[quote pid='1119175' dateline='1523758170']
B2hibry

---

You talk as if it's exclusively America pushing this agenda when the UK and France are pushing as hard or harder.

Ah yes, innocent little America abroad. Those bold boys UK and France made them do it! 

I don't agree with the UK or France at all. Quite the contrary in fact.
[/quote]

Is that what I said? Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I said. You just seem overly interested in assigning all of the blame to the US when it’s equally all three’s doing.

---

[quote pid='1119175' dateline='1523758170']
B2hibry

---

You talk as if it's exclusively America pushing this agenda when the UK and France are pushing as hard or harder.

Ah yes, innocent little America abroad. Those bold boys UK and France made them do it! 

I don't agree with the UK or France at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

Is that what I said? Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I said. You just seem overly interested in assigning all of the blame to the US when it’s equally all three’s doing.
[/quote]

Same old Blame America First crowd. Nothing really changes with them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

[quote pid='1119175' dateline='1523758170']
B2hibry

---

You talk as if it's exclusively America pushing this agenda when the UK and France are pushing as hard or harder.

Ah yes, innocent little America abroad. Those bold boys UK and France made them do it! 

I don't agree with the UK or France at all. Quite the contrary in fact.

Is that what I said? Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I said. You just seem overly interested in assigning all of the blame to the US when it’s equally all three’s doing.
[/quote]


Tis a joke. 

I believe we are discussing US foreign policy no? Not sure where I have given full blame of the Syrian situation to America. Why do you think that?

---

The US has utilized psych-ops for quite some time. Such ops are not utilized on the American populace or even in an international setting. They are pinpointed on a civilian populace to instill doubt or reinforce an objective against their leadership/goverment. Military information released to the public goes one of two ways...direct or very vague. This depends on current or future ops. Attacks on foreign territory have absolutely zero to do with public opinion. In fact, most operation go completely unknown to the public. Vietnam shows what happens when the military gets too politicized. That started to creep in during the Obama era. Look, we are a professional military that consists of mostly high thinking individuals that work at perfecting their craft on a daily basis until called upon. You’d be amazed at how often exercises take place, with painful feedback and lessons reporting that ensures any weaknesses or mistakes are identified and/or not repeated. It’s not perfect but anything that is not remotely close to perfect cost lives.

To address your debate question...The only events that I have questioned have to deal with lack of respectable action. For example when Iran took hostage of some sailors, I believed escalation was warranted. I also disagree with allowing the vacuum in Syria, left by 7 years of war and incompetent leadership, to be filled by a Russian and Iranian ideology that may be even worse not only for Syria but for the region.

I’m certainly not trying to appeal to your humanitarian side. It’s obvious you believe such crisis should be dealt with solely in country regardless of the turmoil. It’s also quite obvious you believe our military aren’t free thinking and want nothing but war. As far as policy, I have yet to see a coherent thought on foreign policy from you. Actually according to you, foreign policy should be non-existant as we sit on our hands at home. My mindset is that no action is pretty irresponsible for a nation like ours or any other capable one.

We already have had two large wars kick started by American misinformation.  

Second part of the question, do you have any problem with Russia interfering with the democratic affairs of other countries,  killing civilians abroad, selling guns to terrorists and having an aggressive foreign policy?  

I believe if you scroll up a few comments you'll see where I told you what I disagree with. No foreign policy doesn't have to be non existent, just less aggressive, less damaging on the rest of the world and less playing god around the globe. You'd think they would be universally held opinions by any objective human looking at the USAs current foreign policy.

And those were?

I know you like to think US Foreign policy is equal to that of Communist regimes, so to understand I’m going to need these paralleled examples of atrocities and aggressiveness.

Once again, what gives you this idea? I wonder how aware you are that most operations are through invite from host countries and actually subsidized. There are obvious exceptions but a very large portion fit the previously mentioned category. Once again, what examples are you locked onto to give the perception that you have that the U.S. has a blood thirsty foreign policy?

---

We already have had two large wars kick started by American misinformation.  

Second part of the question, do you have any problem with Russia interfering with the democratic affairs of other countries,  killing civilians abroad, selling guns to terrorists and having an aggressive foreign policy?  

I believe if you scroll up a few comments you'll see where I told you what I disagree with. No foreign policy doesn't have to be non existent, just less aggressive, less damaging on the rest of the world and less playing god around the globe. You'd think they would be universally held opinions by any objective human looking at the USAs current foreign policy.

And those were?

I know you like to think US Foreign policy is equal to that of Communist regimes, so to understand I’m going to need these paralleled examples of atrocities and aggressiveness.

Once again, what gives you this idea? I wonder how aware you are that most operations are through invite from host countries and actually subsidized. There are obvious exceptions but a very large portion fit the previously mentioned category. Once again, what examples are you locked onto to give the perception that you have that the U.S. has a blood thirsty foreign policy?

The USS Maddox clearly.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every time I criticize Trump, someone accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome. " While I clearly detest the guy, I have to give him credit for the way he handled the latest missile attack on the chemical weapons facilities. He managed to do it without a lot of civilian casualties, and without starting World War III. From all accounts he went through a logical process, listened to his advisors and generals, and acted like a President should. Except for trash talking the Russians, which was really not necessary or particularly helpful, from all accounts he managed the process effectively.

---

And those were?

I know you like to think US Foreign policy is equal to that of Communist regimes, so to understand I’m going to need these paralleled examples of atrocities and aggressiveness.

Once again, what gives you this idea? I wonder how aware you are that most operations are through invite from host countries and actually subsidized. There are obvious exceptions but a very large portion fit the previously mentioned category. Once again, what examples are you locked onto to give the perception that you have that the U.S. has a blood thirsty foreign policy?

The USS Maddox clearly.

Yes, that event/had distorted facts and clearly during a time as I mentioned (Vietnam era) where politics and public opinion were allowed to creep into the military decision making. This also was not a precursor for War. We were already engaged. This was just one escallation event. Wea now have the War Powers Resolution because of it.

---

Every time I criticize Trump, someone accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome. " While I clearly detest the guy, I have to give him credit for the way he handled the latest missile attack on the chemical weapons facilities. He managed to do it without a lot of civilian casualties, and without starting World War III. From all accounts he went through a logical process, listened to his advisors and generals, and acted like a President should. Except for trash talking the Russians, which was really not necessary or particularly helpful, from all accounts he managed the process effectively.

"From all accounts"? You need better accounts, Marty. The accounts I read had Trump defying his military advisors, who believed the chemical attack never happened. The US attacks on Syrian "chemical weapons facilities" were either fake or the US is guilty of war crimes for not reporting the locations to international inspectors - choose one. As for not starting WW III, that award should go to Assad and Putin, who chose not to respond when rogue nations delivered an unprovoked attack.

---

Every time I criticize Trump, someone accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome. "  While I clearly detest the guy, I have to give him credit for the way he handled the latest missile attack on the chemical weapons facilities.  He managed to do it without a lot of civilian casualties, and without starting World War III.   From all accounts he went through a logical process, listened to his advisors and generals, and acted like a President should.   Except for trash talking the Russians, which was really not necessary or particularly helpful, from all accounts he managed the process effectively.

"From all accounts"?  You need better accounts, Marty.   

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every time I criticize Trump, someone accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome. "  While I clearly detest the guy, I have to give him credit for the way he handled the latest missile attack on the chemical weapons facilities.  He managed to do it without a lot of civilian casualties, and without starting World War III.   From all accounts he went through a logical process, listened to his advisors and generals, and acted like a President should.   Except for trash talking the Russians, which was really not necessary or particularly helpful, from all accounts he managed the process effectively.

"From all accounts"?  You need better accounts, Marty.  The accounts I read had Trump defying his military advisors, who believed the chemical attack never happened.  The US attacks on Syrian "chemical weapons facilities" were either fake or the US is guilty of war crimes for not reporting the locations to international inspectors - choose one.  As for not starting WW III, that award should go to Assad and Putin, who chose not to respond when rogue nations delivered an unprovoked attack.

You have to be a Russian troll.

---

Every time I criticize Trump, someone accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome. "  While I clearly detest the guy, I have to give him credit for the way he handled the latest missile attack on the chemical weapons facilities.  He managed to do it without a lot of civilian casualties, and without starting World War III.   From all accounts he went through a logical process, listened to his advisors and generals, and acted like a President should.   Except for trash talking the Russians, which was really not necessary or particularly helpful, from all accounts he managed the process effectively.

"From all accounts"?  You need better accounts, Marty.  The accounts I read had Trump defying his military advisors, who believed the chemical attack never happened.  The US attacks on Syrian "chemical weapons facilities" were either fake or the US is guilty of war crimes for not reporting the locations to international inspectors - choose one.  As for not starting WW III, that award should go to Assad and Putin, who chose not to respond when rogue nations delivered an unprovoked attack.

I can't even begin to tell you how far off you are. I wish I could share some info with ya. However, there is plenty of imagery and information already out that discredits your left field thoughts. What I can say is that there are ways to get samples to third-party scientists and even international inspectors before the expiration (half-life) of the chemical. Ironically, the Russian/Syrian government requested inspectors are on the ground now and still being blocked.

What is typical of Syria and Russian use of chemical attacks is that they are dispersed via crude methods; i.e., artillery, barrels, and aerial spray. These methods are not very effective but can be pinpointed. Arial dispersal is preferred method but takes more calculations to avoid wide area dispersal. Following the attacks, explosive artillery rounds and bombs will follow in an attempt to incinerate chemical evidence. An armed perimeter is in place to attempt to block outside detection until incineration occurs and/or until expiration. At this point, any evidence must be in the form of body fluid sampling. Pretty difficult when the government controls the remaining operational hospitals.

The half-life of Sarin is approximately 24 hours depending on humidity/temp. So in roughly 48 hours detection is almost negligible. Chlorine is gone in a matter of hours. Because of the crude method of dispersal, airborne detection by aircraft is all but impossible.

FYI, these sites were known to International Inspectors, but Russia had blocked every attempt at the UN to set an inspection resolution since 2013, when Russia was to have taken possession of and destroyed all of Syria's known chemical weapons/precursors.

---

A lot of really important people spending time on the Jags message board it seems....

---

It now appears that Russia has responded by launching a cyberattack against the US and Britain...

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/russia-a...15416.html

---

'02

But collusion...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

So...Russia and Syria say they shot down about 75% of the missiles late Friday/Early Saturday...zero hit but one malfunctioned. In fact, Syria fired 40 times AFTER we left. Russia activated their systems and was pinged by our defensive aircraft as well as electronic countermeasures aircraft resulting in no engagement. Yesterday Russia and Syria claim the Homs base was hit...95% of missiles intercepted. There were zero operations in the area by anyone...Syria now reports there was no attack and their defensive systems faulted. Hmmm.

A popular Cranberry's song comes to mind...

---

So...Russia and Syria say they shot down about 75% of the missiles late Friday/Early Saturday...zero hit but one malfunctioned. In fact, Syria fired 40 times AFTER we left. Russia activated their systems and was pinged by our defensive aircraft as well as electronic countermeasures aircraft resulting in no engagement. Yesterday Russia and Syria claim the Homs base was hit...95% of missiles intercepted. There were zero operations in the area by anyone...Syria now reports there was no attack and their defensive systems faulted. Hmmm.

A popular Cranberry's song comes to mind...

I guess our Administration and our enemies will continue to let this linger as the rest of us mindlessly buy into the narrative like zombies.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

So...Russia and Syria say they shot down about 75% of the missiles late Friday/Early Saturday...zero hit but one malfunctioned. In fact, Syria fired 40 times AFTER we left. Russia activated their systems and was pinged by our defensive aircraft as well as electronic countermeasures aircraft resulting in no engagement. Yesterday Russia and Syria claim the Homs base was hit...95% of missiles intercepted. There were zero operations in the area by anyone...Syria now reports there was no attack and their defensive systems faulted. Hmmm.

A popular Cranberry's song comes to mind...

I guess our Administration and our enemies will continue to let this linger as the rest of us mindlessly buy into the narrative like zombies.

Well done good sir!

---

So are the reports true that we destroyed Assad's chemical weapons facilities? How did we know about them when the UN inspectors did not? And wouldn't bombing them release clouds of poison gas?

---

The locations were already known to UN inspectors but they have not been allowed access to the sites.  On your second point the gasses would burn off in the explosion.

---

---

So are the reports true that we destroyed Assad's chemical weapons facilities?  How did we know about them when the UN inspectors did not?  And wouldn't bombing them release clouds of poison gas?

I touched on these questions previously. Chemical weapons deployment is deliberate. Accidental or by bombing is ineffective. Chems hate heat and require multiple parts mixed (binaries).

The main facilty in town was for research and housed documentation troves as well. The other two were smaller storage facilites for precursor. None were a real threat to a populace from bombing. Honestly, these were limited attacks/show of force. If anything our military learned a ton from this operation, moreso than the potential lesson learned by Assad. If I was Russia or Iran, I’d feel pretty uneasy about multiple countries being able to conduct these types of ops with relative impunity. Perhaps may have even caught the attention of Nk.

---