HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Fri 7 Apr #1 
sally906
Contributor


Should we be worried?

Trump did not go to congress and gave no warnings - just bombed - quick response(2 days).  No response from Russia yet - big concern - well for me anyway

Obama - Just threatened - said if Syria used chemical weapons there would be a respnse - they did use them - he didn't respond, went to congress for advice and got none.  Russia did offer to clean out the chemical weapons from Syria - but did they?

The only other one I can think of Reagan bombing Lybia - and think that was over a week response but it did happen.

 

So, I ask again - should I be worried - or is this just a flash in the pan?

 




Knows 25324 facts
like | send message


Fri 7 Apr #2 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

The POTUS is currently holding talks with the Chinese premier. China's position is with Russia on the question of Syria. My worry is that Mr Trump just wants show China that he is not to be messed with, rather than any clear policy on the international crisis which is the Syrian civil war.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #3 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

I am against chemical weapons of any kind but i think Trump was a bit gung ho on his response, according to our news over here Trump warned NZ a couple of hours before doing what he was doing......but why warn a small country in the South Pacific whose only role is peace keeping. I think we all have to watch out for what ever happens next and by who.....my pick is keep eyes and ears open in the direction of Putin.




Knows 21437 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 8 Apr #4 
jmaxg
Contributor

President Trump's "address" (recorded from Mar-a-Lago and later released) referred to the outcome of the alleged chemical attack that we all saw the results of.

In response - a rather uncharacteristic response considering what he said during his campaign - 59 Tomahawk missiles were release from two US Navy Destroyers positioned in the Mediterranean Sea.

Interpretation(s)

1. As a response, it wasn't all that bad. It was targeted, specific and the message was plain. BUT, was it legal?

2. President Obama wanted to strike Syria after his "line drawn in the sand" comment. He then left it up to the US Congress to give permission. The US Congress did not give permission. This technical point relative to the latest Syria attack is being conveniently ignored by Congress and, as at today, the press.

3. President Trump's motivation for the attack could be genuine, but could also be a deflection from the current heat President Trump is receiving relative to possible Trump Campaign Party and Russian collusion.

4. The responses from Syria and Russia seem to be strangely muted. That is just a personal observation.

5. North Korea are currently getting a snootful of examples as to why the Western World war machine should not be underestimated. If required, those Tomahawks could be nuclear delivery systems and their accuracy rate is 100%. Currently released "official" North Korean videos show orgasms if they can get one missile off the ground.

Summary

It was a premature response, definitely. Maybe even an illegal one although the US Congress seems to be experiencing a selective memory syndrome at the moment.

And the actual motive is unclear since President Trump has made it quite clear he refuses to accept Syrian refugees yet attacks the country all the same. Thus, this might all be a distraction from his current press woes.

On the UP side, he has given North Korea something to think about.

On Donald Trump's UP side, he may have stalled "impeachment" talks by six months.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #5 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

When super powers like Russia seem to be strangely muted in my opinion it seems they are in talks about what to do......dont wake a sleeping giant.....Mr Trump appears to have woken that giant....Is this the start of the next WW




Knows 21437 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

I don't think so. I think it's more a stunt as opposed to anything meant to enrage or provoke.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #7 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

Lets hope so but for now my thoughts are with the civilians of Syria.....the innocent men, women and children




Knows 21437 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 8 Apr #8 
jmaxg
Contributor

According to records, 6 people died as a result of the 59 Tomahawks.

Those 6 people may have been nothing as important as custodial staff.

But fictional President Andrew Shepherd (The American President - 1995) reminded us of the implications of that.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sat 8 Apr #9 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Yesterday the BBC read out the POTUS's tweets of 2013, if Mr Obama wished to attack Syria he should get congressional approval etc etc. In general I think it's great if a politician changes their opinions on an issue and can admit it, but I'd like to hear the reasoning. Weren't there campaign pledges about not involving US armed forces in foreign conflict? I suppose missiles don't count as force.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #10 
sally906
Contributor

it's very confusing the situation in Syria - there's the government and the rebels who want the government out. But it's not as simple as that. The ruling government is moslem but not hardline - it is a dictatorship as the same family has been ruling since the 1970s. The people are unhappy because promised reforms - political and economic - haven't happened. So a rebel group got set up to kick the rulers out - triggered by two things. 1) some children were arrested for writing anti government graffiti, a couple of them died while in custody; 2) demonstrators complaining about the deaths of the children were shot down and killed.  Result? Rebel group formed - FSA.  There were lots of little local militia before this but the FSA was the first organised group. Unfortunately this mob was not really organised well and soon found that some hardline Jihadists joined and sort of took over the group. So we now have a situation where there are some genuine freedom fighters who just want to take control of their country being taken over by those who had their own agendas. So there are atrocities being carried out by both sides.  The poor civilians are stuck in the middle - when the rebel group attack civilians are killed - then the government retaliates by killing civilians.  No wonder they want out!  Now this chemical attack has happened - there are some who say it wasn't a chemical attack - the victims say it was.  It is not really clear who did it either - government or rebels - both are pointing fingers at each other. A UN group has gone in to see if it was a chemical attack. Their brief is just to do this - was it a chemical attack or something else.  They have been allowed in to do only this - not to apportion Blame. As the USA is a part of the UN, Trump knew this group was investigating but for some reason, known only to him, made up his own mind who was guilty and bombed accordingly.  Russia's role? They're good mates with the ruling family.  The freedom fighters don't want to be with the jihadists anymore so they are trying to kill them, the government is trying to kill both groups and America is trying to help the freedom fighters kill both the jihadists and overthrow the government. This upsets Russia!  BUT if Trump is having a bromance with Putin - will this change things?  The civilians don't really care they just want to live in peace. 




Knows 25324 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Sat 8 Apr #11 
jmaxg
Contributor

Yes. But if you think Donald trump is going to explain that, I don't think so.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #12 
jmaxg
Contributor

Quote from the film "The American President" (1995)

President Andrew Shepherd to Leon:

"Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea that in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do."

THAT is presidential. Why do I get the impression that Trump doesn't give a shit?

Six people died. Let us remember that.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #13 
jmaxg
Contributor

Umm, sally906 and post#10, were you just hacked?

If so, delete the manifesto.

Factacular is not in the business of forwarding looney agenda.

I'm not saying the text was bad. It just wasn't sally906.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #14 
jmaxg
Contributor

#hashtag That's not sally.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 8 Apr #15 
chooky
Contributor

"That's not Sally"?!
And what 'looney agenda' could there be? There was nothing irrational & nothing that wasn't germane to the topic.
Sally, if you were hacked then it was by an unusally circumspect troll.




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sun 9 Apr #16 
JMK
Editor

Sounds like Sally to me and nothing "looney" that I can see.




Knows 46297 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Sun 9 Apr #17 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

#hashtag this looney doesn't get it at all.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 9 Apr #18 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Sorry, that looks like a cheap remark, but I too thought sally's post sounded like sally and I don't understand what was wrong with it.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message


Sun 9 Apr #19 
sally906
Contributor

Sally doesn't understand either. It was definitely me rambling in post 10 - sort of trying to understand/clarify what is happening in simple terms. No one has hacked me. 




Knows 25324 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Mon 10 Apr #20 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Be very careful Sally , if you say something Jmaxg doesn't like he will ban you !! 

Possibly JMK will ban you 

I could give you a breakdown of the whole situation in Syria but not going to waste my time .

I would get banned for spouting right wing propaganda , probably.




Knows 39428 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Mon 10 Apr #21 
chooky
Contributor

Of course, nobody would be banned if they stuck to arguing the issues instead of attacking personalities.




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Tue 11 Apr #22 
jmaxg
Contributor

Right, well I'll try to explain myself so here it goes....

Whether it's the FSA, the CIA, the KGB or the Mickey Mouse Club, politically it does not matter. And what is more, Bashar al-Assad KNOW's that!

The wasteland that is currently Syria has been brought about by many factors.......the so called "Arab Spring", the years ago death of King Hussien of Jordan, the American sponsored demise of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, the Egyptian Uprising and the cessation of Iranian and Iraqi hostilities.

But the fact is, Islamic concerns aside, this Bedouin fight has existed for probably more than a thousand years.

Whether it's Bath'ists or Shi'ites, Muslims or Coptics, the Syrian area has battled for so long.

The good thing is that ISIL is looking more and more insignificant as months and years go on.

But whether it is ISIL or the Bassad regime that is getting the edge, I say IT DOES'NT MATTER.

Sorry about that FSA. But they saw off heads as well! AND I have seen them executing teenage boys by befriending them, then removing their heads. The trusting look of that young boy still haunts me to this day.

As far as I am concerned, many f**ks to all of them and I hope they all go to hell in a handbasket.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 11 Apr #23 
sally906
Contributor

Kev - lovely to hear from you :)  My favourite grumpy old sod :)




Knows 25324 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Apr #24 
jmaxg
Contributor

I never said that Kev wasn't right some of the time.

In fact, I agreed with Kev on a great many issues.

He wasn't always politically incorrect, yes, that much is made plain. But his historical insights are deep and should be regarded as an asset to any conversation.

If you can get beyond his obvious preferences, you might get to absorb knowledge that is not always plainly available.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Apr #25 
kevg
The Grumpinator

chooky , try calling people qu**rs and see how quickly you will get banned , no if's or but's or explanation needed , you will be banned straight away.




Knows 39428 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 13 Apr #26 
kevg
The Grumpinator

still fuming about that !!




Knows 39428 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 13 Apr #27 
chooky
Contributor

Believe it or not Kev, I really do see where you're coming from & to a certain extent, understand your resentment. Princess & the Pea Syndrome seems to have reached epidemic proportions.  Recently the Australian Diversity council & the 2016 Australian of the Year David Morrison launched a campaign called #WordsAtWork. Apparently one should not say "Hi guys!" when greeting a group of women or a group including women. It's gendered, you see. Suggested substitutions include 'team' (how condescending is that?) & 'everyone'. This is just one example of how much political correctness has muddied the waters when it comes to tackling  prejudice & bigotry. And the little intolerances that almost all of us find ourselves guilty of.  I think we should all be free to voice our opinion. But within reason. Because words do matter.
 

If it's any consolation you could call me a short, fat, stupid, old, australian dingus & I wouldn't turn a hair




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Apr #28 
chooky
Contributor

Sorry Sally! I think we kinda hijacked your Syria thread




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message


Thu 13 Apr #29 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Its interesting how memory and general attitudes can change versions of history. My memory is that the word used was 'poufs' and not 'queers', but memory can easily play false. The  more important thing is not the word that was used but the context and the way it was used. It wasn't the word that I objected to but the sentiment behind it's use, so if kev had used the words 'homosexual' or 'LBGT' I would still have objected to his idea that it didn't matter that a large number of people had died in act of terror because the majority of them were not heterosexual.

The banning or suspension, was for two weeks nearly a year ago I'm sorry its still rankling, but kev, you're not banned now. I would have thought the explanations for your suspension were in the reactions to your deleted post.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sat 15 Apr #30 
jmaxg
Contributor

May I cut in here? He did his punishment.

Nobody said that experiencing punishment involved him not being him.

I say he has undertaken his punishment and that is that.

I don't want kevg to be anything other than what he is.

We don't need to make his mental notes for him. Everybody get that?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 15 Apr #31 
jmaxg
Contributor

And actually it was "poofs" not "poufs".

In the unholy realm of political incorrectness, there is a difference between a "poof" and a "pouf".

If we are going to have this discussion, then let's get the terminology correct.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 15 Apr #32 
jmaxg
Contributor

Transgender Discussion

Ok.....let's do this.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 15 Apr #33 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

You're so right, thanks for the spelling correction. I don't want to batter  kev with the past, but there again, I don't want him to batter me with it, or to rewrite it.




Knows 107574 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Mon 17 Apr #34 
jmaxg
Contributor

Actually, kevg was VERY good at history. He always made a point of it.

I'm not saying he wasn't an asswipe at the same time. But the difference between being politically correct and being politically incorrect appears to be relative depending on time and "flavours of the month".




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 26 Apr #35 
Honey Badger
Member

I really do not want to get into discussing the rights or wrongs of American military actions in Syrian but here's the deal. An American President has the power to make military moves for 60 days without the approval of Congress.  After that, he has to get approval from Congress.  As it turns out, the French FM.announced this morning it had determined that Assad was guilty of using Sarin gas against his own people.  If this is true it is a despicable act.  Where does it go from here?  I don't know.  In a sane world, Assad would be tried for war crimes,  




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Thu 27 Apr #36 
jmaxg
Contributor

We all KNOW that. Why it isn't being followed is the question.

CONGRESS is supposed the give permission for an act of war.

With Barack Obama, drones punctured the skies. But the fact was, no mission given permission was illegal. Unethical maybe, but not illegal.

AND HE TOOK OUT BIN LADEN!

Checking out Trump after what Obama carried out could not be easy.

But then again, we must accept that Trump is just not that good.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 27 Apr #37 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

You said that well jmaxg.......He Took Out Bin Laden! The best thing that has happened.




Knows 21437 facts
like | send message


Thu 27 Apr #38 
chooky
Contributor

"He Took Out Bin Laden" I guess that averted the whole ISIS/L problem then. Except it didn't. "Trump Took Out *insert dictators name here* " wont either.  Look, it doesn't really matter what your political credo is or who you decide best represents your interests, the problems we are facing run far deeper. This pervasive, ill-natured attitude that anybody even a little left of centre is a PC Libtard SJW (they're not) & anyone slightly to the right is a Conspiracy-theorist Alt-right doomsday prepper (they aren't) is doing irreparable damage. To all of us, in every single country of the world.
In 50, 100, 500 years from now - if we've managed to avoid nukking oursevles in the meantime - different citizens supporting different leaders will be having the same pointless squabbles unless we can find a way to build upon the positive things we all share as human beings.   For #%*&$@#!!!!! sake, don't we all want the same thing - peace and happiness?




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Thu 27 Apr #39 
Honey Badger
Member

Jmax, I am only going to tell you once! You don't know it.  You don't get it. For all your bluff and bravado you know nothing. And the same rules apply to Trump as to Obama.  They each can do what I said without Congressional approval for a period of time. Clinton did it, Reagan did itl  Carter did it!   They all do it LIVE WITH IT!  I am not saying it is right or wrong I was stating a fact!   Of course, a president must be able to make decisions of this sort and then get approval if, UNFORTUNATELY, A Declaration of War must be made and that is the last thing anyone wants, Congress must make that decision.

Trump doesn't want to take anyone out,Chooky. He wants this country to be safe. Period.and he will do what is necessary to see that we are safe.  He is not a war-monger. You are right, Chooky. I agree with you.  I hope Jmax listens to you because what you are saying is the truth.  WE want peace.  All of us do.  Just peace.... and we want people who are threatening world peace, like Dear Leader in North Korea, to be handled so he doesn't start nuking  Asia, Hawaii, Japan, and the mainland of the US, as he is threatening to do.  I hope he can be controlled without any insanity developing on the part of N.Korea.  I am quite certain Trump will NOT be doing anything over there without a multi-national approach to the problem, and believe me, it is a huge problem. 

 

 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 28 Apr #40 
chooky
Contributor

Honey Badger, if you agreed with me at all you would not have begun your comment with 'Jmax, I am only going to tell you once! ....... You don't get it. .............. For all your bluff........'
Or were you trying to illustrate my point. In that case you did it perfectly.
There is a certain degree of innate bias in all of us which we really can't help but it ill behooves us not to identify & challenge it. "Right-fighting" is not only pointless, it's destructive. So what if your argument is better than jmax's? Or vice-versa? How has that helped in any way at all?
To put the point of my previous post in another way - if we don't learn how acknowledge our differences without allowing it to damage the way we relate to one another, the place is going to end up looking like Mars.




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Fri 28 Apr #41 
Honey Badger
Member

Chooky,  I don't know you and you don't know the water under the proverbial bridge.  Just let it go  I think he deserves a kick in the butt so leave it at that.  I never heard of "rightfighting" and hope I never do again. I have an inner need to not self-destruct and part of that is to simply point something out to someone who has been picking on me for years.  Leave it alone.  I, more than anyone else, am a peaceful person.  I have an angelic grandson and I want him to grow up in a beautiful world.  You don't know me.  None of you do,  I am a gentle, loving romantic, loving person.   I want peace on this globe.  I also want words like "rightfighting" to disappear.  They are silly.  I will use my own words, you can use yours.  Now, please don't scold me.  I am allowed to dish it out once in awhile.  It will not look like Mars as long as we are only using words. 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 28 Apr #42 
Honey Badger
Member

Chooky,  I don't know you and you don't know the water under the proverbial bridge.  Just let it go  I think he deserves a kick in the butt so leave it at that.  I never heard of "rightfighting" and hope I never do again. I have an inner need to not self-destruct and part of that is to simply point something out to someone who has been picking on me for years.  Leave it alone.  I, more than anyone else, am a peaceful person.  I have an angelic grandson and I want him to grow up in a beautiful world.  You don't know me.  None of you do,  I am a gentle, loving romantic, loving person.   I want peace on this globe.  I also want words like "rightfighting" to disappear.  They are silly.  I will use my own words, you can use yours.  Now, please don't scold me.  I am allowed to dish it out once in awhile.  It will not look like Mars as long as we are only using words. 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Fri 28 Apr #43 
chooky
Contributor

Those who are prepared to "dish it out" publicly should be prepared to take it publicly.
Your post (X 2) is the very epitome of right-fighting.  Words like right-fighting certainly are silly but not so silly as the act itself which, unfortunately, is highly unlikely to disappear any time soon.
You have chosen a post about international unrest to try to settle old scores (I've spent a lot of time reading old threads so I'm familiar with at least some of the history). You can't be surprised that this has attracted attention to you.
I believe you when you say that you are loving person who wants a peaceful world for your grandson. I think you are probably a very decent person with whom I may share many similarities. But I also think the same about people like jmax. While he - bless his little old Melburnian socks - can be long-winded & annoying (love ya bender but I bet Java sometimes needs the patience of a saint) he also is a decent person who wants peace in the world too. And was prepared to put his life on the line to achieve that end.
I don't intend this, or my previous posts, to be a reproval but more as a suggestion to look at things from a wider social context.
It's very possible I will never have grandchildren, you are lucky.  I wish yours all the best.




Knows 114146 facts
like | send message
4 people like this post


Sat 29 Apr #44 
Honey Badger
Member

Thank you for your kind wishes, chooky. 




Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Thu 4 May #45 
jmaxg
Contributor

Kick me in the butt HB......do it! But that's the point, isn't it? It's loud and focussed relative to that aggressive event. But after that, as always, you have nothing to offer but anger.

I'll tell ya what.....I will publicly kiss YOUR butt IF you acknowledge that, relative to Osama bin-Laden, a certain president gave all the right orders, empowered his CIA SOG team, accepted their advice, ordered the finding of the guy, and ordered he be removed even if it meant his death.

Something that the previous president gave up trying to do.

Of course that would mean admitting that President Barack Obama was a more effective president than President George W. Bush.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 6 May #46 
jmaxg
Contributor

Java knows the one film I keep watching is "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012).

That film shows that there was an order given by a certain president.

Whether you like it or not, it was an actual order,




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 16 May #47 
jmaxg
Contributor

No?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 16 May #48 
jmaxg
Contributor

Am I happy?

Yes.

We took out Osama bin ladin, not Winnie the Pooh.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In