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.
And Congress is not debating, and is not authorizing, and Donald Trump – who is basically "a New York real-estate guy" certainly with no military experience – is at the top of a military command that is still executing these "military escapades" using missiles that cost $1.5 million dollars apiece.
"We say you used a gas attack. So, we use $75 million worth of hardware to obliterate your air base. We didn't ask the UN, and we didn't tell them."
Dig deeply enough, and you will find: "someone profited." Or, stands to profit.
As "Ike" foresaw, "the military industrial complex" is simply acting on its own – leveraging the military power of the United States to do as it pleases and for its own purposes (and profits). But, not necessarily doing anything that is in the legitimate interest of the People of the United States.
The US Constitution might be a "sh*t-upon piece of paper" in some people's eyes, but that is a falsehood. If the people of the country do not, in an organized way, object to specific things that their government has been doing for the last fifty years, then they and their sons (and daughters) are nothing more than periodically offered-up cannon food, and they have only themselves to blame.
I still like what FDR said: "I agree with you. Now, make me do it."
Who said peace was easy?
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-07-2017 at 12:04 PM.
And Congress is not debating, and is not authorizing, and Donald Trump – who is basically "a New York real-estate guy" certainly with no military experience – is at the top of a military command that is still executing these "military escapades" using missiles that cost $1.5 million dollars apiece.
"We say you used a gas attack. So, we use $75 million worth of hardware to obliterate your air base. We didn't ask the UN, and we didn't tell them."
Dig deeply enough, and you will find: "someone profited." Or, stands to profit.
As always someone will profit. Again I am inclined to take Russia's and the Syrian's government word over the US at this point. I mean I just have this really bad habit you know, if not going with what I am told about Syria these days from the US - call me crazy. The Syrian government with the help of Russia managed to stabilise the country - so what tactical sense would it make to carry out such an attack? Also, didn't Assad either destroy or hand in such weapons? How do we know it wasn't the FSA/other rebels? Again I call bullshit on this narrative - and the US is up to the same tricks again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
As "Ike" foresaw, "the military industrial complex" is simply acting on its own – leveraging the military power of the United States to do as it pleases and for its own purposes (and profits). But, not necessarily doing anything that is in the legitimate interest of the People of the United States.
This will only go on so far - something will eventually give. Either here in the US there will be a decisive action against said entity, or worse someone from the outside will say 'enough' and take their own unilateral action. Interpret that as you will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
The US Constitution might be a "sh*t-upon piece of paper" in some people's eyes, but that is a falsehood. If the people of the country do not, in an organized way, object to specific things that their government has been doing for the last fifty years, then they and their sons (and daughters) are nothing more than periodically offered-up cannon food, and they have only themselves to blame.
Why would they object? They are practically told what to think - "Assad did something bad again, so we have to take care of it." - Except - no he DIDN'T. I am still going to bet it was the rebels that carried this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
I still like what FDR said: "I agree with you. Now, make me do it."
‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield, Russian MoD says
The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added.
Great - so not only are our military hardware overpriced - they are rather inaccurate as well... *claps slowly*
As always someone will profit. Again I am inclined to take Russia's and the Syrian's government word over the US at this point. I mean I just have this really bad habit you know, if not going with what I am told about Syria these days from the US - call me crazy. The Syrian government with the help of Russia managed to stabilise the country - so what tactical sense would it make to carry out such an attack? Also, didn't Assad either destroy or hand in such weapons? How do we know it wasn't the FSA/other rebels? Again I call bullshit on this narrative - and the US is up to the same tricks again.
I think the "problem" is that the terrorist groups that operate in Syria haven't been able to overthrow Assad, so the US government has gotten a bit desperate and decided to take things into their own hands and do the dirty job by itself.
I read that, following the attack, Russia decided to end the coordination of air strikes with the US, which from my point of view is a way of saying "from now on, we're not responsible to you if we down one of your planes or attack you by mistake".
I think the "problem" is that the terrorist groups that operate in Syria haven't been able to overthrow Assad, so the US government has gotten a bit desperate and decided to take things into their own hands and do the dirty job by itself.
The US is effectively supporting a terrorist element - and I am more inclined to believe that the US SUPPLIED these groups with said weapons. Russia has repeatedly called them out on their implicit and even direct support for terrorist groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odiseo77
I read that, following the attack, Russia decided to end the coordination of air strikes with the US, which from my point of view is a way of saying "from now on, we're not responsible to you if we down one of your planes or attack you by mistake".
Yes I posted the same thing - and this is not the Iraq forces the US is dealing with. This is another nuclear power! If the US doesn't stop this nonsense it will lead to a dangerous and deadly end. The Russians are there to STOP Syria from plunging into another terrorist stronghold - the US on the other hand thinks it can still get away with this sham; no it cannot and I do not think the US will be able to hold off Russia - let alone if Iran also decides to jump into the conflict.
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
As you should know, the US, France, UK, Gulf states, et al have been bankrolling these militias to effect "regime change" since the start of this conflict. The US, UK and others spun the line that rebels and freedom fighters were struggling against opression from the "tyrant" Assad (makes a great case for pumping money and arms into Saudi to help overthrow that dictatorship). The aforementioned countries simply poured in more and more arms and money and the militias were in fact ISIL , Al-Nusra, etc and still are. The "moderates" don't really exist and never did.
The objective is to unseat Assad and bring down the Ba'athist at any cost, remove hostile/Russian interest and install western friendly ones - as were the objectives in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
As you should know, the US, France, UK, Gulf states, et al have been bankrolling these militias to effect "regime change" since the start of this conflict. The US, UK and others spun the line that rebels and freedom fighters were struggling against opression from the "tyrant" Assad (makes a great case for pumping money and arms into Saudi to help overthrow that dictatorship). The aforementioned countries simply poured in more and more arms and money and the militias were in fact ISIL , Al-Nusra, etc and still are. The "moderates" don't really exist and never did.
So, lets call it for what it really is. The West is supporting terrorist groups, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf
The objective is to unseat Assad and bring down the Ba'athist at any cost, remove hostile/Russian interest and install western friendly ones - as were the objectives in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
The problem is these warmongers do not realise (or maybe they do and don't give a shit) - is that Russia is NOT going to stand by this time. I see no credibility from any of these nations when they speak about any sort of 'obligation' or international law. They have flouted it constantly, ignored it and out right even BROKEN it, and still have the gall to criticise the Syrians, or even Russia at this point. Speaking of which:
Putin believes US attack on Syria violates international law – spokesman
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.”
Absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably - without question - CORRECT!
"It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons," said President Donald Trump in explaining a U.S.-missile strike on a Syrian airbase. That might sound good and even noble in theory, explains Emma Ashford of the Cato Institute, but the plain truth is that he's wrong. What's worse, it's far from clear what either the United States or other countries in the region will do next.
This will only go on so far - something will eventually give. Either here in the US there will be a decisive action against said entity, or worse someone from the outside will say 'enough' and take their own unilateral action. Interpret that as you will.
The military industrialists have been having their will with US Presidents ever since "Ike," who found that he couldn't control them, either.
Unfortunately, "guns and money" go hand-in-hand, and they always have. It would take a very concerted effort and considerable public solidarity to push the USA back from its present imperialist stance.
As to the "veiled threat" of the above – "violence won't stop violence, and it never will." Since WW2, the industrialists never wanted America to move off of the war footing that had so enriched them. The money was secret and unlimited, and money buys pure-power on Capitol Hill. (As it does in London and so on.) It will take society's own solidarity to push the US government back from making the entire planet a "US Command."
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-07-2017 at 03:34 PM.
The military industrialists have been having their will with US Presidents ever since "Ike," who found that he couldn't control them, either.
Unfortunately, "guns and money" go hand-in-hand, and they always have. It would take a very concerted effort and considerable public solidarity to push the USA back from its present imperialist stance.
As to the "veiled threat" of the above – "violence won't stop violence, and it never will." Since WW2, the industrialists never wanted America to move off of the war footing that had so enriched them. The money was secret and unlimited, and money buys pure-power on Capitol Hill. (As it does in London and so on.) It will take society's own solidarity to push the US government back from making the entire planet a "US Command."
US afraid of real investigation into Syria chemical incident – Russian deputy UN envoy
The US missile strike in Syria “only facilitated the strengthening of terrorism,” Russia’s representative at the UN Security Council has said, adding that it shows Washington is “afraid” of a “real investigation” into an alleged chemical attack in Syria.
‘This is a war crime’: Syrians in Damascus react to US missile strike
People in the streets of the Syrian capital of Damascus have harshly criticized a US attack on a Syrian airfield, advocating a response for what they called an “aggression” against the entire nation.
"Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question"
"The April 4th, 2017 incident at Khan Sheikhoun has provoked an emotional response around the world after images began to emerge showing civilian adults and children apparently suffering from the effects of chemical weapons. President Donald Trump has stated that the attack has totally changed his views towards the Syrian civil war, and may alter his intended strategy there."
"Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria Exposed As False Flag"
"The chemical weapons attack that killed 58 people in Syria appears to have been a false flag “media campaign” planned well in advance to oust President Assad."
Caleb Maupin, investigative journalist , analyst and RT reporter joins me again for a comprehensive, spirit and comprehensive review of Syria and Trump’s gambit.
Tomahawk diplomacy. You wanted tough, you got tough. And irony. The Idlib province is known to all as being a rebel stronghold and it is within the realm of reason and logic that, as Syria stated, a weapons depot and cache that contained sarin was in fact attacked, destroyed when hit and that is the subject of dispersal. The US reaction is a blatant attempt to distract attention from civilian casualties in Mosul, an attack that most American headline readers still know nothing about, but the world knows. How do you overlook the fact that the UN confirmed in 2013 that Syria had destroyed all chemical weapons? Or is John Kerry a liar when he tweeted such?
Cui bono? Cui prodest? There are too many red flags about the chemical weapons attack in northern Syria to believe the official version of events that immediately assigned guilt to the Assad government. There is no reason why Assad would unleash a chemical attack when in fact he is winning against ISIS. Palmyra will now be retaken by ISIS because the airbase that would normally pose opposition has been severely damaged. Whither logic? Where was the outrage over the infant slaughter in Mosul? The inconsistent reactions are mind-boggling. The Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria was one of the most active airbases used by Syria to attack ISIS. I will continue to repeat this obvious fact.
The incredible selectivity of the dread conspiracy theory. Where are those who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the St. Petersburg blast was false flag who now refuse to consider the obvious? Was the purpose of this attack to distance and silence the Russian detractors who claimed Trump was Russo-complicit? What will happen now to Rachel Maddow’s cresting the Mt. Everest of ratings? Does she now applaud the man she loathes for daring to perform the actions she demanded? Take that Hillary and Barry! You talked tough, I am tough.
My tomahawk’s bigger than yours. This is a critically placed and timed political move that show’s Trump’s “strength,” disregarding the UN and proclaiming to the world that we don’t need no security council. Remember, we’re the same country whose media completely miscalculated Ukraine and Crimea as “inexplicable aggression.” Explain this now.
US launches probe into whether Russia took part in ‘chemical attack’ in Syria – AP
The US has reportedly begun an investigation into whether Russia is linked to the suspected chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib, which Washington claims was carried out by Damascus. It comes after Russia condemned the US strike on a Syrian air base, which killed six people.
I suppose the regime of Syria could be humble Buddhist priests who's only wish is to be kind.
Syria doesn't really have a very good track record on being kind however.
I'd arm the refugees and tell them to take their country back.
As many critics of the war in Syria pointed out (they had functioning schools, hospitals, women were relatively free compared to other regimes that WE ARE ALLIES WITH - in it's own way Syria had some sense of normalcy. The argument Assad is bad - is not enough, nor can it even be backed up by claims since the groups we associate are worse (the Saudis anyone?)
Oh yea and the argument about removing Assad because 'insert minority here' - well, um - there are a group of ethnicities actually in the government believe it or not - Druz, Sunni/Shia along with Alawites (what apparently Assad is part of), Christians ..... What do you think is going to happen to these groups when it is overtaken by rebel backed Sunni extremists? What makes you think that this time things will turn out different after Iraq and Libya? Because "third times a charm?" Speaking of Iraq - the only reason Iraq hasn't jumped into the fray because government is majority Shia, is because they are still in a rather dire situation - but what of Iran? Also remember Russia is behind Iran, so , um....Yea...Things are kinda getting a bit, complicated now aren't they?
I am not defending Assad because I like him, but I just see another power play here under false pretenses. It is not even a 'dubious' one, because we have seen this all before. I'll leave with this quote:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." --Winston Churchill
All eyes remain on the US as we see wall-to-wall coverage of President Trump’s attack on the Shayrat airbase near Homs, Syria. What does the mainstream media’s reaction say about the US agenda, and how does it depart from the questions they should rather be asking? Chris Hedges, host of “On Contact,” joins RT America’s Anya Parampil to discuss the US media’s selective use of facts to further their agenda.
Women & children among casualties of US missile strike – Homs governor
The US strike on Shayrat Airbase in Syria killed 14 people including nine innocent civilians, the governor of Homs told RT.
Speaking to RT Arabic, Talal al-Barazi said the majority of victims of the missile strike carried out by the United States on Friday morning had been local villagers.
Syria doesn't really have a very good track record on being kind however.
Neither does the US and their allies for that matter: several countries destroyed in 14 years in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of people killed on these wars (some estimates say one million only in Iraq). The US government has no moral to talk about human rights because it simply doesn't respect human rights. Nor does it have the right to police the world. The US people really really need to understand this.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
