Bob,

This is one place where you and I agree on something: Obama fucked up in Syria and fucked up bad. He should have never said that line about the "red line" on chemical attacks unless he was fully willing to back it with US forces and see it all the way through. All he did there was make the US look weak and embolden Assad.

Now we've got a world-class cluster-fuck over there.

Bismark supposedly foresaw WW1 with the statement about "some damned fool thing in the Balkans", well WW3 might start with "some damned fool thing in the Levant", especially given that you've got Iran, Russia, the Kurds and Turkey -- not to mention al Qaeda and ISIS -- all pursuing their interests in the region through Syria.

Right now, Israel and Russia are sabre rattling at each other over those S-300 missiles and each side is all but daring the other to try something.

The best case scenario is a total bloodbath in Idlib and the worst is a shooting war between nuclear-armed opponents. As the old saying goes, "This can only end well".

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

Well that looks utterly stupid.

So... they have bug UAVs and hummingbird UAVs, yet they're targeting the bad guys with antiques?

Also, it's not like this is some imaginary moral dilemma. US forces can, have, and will target innocent civilians WITHOUT confirmation that their actual target is on site. Hell they've attacked wedding parties and hospitals just for shits and giggles (well not quite, but "because some Afghan guy said so" is close enough).

A little history can go a long way. They were in the fight by choice 3 years before we were dragged into action, and over 15% of their nation enlisted, over 10% of their nation fought overseas, a higher percentage than the US for much longer. We hardly protected them from the Japanese, they protected and hosted US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand_during_World_War_II
When Japan entered the war in December 1941, the New Zealand Government raised another expeditionary force, known as the 2nd N.Z.E.F. In the Pacific, or 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.), for service with the Allied Pacific Ocean Areas command. This force supplemented existing garrison troops in the South Pacific. The main fighting formation of the 2nd N.Z.E.F. (I.P.) comprised the New Zealand 3rd Division. However, the 3rd Division never fought as a formation; its component brigades became involved in semi-independent actions as part of the Allied forces in the Solomons, Treasury Islands and Green Island.
Eventually, American formations replaced the New Zealand army units in the Pacific, which released personnel for service with the 2nd Division in Italy, or to cover shortages in the civilian labour-force. New Zealand Air Force squadrons and Navy units contributed to the Allied island-hopping campaign.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/us-forces-in-new-zealand
"The American soldier found himself ‘deep in the heart of the South Seas’, in the words of his army-issue pocket guide. He usually came here either before or immediately after experiencing the horror of war on a Pacific island, and he found a land of milk and honey (literally), of caring mothers and ‘pretty girls’."
"So the ‘American invasion’ (as New Zealanders affectionately called it) brought a considerable clash of cultures. "

Sorry to inconvenience your feelings and expressions of superiority with some facts.

Enhances communication for US forces on the moon?! Did I hear the commentator's description of the satellite correctly?

Would have made an ideal cheap export weapon for our then "friends" to use in counter-insurgency.

Low countermeasures, not bulletproofed, one engine---anywhere where the pilots were a relatively cheap commodity, it would have been a useful add on.

Anywhere else, for US Forces, given the cost of training pilots---
Probably not really economical.

If the Army was allowed to have fixed wing aircraft (it's not; that's part of the deal with having the Air Force)---then I bet they'd would have wanted it for a counter-insurgency role, where the other guy had no airplanes and no SAMS/heavy anti aircraft---but that doesn't describe the world of the 1980s and the Fulda Gap very accurately lol

Mark me now, it's not ISIS that we should be worried about in this from a humanitarian perspective. ISIS are probably the nastiest bunch, but Nouri al-Maliki has been noted and marked as nothing more than thug from day one. The entire time US forces were in Iraq they spent most of their time protecting Sunni's(ISIS is a Sunni group) from al-Maliki's forces taking revenge.

I have almost no doubts that al-Maliki can easily suppress and crush ISIS, and more over is just itching for ISIS to make themselves out bad enough that he can 'justify' brutally and totally crushing them and by proxy all Sunni Iraqis.

End game is a relatively quick and brutal move by al-Maliki to 'stabilize' the region with some truly ugly war crimes. Hopefully at least the end will also leave a new border drawn recognizing Kurdistan as separate region and at least there some semblance of law and order and decency might survive,

Ahem.

John Sedgwick, Union Army general was warned by his men to keep his head down while surveying Confederate lines in 1864.

His reply, literally was, "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist--"

War of 1812, Battle of Queenston Heights, US forces were planning a major assault and they wanted to be organized, so each type of supply was put in a boat of its own. Unfortunately, the boat with all the oars left first and nobody else could cross.

Stupidity is not generation-specific.

Though I do agree it seems to be getting worse.

Really? So if Iran had a military base in the US would it just be about the threat to the US governments power or would there be a principle of non-interference, autonomy and, I hate to say it, national pride at stake?

Besides, it is now impossible to differentiate Al Queda from the exclusive entity it was pre-911 to the inclusive, against-the-West-and-you're-in animal it has become. Until 2003-4 it had no stance on Israel until it needed to recruit more people and used it as propaganda to get more people on board. With Saudi Arabia it had very achievable and pragmatic demands pre-911- get US forces out. In 2007 all but 20-40 troops exited. I feel that even with the complete withdrawal AQ would still find something else to protest in order to warrant their actions.

What the F gives the company the right to force people to wear a stupid sticker every day? What part of this sticker gets in the way of his duties as an employee?
The stupid things, companies in the US, force their employees to do astounds me.

If I was at a job, and I was forced to wear this kind of crap, I'd have walked out on the first day - It's demeaning and it makes my blood boil just thinking about it. A name tag which identifies you when you may see people in your job who may not know you is one thing, but a safety sticker? I'm sure there are more important things to worry about in here. Put the sticker on the wall.

People are not your personal billboards just because you employ them.
(*Sorry, having a bad morning...)

About which part? That we don't criminally charge the enemy soldiers in a war before shooting them? That courts have generally upheld the Bush "it's a war, so I don't need to listen to Constitutional protections for criminals" view?

That it's a crappy way for things to be and that it should be changed?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^NetRunner:
Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

I usually agree with you...but you're wrong here.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.


I usually agree with you...but you're wrong here.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^blankfist:

Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.


Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.

This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.

It doesn't work that way.

Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.

It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.