Trumps is concerned and heartbroken for the loss of lives in Syria? (Especially considering how much he clearly dislikes Muslims and people with an Arabic background). One day he bans a handful of nationalities from the Middle East (including Syria!) from entering the US and the next day he says "Oh, Assad is gassing his own people" and rushes to bomb Assad because he's concerned about the Syrian people. Doesn't it seem a bit too much hypocritical?
Look passed that rhetoric - again he was only acted upon what his predecessors already did anyways - I just happened to have been naive enough to think that he would at least not try to pull the same bullshit intervention that the previous administrations did. This is pointless, it is extremely dangerous - this is basically the policy of what Madame wanted in the first place.
All a lie - and completely reckless. I still do not understand why this tactic is being done yet again. It is clearly under false pretenses - and as I stated before - I know I am being dragged, but I am going to scream, yell, kick as much as I can in my displeasure and disapproval of this farce.
This proves that it really does not matter who is in charge (president) - this was not properly authorised, but it was rubber stamped anyways. At this point I am sure many here in the states smell the outright bullshit - but those higher ups are still going to do it anyways, what do they care? I am scared to say they that they WANT some kind of confrontation with Russia at this point. I wouldn't put it passed them, these people are deranged. Its not like the so-called 'journalists' here are even MENTIONING the fact that Russia is still there (LEGALLY).
Look passed that rhetoric - again he was only acted upon what his predecessors already did anyways - I just happened to have been naive enough to think that he would at least not try to pull the same bullshit intervention that the previous administrations did. This is pointless, it is extremely dangerous - this is basically the policy of what Madame wanted in the first place.
Although I have never liked Trump, I also thought he was going to be somewhat different, but after all he's part of the establishment so he has the same interests as his predecessors and the people behind his predecessors.
"Still, it is true, lamb," said Satan. "Look at you in war -- what mutton you are, and how ridiculous!"
"In war? How?"
"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one -- on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful -- as usual -- will shout for the war. The pulpit will -- warily and cautiously -- object -- at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers -- as earlier -- but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation -- pulpit and all -- will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
While the exact cost of Tomahawk missiles has been disputed, a 2011 report by the Center for Public Integrity states that the cost of each missile is approximately $1.41 million.
A single Tomahawk missile reportedly costs around $1.5 million.
— John Aravosis (@aravosis) April 7, 2017
The US has carried out a missile attack against an air base in Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.
The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at 04:40 Syrian time (01:40 GMT) from destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean.
So the previous article estimates the cost at $1.5m per missile x 59: Thats already $88.5m right there. I mean hey if you think about it, we gotta do something with these blasted things right? Can't just have them loafing around - gotta get something for our money's worth!
These things – "what would <Hillary> do" – are just variations on war-thumping. If you look closely at any of these things, they both carry the premise that "endless military incursions, everywhere on earth, all the time" is vital to the interests of <the United States>." They only debate the particulars of the reasons.
Never is it considered that <Hillary> or <Donald> "would choose not to do."
- - - - -
Fundamentally, there is only one reason for war: "the spoils of war."
For example, the invasion of Afghanistan has been for three reasons:
An oil pipeline to provide direct access to the Caspian Sea, bypassing the Russian stranglehold. Dick Cheney's company is still doggedly pursuing it.
Opium – which incidentally is why so many kids have been "diagnosed" with "medical conditions" that require opiates.
Lithium – needed for "all those batteries."
Look closely under the covers and you'll see similar economic justifications ... over and above the simple profit of being a military contractor in the first place. No one invades another country for purely humanitarian reasons; nor simply for revenge.
The US spent over $3 trillion(so far!) on its military escapades in this region alone.
President (and Five-Star (you-can't-get-six-stars) General) Dwight Eisenhower warned us of this danger over fifty years ago. We didn't listen then, and we're still not listening now.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-07-2017 at 08:34 AM.
These things – "what would <Hillary> do" – are just variations on war-thumping. If you look closely at any of these things, they both carry the premise that "endless military incursions, everywhere on earth, all the time" is vital to the interests of <the United States>." They only debate the particulars of the reasons.
We already know that Hillary would have done this on day one of her presidency - after all she was barking away up until this strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Never is it considered that <Hillary> or <Donald> "would choose not to do."
I actually thought (naively) that The Don would NOT do the exact same shit - but it seems that the neocons are pretty much dug in - not even a non-establishment politician it seems can do anything about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Fundamentally, there is only one reason for war: "the spoils of war."
For example, the invasion of Afghanistan has been for three reasons:
An oil pipeline to provide direct access to the Caspian Sea, bypassing the Russian stranglehold. Dick Cheney's company is still doggedly pursuing it.
Opium – which incidentally is why so many kids have been "diagnosed" with "medical conditions" that require opiates.
Lithium – needed for "all those batteries."
Yep, got to keep the machine alive no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Look closely under the covers and you'll see similar economic justifications ... over and above the simple profit of being a military contractor in the first place. No one invades another country for purely humanitarian reasons; nor simply for revenge.
The US spent over $3 trillion(so far!) on its military escapades in this region alone.
President (and Five-Star (you-can't-get-six-stars) General) Dwight Eisenhower warned us of this danger over fifty years ago. We didn't listen then, and we're still not listening now.
I think at this point in time every American is questioning this latest tactic - I would be hard pressed to think that even a single person in this country approves of our latest actions - never mind that we just pissed off Russia (see my post above). I have reiterated so many times, and I feel I must again but there will come a time when the Russians will just throw up their hands and say 'fsck this, we have been patient with the likes of all of you - now I am going to start pushing buttons.' That is what scares the living daylights out of me. I was only a kid during the last years of the cold war - I don't really want to know what it was really like that at any time a nuclear war can break out. These neocons/neolibs corporate owned goons are playing with fire and we are the ones who will face the consequences.
Published on Apr 6, 2017
On the 100th anniversary of the United States entry into World War I, President Donald Trump targeted a Syrian air base, launching over 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles and destroying the facility. United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also alluded to an international coalition forcing the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. After campaigning on a foreign policy without entangling foreign wars and nation-building, many Trump supporters feel betrayed and angry.
To quote Einstein:
Quote:
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Regime change does not work, and this reeks of it. Remind me again how are things now in Iraq, and Libya? So why would anyone with a working single brain cell could really think that this is going to be any different?
On Friday, US warships in the eastern Mediterranean fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian airfield, with Pentagon claiming that it was used in a chemical weapons attack against a rebel-held town in Idlib province on Tuesday. Catherine Shakdam, director of programs, Shafaqna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies in London, joins RT to discuss the US missile attack.
The US attack on Syria’s airbase is meant to “bolster terrorist morale” after the significant setbacks the jihadists have suffered at the hands of the Syrian army over past few weeks, President Assad’s political and media adviser, Bouthaina Shaaban said.
Civilians are among those killed as US warships batter a government-controlled airbase in Homs province, Syria, with dozens of missiles. The Syrian ambassador to China, and previously the US, Imad Moustapha, joins RT to discuss the US missile attack.
The US fired almost 60 cruise missiles at an airfield of the Syrian army, claiming that it was used to conduct a chemical weapons attack at a rebel-held town in the province of Idlib on Tuesday.
President Putin “regards the strikes as aggression against a sovereign nation,” his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, noting that the president believes the strikes were carried out “in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext.”
Taking advantage of the US missile strike on a Syrian airbase, Islamic State forces launched a major offensive to gain control of strategic oil areas near Palmyra, but failed, a local governor told RT.
The Constitution of the United States contemplated that the US Congress must declare war, and that all appropriations for War must last no more than two years.
And yet, the last time that the USA actually did that, was December 8, 1941.
The Constitution said nothing about spending for defense (or, offense).
Thus, as Eisenhower foresaw, the US has "made all of Earth, the skies above, and all of the deep blue sea" into one US Military Command or another. Every "regime" that exists is a thing that must be "changed," especially when it does not quite suit American business interests (and this according to just a few highly-$influential$ businessmen). None of the funding is publicly approved by Congress: in fact, it is kept top-secret from most of its Members.
And, in fifty years since Eisenhower's stark warning, "we, the People of the United States" have not yet done a damned thing about it.
Eisenhower knew that this would be like a metastatic cancer to the American economy, and in the years which have followed it has proven to be so.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-07-2017 at 10:18 AM.
The Constitution of the United States contemplated that the US Congress must declare war, and that all appropriations for War must last no more than two years.
And yet, the last time that the USA actually did that, was December 8, 1941.
The Constitution said nothing about spending for defense (or, offense).
Well isn't that cute? I say this because at this point, why do we even bother bringing up this revered piece of parchment - when it is obviously shit on (figuratively) - and those in power keep doing the EXACT opposite of what the stipulations in said document REQUIRE? At this point, this document is just there to essentially be prostituted around as if it has any real meaning (which it doesn't anymore) - it is just there to give us a reminder of what we no longer are - and those in power will hide behind it when then it suites them. That document has no more meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Thus, as Eisenhower foresaw, the US has "made all of Earth, the skies above, and all of the deep blue sea" into one US Military Command or another. Every "regime" that exists is a thing that must be "changed," especially when it does not quite suit American business interests (and this according to just a few highly-$influential$ businessmen). None of the funding is publicly approved by Congress: in fact, it is kept top-secret from most of its Members.
And, in fifty years since Eisenhower's stark warning, "we, the People of the United States" have not yet done a damned thing about it.
Eisenhower knew that this would be like a metastatic cancer to the American economy, and in the years which have followed it has proven to be so.
You and I are just preaching to the choir at this point. Like the ever "revered" Constitution - Eisenhower's word have fallen on deaf ears, just like the words of the Constitution has in this case been largely disregarded.
Now that the US has effectively repeated the same dumbass mistake - it will and has emboldened the very enemy the US is "fighting" (supporting) - and has made things just that much more dangerous. Again, anyone with a working brain.exe should at this point know that Assad is the only force (along with the Russians) that are FIGHTING terrorism - I don't want to see Syria yet another smoldering mess for a demented force to take over. This will not be different - how can anyone seriously think that somehow what the US is doing here will be different? Leave Assad alone, STOP provoking the Russians!
The United Nations Security Council holds an emergency meeting in New York on Friday, April 7, to discuss a US airstrike against a Syrian base in the early hours of Friday morning. The US administration has maintained the strike was in response to an alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun on Tuesday, April 4.
A pointless gesture, non of this matters - as usual either way the US would have acted unilaterally (and did) - now it is the UN's turn to gloss over and put it's spin on yet another unauthorised action by the US.
1. Where's the proof that the government used gas?
2. As others have said, what would be the motive? The government is winning and the West has gradually realised the true nature of the insurgents: not the "democrats" they supposed them to be, but Sunni extremists.
3. Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman? If a gas attack is a war crime, then so is attacking a country without any declaration of war. What's the difference between Trump's attack and Pearl Harbour?
Personally, if I were under threat from Daesh or Al-Qaida, I'd be ready to use any weapon against them, but, as I said, there's no evidence that a gas attack was launched in this case.
1. Where's the proof that the government used gas?
I am not disputing that there was a gas attack. The more important question is who REALLY carried it out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
2. As others have said, what would be the motive? The government is winning and the West has gradually realised the true nature of the insurgents: not the "democrats" they supposed them to be, but Sunni extremists.
EXACTLY! This makes NO tactical sense for the Syrian government to carry out such an attack. Right now (I am still watching the coverage online - because no channels on tv here that I see here are paying attention) - I saw the French Ambassador to the UN echo the same bullshit point - how Syria bears the responsibility of the US attacks carried out - after that - the Japanese Ambassador actually indicated something SANE - THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION - so that elude to just leave things alone, leave Syria alone. Right now the Russian Ambassador is speaking, and boy is he speaking his mind. His criticism is spot on - just watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
3. Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman? If a gas attack is a war crime, then so is attacking a country without any declaration of war. What's the difference between Trump's attack and Pearl Harbour?
The US appointed itself policeman apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
Personally, if I were under threat from Daesh or Al-Qaida, I'd be ready to use any weapon against them, but, as I said, there's no evidence that a gas attack was launched in this case.
The irony is Assad AND the Russians ARE FIGHTING these groups - the USA is indirectly HELPING these groups and now have HINDERED Syria and Russia's efforts, - on the same BULLSHIT premise as before - to the credit of the Russians - THEY are trying to PREVENT another Iraq and Libya from happening. The US is in the wrong here - Syria and Russia are in the right - plain and simple - there is no QUESTION - but that does not matter - the war machine will continue steaming along................
-edit
Isis wasn't into Libya until the US acted - Isis will only overtake Syria if the US continues this none sense. The US is creating problems to come in as usual to 'save the day' - THAT DOESN'T WORK - IT NEVER HAS.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
The cost
