McCain: Russia cooperated with Syria in chemical attack

[anatta]

the latest from the greatest neo-con..
http://abcnews.go.com/International...sia-cooperated-syria-chemical-attack-46704406

U.S. Senator John McCain accused Russia on Monday of having cooperated with Syrian government forces in a chemical weapons attack that has killed more than 80 people, including more than a dozen children.

The Republican senator said at a press conference in Belgrade that he believes "the Russians knew about chemical weapons because they were operating exactly from the same base."

He said the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes last week against the Syrian base "in a response of a chemical attack."

"I hope that this behavior by Syria, in what clearly is cooperation with Russia and Syria together, will never happen again," he said.

McCain said the U.S. should take out Syria's air force as part of stopping Syrian President Bashar Assad from repeating such attacks in the future.

"I would prevent Bashar Assad from flying from his airfields if he doesn't renounce the use of these weapons," the former American airman said. "The United States should first tell Russia that this kind of a war crime is unacceptable in the world today."

He said the upcoming visit by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow should "lead to an agreement on the part of the Russians that they will not allow Syria to ever again use chemical weapons."

"Remember, Russians made that commitment after they (Syrian government forces) crossed the so-called red line back in 2014. I hope that this will be the first item on the agenda," McCain said.

He also said he would "make sure that we arm and train some of those who fight against Bashar Assad."

 

[anatta]

1st off "knowledge of" is not cooperation despite the claim from the Great Neo-con.

2. "arming Syrian rebels" -have we not tried this? Inevitable trying to arm the secularists (FSA types)
whiled keeping the arms from the Islamic rebels is impossible.
al-Nusra now has TOW missiles we armed up the FSA with

AND "bombing the airfields" ( which was also Clinton's idea -the other neocon) takes out Syrian air and also Russian air
which of course is a terrible escalation and a de facto war against Russia.

Think what you will about Russia,but do we really want to conflict w/Putin over Syria??

 

[evince]

Even as the U.S. military takes on a greater role in the warfare in Iraq and Syria, the Trump administration has stopped disclosing significant information about the size and nature of the U.S. commitment, including the number of U.S. troops deployed in either country.
Earlier this month, the Pentagon quietly dispatched 400 Marines to northern Syria to operate artillery in support of Syrian militias that are cooperating in the fight against Islamic State, according to U.S. officials. That was the first use of U.S. Marines in that country since its long civil war began.
In Iraq, nearly 300 Army paratroopers were deployed recently to help the Iraqi military in their six-month assault on the city of Mosul, according to U.S. officials.
Neither of those deployments was announced once they had been made, a departure from the practice of the Obama administration, which announced nearly all conventional force deployments.







http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...330-story.html



Trump administration stops disclosing troop deployments in Iraq and Syria

 

[Buckly J. Ewer]

McCain only tells half the story.
Not only is there no way that Putin didn't have knowledge of the chemical attack before hand but there is no way he didn't know about the Tomahawk missile attack before hand...
He called for and coordinated both attacks to manipulate the media.
Mission Accomplished Vlad!

 

[Element-22-Cat]

1st off "knowledge of" is not cooperation despite the claim from the Great Neo-con.

Sure, but if they know Syria is going to use chemical weapons and they do nothing to stop it, how are they not complicit? They are "cooperating" by not doing what they were supposed to do, they were supposed to be the guarantor that Syria no longer possessed and used chemical weapons.

2. "arming Syrian rebels" -have we not tried this? Inevitable trying to arm the secularists (FSA types)
whiled keeping the arms from the Islamic rebels is impossible.
al-Nusra now has TOW missiles we armed up the FSA with

AND "bombing the airfields" ( which was also Clinton's idea -the other neocon) takes out Syrian air and also Russian air
which of course is a terrible escalation and a de facto war against Russia.

Think what you will about Russia,but do we really want to conflict w/Putin over Syria??

Significant points, and Tillerson and Haley have both again reiterated that going after ISIS is the number one priority for the US and going against Assad almost certainly degrades the ability to achieve that goal. It's complicated.

 

[Rune]

1st off "knowledge of" is not cooperation despite the claim from the Great Neo-con.

2. "arming Syrian rebels" -have we not tried this? Inevitable trying to arm the secularists (FSA types)
whiled keeping the arms from the Islamic rebels is impossible.
al-Nusra now has TOW missiles we armed up the FSA with

AND "bombing the airfields" ( which was also Clinton's idea -the other neocon) takes out Syrian air and also Russian air
which of course is a terrible escalation and a de facto war against Russia.

Think what you will about Russia,but do we really want to conflict w/Putin over Syria??

Idiot;McCain argued withactual neo-cons against the use of torture. He is NOT a neo-con.

Hillary is a neo-lib. You are just an idiot.

That aside, of course he is working with Russians you imbecile. Syria is the site of the only Russian military base outside Russia.
Furthermore, Russia, having been tasked with removing the chemical weapons form Syria is clearly culpable. You are an idiot.

 

[Element-22-Cat]

Idiot;McCain argued withactual neo-cons against the use of torture. He is NOT a neo-con.

Hillary is a neo-lib. You are just an idiot.

That aside, of course he is working with Russians you imbecile. Syria is the site of the only Russian military base outside Russia.
Furthermore, Russia, having been tasked with removing the chemical weapons form Syria is clearly culpable. You are an idiot.

Come on Rune, just because he took a stance against torture that differed from most neocons, doesn't mean McCain isn't a neocon in just about every other way. He has been a consistent uber-hawk globalist.

 

[anatta]

Sure, but if they know Syria is going to use chemical weapons and they do nothing to stop it, how are they not complicit? They are "cooperating" by not doing what they were supposed to do, they were supposed to be the guarantor that Syria no longer possessed and used chemical weapons.

from what i've read Russia was tasked with removal of "known" chem weapons.
were these known?
As to "cooperation -that sound very much like aiding and abetting -which we haven't seen so far.

Significant points, and Tillerson and Haley have both again reiterated that going after ISIS is the number one priority for the US and going against Assad almost certainly degrades the ability to achieve that goal. It's complicated.

I used to follow the battles more closely, but Assad goes more after the "rebels" then ISIS
-same with Russia...they cooperate on targeting -no doubt. But ISIS is secondary to both

 

[anatta]

Idiot;McCain argued withactual neo-cons against the use of torture. He is NOT a neo-con.

Hillary is a neo-lib. You are just an idiot.

That aside, of course he is working with Russians you imbecile. Syria is the site of the only Russian military base outside Russia.
Furthermore, Russia, having been tasked with removing the chemical weapons form Syria is clearly culpable. You are an idiot.

*duh* Syria is a Russian client state, so of course they cooperate .
the McCain charge ( and I don't use neo-lib/neocon as their isn't any daylight between the terms)..neocons they are

 

[Rune]

test #5

 

[Element-22-Cat]

from what i've read Russia was tasked with removal of "known" chem weapons.
were these known?

No that wasn't their specific task, inspectors for the anti-proliferation organization went to the sites and then a variety of countries help transport the stockpiles and destroy them. The US destroyed a fair portion of the stockpiles. Russia was the one who was supposed to put the leash on Assad and stop him from doing it again.

As to "cooperation -that sound very much like aiding and abetting -which we haven't seen so far.

Tillerson said on Saturday they were either complicit or incompetent, then on Sunday he said he didn't see any complicity at all which is odd. There is the AP story from yesterday that hearkens to an internal US report saying the Russians knew and suggests they might of tried covering it up with a drone strike on the hospital afterwards. But it is from an unnamed official and another unnamed official said it was just a preliminary conclusion. No specific evidence was given.

I usd to follow the battle more closely, but Assad goes more after the "rebels" then ISIS-same with ISIS...they cooperate on targeting -no doubt. But ISIS is secondary to both

Of course, Assad's number one goal is staying in power, going after the rebels is much more important than going after ISIS. And the same with Russia, propping up Assad is goal #1.

The US has already made big reductions in the number of air attacks against ISIS targets in Syria because of the uncertainty involved with Syrian and Russian air defenses and possible actions. Assad is bad, we've known that for a long time, and ISIS is bad, but can you go after both of them at the same time effectively? Which is the "vital national security interest", stopping Assad or stopping ISIS? Just about everyone has made the case that ISIS is a vital national security issue, but Assad is not in the same category.

 

[Rune]

Come on Rune, just because he took a stance against torture that differed from most neocons, doesn't mean McCain isn't a neocon in just about every other way. He has been a consistent uber-hawk globalist.

With respect Brother, words have very specific meanings. McCain simply isn't a neo-con.

To use extremely specific words such as neo-con incorrectly as anatta does routinely is to weaken the language and make clear communication more difficult and verbose.

 

[anatta]

No that wasn't their specific task, inspectors for the anti-proliferation organization went to the sites and then a variety of countries help transport the stockpiles and destroy them. The US destroyed a fair portion of the stockpiles. Russia was the one who was supposed to put the leash on Assad and stop him from doing it again.

was that codified in writing or an understanding? ( Russia leashing asad) -
i'm not saying I doubt you,but i've never heard that? any cites?

Tillerson said on Saturday they were either complicit or incompetent, then on Sunday he said he didn't see any complicity at all which is odd. There is the AP story from yesterday that hearkens to an internal US report saying the Russians knew and suggests they might of tried covering it up with a drone strike on the hospital afterwards. But it is from an unnamed official and another unnamed official said it was just a preliminary conclusion. No specific evidence was given.

the AP story is rife with speculation -it reads like an IC reports based on shaky raw evidence. If Russia is actualy doing that..yikes
I think they will get this settled once Tillerson comes back from Russia

Of course, Assad's number one goal is staying in power, going after the rebels is much more important than going after ISIS. And the same with Russia, propping up Assad is goal #1.

The US has already made big reductions in the number of air attacks against ISIS targets in Syria because of the uncertainty involved with Syrian and Russian air defenses and possible actions. Assad is bad, we've known that for a long time, and ISIS is bad, but can you go after both of them at the same time effectively? Which is the "vital national security interest", stopping Assad or stopping ISIS? Just about everyone has made the case that ISIS is a vital national security issue, but Assad is not in the same category.

we could have, but now there is no "de-confliction" agreement -the last thing anybody needs is US-Russian air conflicts

 

[Rune]

*duh* Syria is a Russian client state, so of course they cooperate .
the McCain charge ( and I don't use neo-lib/neocon as their isn't any daylight between the terms)..neocons they are

Wrong again tweedle dumb.

I told you exactly why and it has nothing to do with being a client state you ignorant POS

 

[Element-22-Cat]

With respect Brother, words have very specific meanings. McCain simply isn't a neo-con.

To use extremely specific words such as neo-con incorrectly as anatta does routinely is to weaken the language and make clear communication more difficult and verbose.

How is he not? He has supported attacking numerous countries and the invasion and occupation of some of those countries, as part of a global projection of US power.

Is there a point in wordsmithing the definition of neo-con when he has supported the wars of the neo-cons and supported the wars of the neo-libs (if you want to differentiate them)?

 

[anatta]

Wrong again tweedle dumb.

I told you exactly why and it has nothing to do with being a client state you ignorant POS

ROFL..so now you are going to lecture me on Syria??
The CLIENT STATE relationship surpasses any bases or upgrades to Tartus- yes Russia is build bases for Russian land and AF- but would it be doing so if Syria wasn't a client state? would Syria allow it?

 

[Element-22-Cat]

was that codified in writing or an understanding? ( Russia leashing asad) -
i'm not saying I doubt you,but i've never heard that? any cites?

I don't know what was specifically coded, the agreement is another long winded resolution. But it was certainly an understanding, that's why the Russians got involved. They were the only ones who had true influence on Assad.

the AP story is rife with speculation -it reads like an IC reports based on shaky raw evidence. If Russia is actualy doing that..yikes
I think they will get this settled once Tillerson comes back from Russia

Yes I know it is a lot of speculation, and as I said they didn't present the actual evidence.

we could have, but now there is no "de-confliction" agreement -the last thing anybody needs is US-Russian air conflicts

But previous to the last Syria chem strike, the strategy specifically stated that it was of beneficial interest in fighting ISIS to not go after Assad and to maximize cooperation with Syria and Russia instead. In fact that is still the policy stated by Tillerson on Sunday, and to a degree by Haley as well. So it is hard to unwind that and destroy the cooperation without reducing your ability to fight ISIS in the region.

 

[Rune]

ROFL..so now you are going to lecture me on Syria??
The CLIENT STATE relationship surpasses any bases or upgrades to Tartus- yes Russia is build bases for Russian land and AF- but would it be doing so if Syria wasn't a client state? would Syria allow it?

One more time, It is Russia's only foreign base and consider how strategic the location is. That is the only issue.

FYI, I lecture you every day, on things as mundane as that sawdust rots in a few months. You need to be lectured to,, as you are a simpleton.

 

[anatta]

One more time, It is Russia's only foreign base and consider how strategic the location is. That is the only issue.

'base(s)' you idiot..although congrats are in order for using the google for once

List of Russian military bases abroad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad

FYI, I lecture you every day, on things as mundane as that sawdust rots in a few months. You need to be lectured to,, as you are a simpleton.

The tree guy not only came and cleaned up the sawdust! he paid me FULL DAMAGES for the Florida porch !

 

[anatta]

I don't know what was specifically coded, the agreement is another long winded resolution. But it was certainly an understanding, that's why the Russians got involved. They were the only ones who had true influence on Assad.

I don't know if they were actually tasked on keeping Assad from future use -as Kerry said they would remove "known"- but the chlorine must not have been considered.
Yes i'm sure there was an understanding, but unless there was "Russian collusion" in some fashion-
I can't pin this on Russia

Yes I know it is a lot of speculation, and as I said they didn't present the actual evidence.

ditto

But previous to the last Syria chem strike, the strategy specifically stated that it was of beneficial interest in fighting ISIS to not go after Assad and to maximize cooperation with Syria and Russia instead. In fact that is still the policy stated by Tillerson on Sunday, and to a degree by Haley as well. So it is hard to unwind that and destroy the cooperation without reducing your ability to fight ISIS in the region.

there never was any tactical cooperation -just deconfliction