Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tucker Carlson Reminds Us of What It Means to Go to War
Lately, Tucker Carlson has been my favorite of the Fox News talking heads. Right now, he happens to be the only voice out there who is carefully examining the latest of the USA Must Go To War chorus that sprung up against the alleged “Assad-led” use of chlorine gas against Syrian civilians in a Damascus suburb.
He reminds us that we still do not know if Assad was behind the last attack utilizing poison gas — an attack that occurred just about one year ago. He touches on the rather famous notion, via Sherlock Holmes, of what question to ask before assigning a criminal mind to a particular crime: who benefits? Tucker points out quite rightly that Assad had just heard that Trump was pulling the US out of Syria days before this attack. So why would Assad do this now? Assad may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.
Tucker then points out that there are many reasons to avoid dropping bombs and going into a full-fledged hot war against the people of Syria. Seventy people died in this chlorine gas attack. Should we avenge those deaths by killing thousands or tens of thousands more people? And included in the new number of possible war dead would be the surviving members of one of the only intact Christian communities in the Middle East.
Here is the pertinent video of Carlson’s rant against this new war:
https://youtu.be/U0niyl-vDBk
.
Published in General
Is anyone talking about bombing civilian populations? I don’t think so.
Because Trump announced he was pulling out? See also, Obama, Iraq, withdrawal.
So we should just stay in the hell hole of the Middle East forever? How many more trillions? How many more dead Americans? And for what?
Obama was right to pull out of Iraq. Trump would have been right to pull out of Syria. And why should anyone care if they kill each other? The means really doesn’t matter. Just get the hell out and stay out. Don’t allow the media clowns to drag us back in.
Oh, and also do not take any of the refugees and all of the pathologies that accompany them. Your remedy is to fight pointless wars to create streams of refugees to welcome to our shores. It doesn’t work. It’s worse than it doesn’t work.
Everyone who is gung-ho about launching a massive attack on Syria in response to the”gas attack” has a lot more faith in videos produced by radical Islamist militias than I do.
Sure, SAA might not be a rational actor but the timing makes no sense. The Douma pocket (where the chlorine attack happened) was days away from being fully closed and the militants there were already agreeing to lay down arms and be bussed to Idlib.
Syria is a S-show and our intervention will only make things worse and more complicated. Not only that, but the war is winding down with the Syrian Government coming out on top. A large strike on their military capabilities will only unnecessarily prolong the war – thus costing more civilian lives.
Done with Trump if he goes through with a large scale assault.
A symbolic bloody nose a la the last missle strike, sure – but a large military action is a betrayal to his base.
Even if collateral damage from potential strikes are low – kneecapping the Syrian military will unnecessarily prolong a war that is winding down – thus leading to more civilian deaths.
Actual regime change, which I hope is not on the table, would trigger a massive genocide against the minority populstions in Syria. Like it or not, the Government-controlled areas of Syria are pluralistic while the areas held by Islamic rebels are basically Sunni-only.
And again, not saying war has to make sense, but why would Trump’s poised withdrawal make the Syrians do the ONLY THING that would keep USA involved? Qui Bono, as OP said, is the right question to ask – and the answer is the Islamist rebels.
There may be more going on behind the scenes where we don’t know the full picture. It seems Israel is confirming this attack, and further, that Iran and Russia have Israel in their sites – and they are preparing. The foothold that Russia and Iran have in keeping everyone focused on Syria, where they are embedded to do damage in many ways, is strategic and evil. Maybe both the US and Israel are sending Iran and Russia a strong message? It’s a very high stakes chess game with dire consequences for all.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5226425,00.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liberman-we-cannot-allow-an-iranian-chokehold-in-syria/
We Americans are blinded by our optimism. We continue to believe that anytime you get rid of a tyrant the natural order (peace, rule of law, prosperity) returns just like it did wherever we kicked out Hitler or Tojo.
The natural order in most of the Muslim world is tribalism and corruption and all that flows from that. Mubarak fell and we got the Islamic Brotherhood. Obama ceased to ride herd on Maliki and thus failed to honor deal “the surge” was sent to effect and we got ISIS. And we had the corrupt Maliki in place because Bush ousted Saddam. Obama ousted Gaddafi and we got chaos and a dead ambassador. Have we changed the social and political structure in Afghanistan after 17 years of war? Has anything close to (what we think is) the natural order of things emerged there?
Few would mourn if a MOAB were dropped on Assad but what will emerge in his place? What is the end game? Until we have more clear-headed answers to that questions, Syria is just another Muslim world quagmire.
Tucker needs to do a little more research. He mentioned the fact that the Vagner Battalions (Russian Mercs) lost around 300 men due to American airstrikes and artillery fire in Syria. He forgot to mention that American advisors had been observing the build up and called the Russian hotline, and the Russians lied and said they weren’t aware of any activity. He also forgot to mention that there is an agreement between the Russians and American forces that Russian forces will not cross the Euphrates River. Well the Russians broke the agreement, crossed the river to attack the US base and lost 200 men in the first 10 minutes of the engagement.
Tucker also forgets the US monitors all air activity over Syria. All aircraft are tracked and American forces can tell if they are on bombing and strafing runs. The chemical attacks come after air activity over specific areas. US forces can also monitor artillery strikes as well.
Tucker has good mind, but he front loads his questions with a premise, and sometimes those questions do not include all the facts.
Why should who did the chemical attack matter?
It is the Syrian government attacking Syrians. So it is nobody else’s business. Full stop.
Trump is being baited in by the neocon, never ending war, US must fix all that is wrong in the world stupidity.
Perhaps Assad, or his loosely controlled forces, launched the attack as a final gesture of dominance and unrestrained brutal options.
Perhaps the Islamist resistance created a WMD event to bring America back into the fight.
In either case, and assuming the Assad regime is consolidating power, how does it hurt to destroy Assad’s air force?
The problem is that the Syrians and Russians in their wholesale slaughter of Syrian civilians affects Western Europe. How many Syrian refugees has Russia accepted? Zero is the answer. Russia knows full well that these refugees are going to France, Italy, Germany, Britain, as well as other European countries. Russia knows that this is destabilizing Western Europe, but they don’t care, or maybe that’s the plan.
They show the same concern that they showed on a military grade nerve agent attack on Britain, lets not forget their polonium attack on Britain that left a radioactive trail across London.
Somehow your comments convey a rather complete trust in US intelligence as it charges Assad and his Russian allies with these events. The rebels in Syria, who have benefited from American assistance including involvement of the CIA (whose help has definitely been anti-Assad even when helping Sunni terrorists), will be the benefactors of our taking action. This could mean they were involved in this event rather than Assad. Our CIA has much diminished credibility from their poor performance over the last two decades. This makes White House decisions require even greater research and deliberation.
Oh, and why have such concern about Western Europe, they don’t seem to care to do anything.
Somehow your comments reflect a complete trust in Russian talking points. I was not aware that so called Sunni terrorists have either the expertise or the means to deliver chemical weapons, much less a stockpile that can be delivered during a Syrian air force bombing run. I find it odd that these attacks occur during Syrian air force attacks.
I don’t know who you’re referring to. I’m not advocating invasion. Just trying to keep the messages straight: It’s bad to say “red line” and do nothing, as Obama did. It’s bad to announce your strategies in advance to let the other side know what you’re doing, as Trump accused Obama of doing. It’s bad to pull out precipitously, as Trump also said.
Now we’re in a position where the previous chemical weapons attack brought a response, and thus a new attack must bring a response or they’ll conclude – correctly – that there’s no price to pay for using the weapons. That’s the issue – the use of banned weapons. No one’s begging for reprisals against Russia for the brutality of their actions, because they’re not using poison.
Not really. I just have little trust in ours. I think a response along the lines of the last one may be appropriate. No new help to the rebels and no troops on the ground. By the way, our intelligence said Saddam Hussein had such weapons and he was a Sunni political leader.
Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the war, and unfortunately our government did not warn our troops of the danger involved in disposing of them.
Many people who are not given to propaganda could care less about Israel and what that nation is or isn’t confirming. Let the Israelis fight their own wars – we pay that nation enough to have a strong military.
The Russians predicted that back in mid-March 2018 that there would be another gas attacks by those they refer to as militants. Not only do many people in the USA believe that such militants have a connection to our CIA, Trump himself cut off much of the funding that was being used for the militants in Syria to perpetuate wars. For instance, back in 2016, there were two factions in Syria out fighting each other – and both factions were funded by the US. How does continuing this policy make sense to anyone but CIA officers itching for promotion, and the Military/Industrial/Surveillance Complex and their contractors?
So here is the take from the media viewed by those of us who support Mr Trump and hope to heck he keeps his pledge to keep us out of the Middle East entanglements.
Yes the Swamp wants war, and the Swamp has also dictated, since the time of George the Elder, that it is okay to go into a region for some reason or other ( Kuwaiti babies pulled out of incubators, mushroom clouds, weapons of Mass Destruction) and pull off a war, but have no Marshall Plan in place after the goal of the war is attained.
https://youtu.be/_K0I0Aa84QE
For the record, Israel has no interest whatsoever in our fighting, or helping to fight, their wars.
Bwahahaha…
Anyone here want to know the skinny on how we got into Syria in the first place? As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was part of some business dealings such that Qatar, and Saudi Officials put out the word that they needed the USA involved in a war against the nation of Syria.
So the whole reason behind why the Saudis and Qatar people wanted the war was this one: there was an entrenched battle by those interests, plus the nation of France to take over Libya, due to Libya’s President Ghaddafi having some 320 Billions of dollars of gold bullion. However, the US Congress had placed down sanctions such that weaponry from the USA could not go to Libya. However if there was a live war against Syria, US weapons could move from Syria across the land or by mid sized boats over to Libya, and then the various interested parties could get their hands on all that gold bullion.
So in mid summer 2013, Obama finally utilized his bully pulpit to explain to the citizens that we all needed this war in Syria. Once on TV in prime time, he pleaded with us to fax, phone, email or write our Congress critters. And so we did. But the majority of us, some 87%, let Congress know we were sick of the un-ending, never-to-be won wars where we already were fighting. So all the activities that came about in Syria had to do with our CIA funding various rebel militants.
Our government also was behind the brutal murder of Ghaddaffi, and then once he was out of the way, that bullion went missing. The gold is rumored to have been gotten by the officials from France, but who knows, right? … And Hillary saw a 32 million dollar donation posted to The Clinton Foundation shortly after or during these activities, from her friends in Saudia Arabia and Qatar.
Perhaps the most peaceful solution then is for the West to repel these refugees.
The idea of “flipping societies” is a much discussed neo con tactic. The notion that people in Europe and America are experiencing falling fertility rates allows for the experts to state that “there is a need for new and younger workers” to prop up the social insurance systems of various nations so that the elderly are not left without their Social Security and its equivalents.
The “experts” also present the matter of accepting new immigrants as one of virtue and values. Humane, loving people are open to letting a moderate number of needy refugees or immigrants into their own nations. The public is educated to the “fact” that despicable White Supremacists (i.e. anyone who is not wanting rampant immigration) hate everyone who is not white and they should be dealt with first by having hate crime legislation passed and also by letting the public realize that scorn should be heaped on such despicable people.
Last year, there were laws passed in Germany that stripped the classrooms there of the crucifixes. These religious items had been in Germany classrooms for hundreds of years. At the same time the crucifix was out, there was continual prattle by TV, radio and internet spokes people and writers that everyone should give the utmost respect to Muslim practices, as the religion of the new comers is important.
Already the United Nations has put together legislation mandating that every nation that has an affluent society must accept refugees and immigrants. Remember, John Podesta sits on the Council at the UN. And Barack Obama has been suggested for the position of Secretary General of the UN.
I am of the belief that tucked inside the 2,000 plus pages of the defeated Trans Pacific Plan was a comprehensive policy that would hve mandated that Australia and the other Pacific Rim nations would have been forced to set aside their strict immigration laws and instead accept as many immigrants as wished to arrive. In Australia, this would soon mean the nation was run by Asians. I am also of the belief that should the Swamp not manage to toss Trump out for some aspect of something or other, the United Nations will be considering the inhumanity of Trump installing our military on our borders as Trump’s way of preventing immigration. Call me paranoid, but that is how I see the future.
Would you happen to have a source, and link for this information?
Here is a discussion from the New Stateman, regarding the British investigation of how and why that nation got sucked into the 2003 on going war against the nation if Iraq:
The most unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre moment of the day occurred when Tony Blair, for some inexplicable reason, volunteered the following revelation about his all-important meeting with George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, back in April 2002:
Blair and Bush had “conversations” with “Israelis” while they were alone in Crawford, having a behind-closed-doors, private meeting about Iraq? Which Israelis? Were they present, or on the phone? Did the Israelis express a view about Saddam Hussein, WMDs or “regime change”? How many other Iraq-related meetings or discussions were the Israelis involved in?
_______________________________________
If a person utilizes a search engine to see if it has bothered anyone about exactly what the relationship was between the US and Israel, with regards to the Iraq Wars, there are over 2.5 million citations.
I asked a specific question in comment #24 involving specific statements that you made. I’ll just assume that you don’t have a source and link for those statements.
This makes no sense. USA under Obama and Hillary caused much more of the Refugee crisis than Syria/Russia. USA backed rebels, even radical ones, for years – prolonging the war. Also much of the refugee crisis goes through Libya, which Obama/Hillary decided to turn into a warzone and was also used to funnel weapons into Syria.
The sooner the Syrian War is over, the better for everyone – USA and Europe included.
The term “Neo Con” is becoming elastic to the point of uselessness. Actual def:
It’s a foreign policy term, but over time it became it because used to denote Globalists. Or, as these things usually go, Jews.
And there’s 1.4 million on chemtrails. But the unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre Blair statement doesn’t seem unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre at all if you read the entire exchange:
Blair’s unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre statement says they didn’t discuss the specifics about a possible Iraq war because they were more concerned with the Palestinians attacks on Israel. They met in April 2002; the previous month, Black March, there had been a suicide bomb every other day in Israel. There was the usual international concern and pressure for Israel to do concede so the Palestinians would stop blowing them up.
Blair was already on board with supporting the US against Saddam before the meeting.
Two normally-OK-except-for-anything-having-to-do-with-foreign-policy commentators are Tucker Carlson and PJ O’Rourke. They often exhibit significant irresponsibility in their isolationist rants. At least PJ is a) funny and b) someone who comes from a normal, non-privileged background.
I tend to believe that Mattis, Bolton, and Pompeo are a lot smarter than Tucker Carlson (Trump is not, and he is even more self-impressed than Tucker is). The significant problems we currently face are the direct result of Obama (and, with regard to the NORKs, Condi Rice, Albright, Jimmy Carter, et al) following essentially the policies that Carlson wants the US to embrace today.
You can always have peace today- Stanley Baldwin and Frank Kellogg ensured peace in their times, leaving the world to pick up the fragments at great cost a decade later.