dagblog - Comments for "We Never Should Have Had Military Forces in Syria in the First Place" http://dagblog.com/we-never-should-have-had-military-forces-syria-first-place-27051 Comments for "We Never Should Have Had Military Forces in Syria in the First Place" en Not exactly. A simple if then http://dagblog.com/comment/263377#comment-263377 <a id="comment-263377"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263375#comment-263375">WaPo is headlining the Bolton</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Not exactly. A simple if then confirmation of whatever Trump does:</p> <p>If Trump withdraws, it is because ISIS is eradicated.</p> <p>If Trump stays, it's because ISIS is not eradicated.</p> <p>Of course, any future terror attacks on anyone, anywhere, Trump will always blame on someone else.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 06 Jan 2019 17:49:51 +0000 NCD comment 263377 at http://dagblog.com WaPo is headlining the Bolton http://dagblog.com/comment/263375#comment-263375 <a id="comment-263375"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263374#comment-263374">Wow. Huge huge huge caveat to</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>WaPo is headlining the Bolton story on their home page right now:</p> <p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bolton-promises-no-troop-withdrawal-from-syria-until-isis-contained-kurds-safety-guaranteed/2019/01/06/ee219bba-11c5-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html">Bolton promises no troop withdrawal from Syria until ISIS eradicated</a></p> <p><em>National security adviser John Bolton’s comments are the clearest explanation yet of how officials plan to execute the president’s abrupt announcement that he would pull troops from Syria, surprising allies and prompting the resignation of former defense secretary Jim Mattis.</em></p> <ul><li>By <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/karoun-demirjian/">Karoun Demirjian</a></li> </ul><p>So if it was meant as a sotto voce "don't believe Trump's spin", it's no longer sotto voce. PLUS it's no longer just about making sure the Kurds are protected: it's back to the status quoa, the Trump talk was all b.s., ISIS not "eradicated" yet.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 06 Jan 2019 17:37:26 +0000 artappraiser comment 263375 at http://dagblog.com Wow. Huge huge huge caveat to http://dagblog.com/comment/263374#comment-263374 <a id="comment-263374"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/we-never-should-have-had-military-forces-syria-first-place-27051">We Never Should Have Had Military Forces in Syria in the First Place</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">Wow. Huge huge huge caveat to Trump’s complete and immediate withdrawal from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syria?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Syria</a>. Suddenly Bolton speaks. <a href="https://t.co/ZtLkumIrxK">https://t.co/ZtLkumIrxK</a></p> — Kevin Baron (@DefenseBaron) <a href="https://twitter.com/DefenseBaron/status/1081890054258200576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Sun, 06 Jan 2019 17:21:47 +0000 artappraiser comment 263374 at http://dagblog.com graph says it all, would you http://dagblog.com/comment/263339#comment-263339 <a id="comment-263339"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263032#comment-263032">Because there’s no guaranty</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>graph says it all, would you want them all let into Spain if you were a Spanish citizen? Edit to add: That's a rhetorical that you don't have to answer. Just look at it, and the reason it's happening.</p> <div class="media_embed"> <blockquote height="" width=""> <p>Migrant surge to Spain prompts Moroccan crackdown. African nation uses control of flow of people to gain leverage in Europe <a href="https://t.co/Oh6cpv1QQI">https://t.co/Oh6cpv1QQI</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@financialtimes</a> <a href="https://t.co/9groB3dqaO">pic.twitter.com/9groB3dqaO</a></p> — alain servais (@aservais1) <a href="https://twitter.com/aservais1/status/1081114523233341441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2019</a></blockquote> </div> </div></div></div> Fri, 04 Jan 2019 10:02:44 +0000 artappraiser comment 263339 at http://dagblog.com Ferry range is one thing but http://dagblog.com/comment/263222#comment-263222 <a id="comment-263222"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263216#comment-263216">F-15s can be fitted with</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="font-size:10pt">Ferry range is one thing but the goal would be to arrive at the target with a payload. Everything about aircraft range of a fighter jet involves a tradeoff as I feel sure you know or can at least understand when it is explained. Even with extra tanks the aircraft is much cleaner aerodynamically than when fitted with external ordinance so more than a pound of fuel must be sacrificed for every pound of ordinance that is carried. An F-15 carries more than 40 thousands pounds at takeoff which can be split at various ratios between fuel and ordnance. I don’t know where the graphs cross for range when carrying thousands of pounds of bombs and missiles and needing a fair amount of fuel for safety at the end of the trip. Do you?  Maybe the Saudis  were just determined to carry every pound of ordnance they could fit aboard and so had to sacrifice too much range unless refueled. Maybe they refueled for no reason at all, but I doubt it. </span></p> </div></div></div> Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:56:22 +0000 A Guy Called LULU comment 263222 at http://dagblog.com If you think that my mistake http://dagblog.com/comment/263221#comment-263221 <a id="comment-263221"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263217#comment-263217">I thought that when I used</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="font-size:10pt">If you think that my mistake in the initials ‘MDS’ was actually deliberate, what do you think that means?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">Regarding my calling you an apologist, I was actually just calling attention to the fact that being an apologist for some action of a leader does not mean that you like the person, which I said specifically, or that you support all their actions. I was thinking of the numerous times I have been, correctly, by definition, called an apologist for some leader or other just as you do me here regarding Iran, and with an obvious bad connotation attached.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">You would have to be nuts not to know that Iran has been threatened over and over lives under constant threat. I believe Iran has, as I would expect them to, concentrated a great deal of firepower on the Straits of Hormuz because it gives them a strategic threat. They quite naturally want to demonstrate that they can exact a severe price in retribution if they are attacked. Do you believe that Iran would <u>initiate</u> a confrontation by blocking the Straits of Hormuz? I think they are not crazy.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">Whether we <em>could </em>have stopped SA’s air war in Yemen is one question. Whether we <em>should</em> stop that air war is a different question which you answer from the perspective of MBS. Your argument that MBS had his reasons is not one which answers the question of whether we could have stymied his actions. I believe we could have stopped his air war and I will leave that question at that.  You say our help means nothing and withdrawing it would change nothing. I believe that is a ridiculous line of reasoning maybe meant to mute the question of whether we <em>should </em>try to stop the air war. Maybe adopting that attitude works to stifle or ease any conscious feeling of the morality involved in participating in the holocaust of bombing a bronze age nation into the stone age and making excuses as its citizens die like in the middle ages from the resulting famine and pestilence. </span></p> </div></div></div> Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:50:10 +0000 A Guy Called LULU comment 263221 at http://dagblog.com Maybe we can get Goober from http://dagblog.com/comment/263219#comment-263219 <a id="comment-263219"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263218#comment-263218">Yeah but without American gas</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Maybe we can get Goober from Mayberry to lend a hand if they can spare him at the gas pump? tho I doubt his Arabic's very good, "Saudi" sounds a lot like "howdy"...</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:41:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 263219 at http://dagblog.com I thought that when I used http://dagblog.com/comment/263217#comment-263217 <a id="comment-263217"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263214#comment-263214"> That&#039;s an example of your</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I thought that when I used the correct initials for Mohammed Bin Salman you'd realize your typo. But clearly it wasn't a typo.</p> <p>What do you think happened to all the western weapons in Iran after the Shah was overthrown? Did they cut the jets down for scrap? American mechanics are more knowledgeable about American technology but Iranian mechanics did and Saudi mechanics could take over. Iran got so good at it they reversed engineered much western technology to create their own weapons industry.</p> <p>Software doesn't need to be updated. Old software can be used for years. </p> <p>Planes are flown out of King Khalah military airbase near Riyadh in central SA so need refueling. But they don't have to be flown out of that airbase. There were other options if the US had refused to aid with refueling.</p> <p>Apologist has a negative connotation and that's why you're using the term. By that same rational you're an apologist for Iran, the ayatolla that rules it and Muslim theocracy.. Both countries are pretty evil but I think Iran is slightly worse. The only question that matters is are my arguments valid or not. Iran is not reacting to threats, it's pushing for foreign power with similar behavior you criticize America for. There have been numerous stories about Iran behavior in the Straits of Hormuz for many years. It's not a reaction to a threat but a push for dominance in the straits and a threat to SA. Have you been following any of those stories? Do you have any reasonable explanation for it as anything other than an aggressive move toward dominance in the strait.?</p> <p>Why do you think Iran entered the civil war in Yemen if it wasn't for such a strategically important goal as control of the Bab al-Mandab Strait? It was already over stretched with it's war in Syria and unrest at home. It wasn't defensive. It was a direct threat to SA. It was a push for power mainly over SA. Be honest, before I mentioned the Bab al-Mandab Straits you had no idea they even existed even though most analysis of the situation cites the straits as the cause of Iran and SA entering the civil war.</p> <p> I blame Iran for making the first move in Yemen's civil war to gain control over they Bab al-Mandab Straits more  than I blame SA for responding to that threat. Why don't you?</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:41:27 +0000 ocean-kat comment 263217 at http://dagblog.com Yeah but without American gas http://dagblog.com/comment/263218#comment-263218 <a id="comment-263218"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263216#comment-263216">F-15s can be fitted with</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yeah but without American gas station attendants the Saudi gas station attendants wouldn't know how to fill those extra tanks.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:01:04 +0000 ocean-kat comment 263218 at http://dagblog.com F-15s can be fitted with http://dagblog.com/comment/263216#comment-263216 <a id="comment-263216"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/263212#comment-263212">San Antonio is in the south</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>F-15s can be fitted with extra tanks to make the trip to OK City trivial. Speed will be slower, but Yemen ain't got fighters.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 29 Dec 2018 20:57:37 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 263216 at http://dagblog.com