Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2018, 4:27 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
However, we do know that our armed forces have led/coordinated attacks on Russian troops in Syria resulting in Russian deaths

Actually the Russians attacked a US/Rebel position.

I thought that Trump dropping a monster bomb on a Syrian airfield was supposed to stop the use of poison gas, and deter Syrian or Russian agression against the US?
Didn't work out huh?


I know you only go to liberal sites, but even they know more than you do. #notsurprised

Recent U.S-led coalition airstrikes targeting forces supportive of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad killed a number of Russians fighting on behalf of the Syrian leader, according to associates of the slain fighters and independent researchers.

Maxim Buga, a Cossack community leader in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, told Reuters Monday that local Vladimir Loginov was among "dozens" of Russian fighters killed by U.S.-led coalition forces, which clashed with pro-Syrian government forces on February 7 near the eastern Syrian town of Khusham, Deir Ezzor province.


http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-kil ... rts-803949

The second official said given the believed relationship between the contractors and the Russian government, it is difficult to imagine that Russian military forces in Syria were not aware of the contractors' activities and involvement in the attack. That official also said the military assesses that some of the Russian contractors were killed in the US counterstrike.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics ... index.html

If you knew half of what you think you know, that might be evident.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 9:42 am

ricky
Actually the Russians attacked a US/Rebel position


from your own source:

According to a coalition statement, its strikes were carried out after forces allied with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "initiated an unprovoked attack" against a well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters where coalition advisers were working with US-backed Syrian fighters.


read much?

You got a snappy reply to this?
I thought that Trump dropping a monster bomb on a Syrian airfield was supposed to stop the use of poison gas, and deter Syrian or Russian agression against the US?
Didn't work out huh?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 10:02 am

rickyp wrote:ricky
Actually the Russians attacked a US/Rebel position


from your own source:

According to a coalition statement, its strikes were carried out after forces allied with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "initiated an unprovoked attack" against a well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters where coalition advisers were working with US-backed Syrian fighters.


read much?

You got a snappy reply to this?
I thought that Trump dropping a monster bomb on a Syrian airfield was supposed to stop the use of poison gas, and deter Syrian or Russian agression against the US?
Didn't work out huh?


You're a jackass.

What I said was true. You don't even reply to it. The Russians attacked, killing no Americans. We led attacks killing many Russians.

So, shut up. Or, go put on some native garb and make a fool of yourself like your PM.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 10:50 am

Whether they killed any Americans or not, the Russians and Syrians attacked a position where US personnel were.

Usually that would be considered an act of war. Usually we would expect the US to respond, with force. And they did.

And now Putin is sabre rattling about the might of Russian military power and how NATO defences would be powerless.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 8:00 am

danivon wrote:Whether they killed any Americans or not, the Russians and Syrians attacked a position where US personnel were.

Usually that would be considered an act of war. Usually we would expect the US to respond, with force. And they did.

And now Putin is sabre rattling about the might of Russian military power and how NATO defences would be powerless.


Regardless of the nuances of who attacked whom, certainly doesn't sound like collusion to me ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 8:07 am

Ricky:
I thought that Trump dropping a monster bomb on a Syrian airfield was supposed to stop the use of poison gas, and deter Syrian or Russian agression against the US?


The US seems to have determined that sarin gas is not acceptable but chlorine is ok. I'd like for us to be more forceful with the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians. By the Way, the chlorine capability seems to have been provided by North Korea. NK had previously provided nuclear weapon facilities to Syria, but these were destroyed by Israel back in 2007 (which the US administration protested at the time, just like we protested the destruction of Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities prior to that).

Perhaps it's time to truly understand what evil looks like? The US may be plodding, ill informed, and often mistaken, but Russia, Iran, Syria, and NK are evil regimes and need to be treated as such.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 9:58 am

Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:Whether they killed any Americans or not, the Russians and Syrians attacked a position where US personnel were.

Usually that would be considered an act of war. Usually we would expect the US to respond, with force. And they did.

And now Putin is sabre rattling about the might of Russian military power and how NATO defences would be powerless.


Regardless of the nuances of who attacked whom, certainly doesn't sound like collusion to me ...
Well, have you ever heard the phrase "Useful Idiots"?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Mar 2018, 12:13 pm

Trump is beholden to Russia...Russia is not beholden to Trump. In any case, Trump does not have magical control over the reactions of local US military commanders.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 12:33 pm

freeman3 wrote:Trump is beholden to Russia...Russia is not beholden to Trump. In any case, Trump does not have magical control over the reactions of local US military commanders.


Yes, but Putin has "magical control" over Trump.

:rolleyes:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Mar 2018, 12:55 pm

Apparently he does...because Trump seems incapable of saying something negative about Putin. Either Trump is beholden to Putin or there is some kind of bromance there...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 1:04 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:The only thing boring is your insistence on conviction sans evidence. Trump is a bad person. He didn’t collude and there is zero evidence of it.


You should not be defending him. I expect you agree that he has absolutely no moral compass and that he's likely capable of doing almost anything. You can complain that Freeman is going off with little evidence, that's fine, but I would never say Donald Trump didn't do something so emphatically. You don't know, I don't know, but he's capable of doing just about anything.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 1:39 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:The only thing boring is your insistence on conviction sans evidence. Trump is a bad person. He didn’t collude and there is zero evidence of it.


You should not be defending him. I expect you agree that he has absolutely no moral compass and that he's likely capable of doing almost anything. You can complain that Freeman is going off with little evidence, that's fine, but I would never say Donald Trump didn't do something so emphatically. You don't know, I don't know, but he's capable of doing just about anything.


He's capable of doing a lot of things. However, I don't think he is capable of that. And, to this point, still nothing concrete--not even close.

Here's the thing: I don't like him. I don't like much of anything about him. I knew he'd waffle. I knew he'd cause confusion and crisis. I knew he would propose old-school Democratic policies--like tariffs. However, I also know he was resigned to losing on election night. He did not believe he was going to win.

On the other hand, Hillary was confident. 100% sure.

She has no moral compass. She has no conscience. She has always been about herself.

Would she have been steadier? I think so. However, her moral compass is predictable. She'll always choose what is best for her. Hillary first; country second.

Trump? He *thinks* he's doing what is best for the country. The problem is he's got a cockamamie, spin-the-bottle, political philosophy. With him, policy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.

However, he's not always self-aggrandizing. She is.

The voters had two choices. She lost. I've never regretted that.

I had a McMuffin.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 4:25 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:He's capable of doing a lot of things. However, I don't think he is capable of that.


Why do you think he's not capable of colluding with Russians? I think he's capable of doing and thinking nearly anything. Wondering what makes you think he's not capable of that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 5:11 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:He's capable of doing a lot of things. However, I don't think he is capable of that.


Why do you think he's not capable of colluding with Russians? I think he's capable of doing and thinking nearly anything. Wondering what makes you think he's not capable of that.


1. I don't think he wanted to win that badly.
2. I see no evidence that there's anything "in it" for him. If he lost, so what?
3. While there are many things he is capable of doing, I don't think that something approaching treason is in his range of choices.
4. If there was anything remotely resembling that, the Republican establishment would be outing him. He has no loyalty there.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2018, 5:39 pm

I suspect that someone is going to have "egg" on their face when all this is over.

Trump was willing to work with Russia--that was shown by the Don, Jr. meeting. So the above points about why Trump would not be willing to do it have already shown to be incorrect. He was willing to do it! Else he wouldn't have had his son go to that meeting. Unless you believe that Trump did not know about that meeting.

Trump was willing to be helped by Russia. Russia within a short time after that time did help Trump. Trump officials were thereafter active in cultivating better relations with Russia during the transition.

With all that...pretty hard to be that confident that nothing was going on.