Many of you have heard about the stunning archaeological site in Yemen found by a German team that gives us three ancient altars from Lehi’s day bearing the name of the Nihm tribe, close to the ideal site proposed for the ancient place name Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34). The lands of the Nihm tribe, sometimes spelled Nehem, to this day are still in that general region, around 25 miles northeast of Sanaa, the capital. This is a place I would love to visit, and I hope many of you share that desire.
Sadly, precious few have been there. I can only recall one person apart from a Yemeni friend in Hong Kong who has traveled to Yemen, and that would be Warren Aston who did field work in Yemen and Oman in his quest for knowledge about Lehi’s Trail. Warren Aston is the author of the best book I’ve read relating to external evidences for the Book of Mormon, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia. (Related to that is the best DVD: Lehi in Arabia, a must-see documentary.)
Mormons ought to be highly interested in Yemen and its peoples, including the Nihm tribe. I’d love to go there, but right now travel is impossible. Yemen has become a dangerous place in recent years with civil war and heavy bombing from one of our putative allies, Saudi Arabia.
Saudia Arabia just imposed a blockade on entry points to Yemen that has cut off badly needed humanitarian aid. Without outside help, the war-torn country faces starvation. As reported in the New York Times, Mark Lowcock, the UN’s coordinator of humanitarian aid, Yemen could face a disaster in which millions die unless external aid is provided. The EU’s commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Christos Stylianides, was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying that Yemen “is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than two-thirds of its population in need of humanitarian assistance.” Stunning.
Feeding the “Military-Industrial Swamplex“
Michael Krieger, a Wall Street finance guy who became disgusted with the industry and quit, now blogging at Liberty Blitzkrieg, called my attention to the disaster in Yemen and to our role there as well, through our good buds in Saudi Arabia. Our role? What could our role possibly be? Michael delicately puts it this way in his recent post on Yemen:
What we’re looking at here is potentially the worst famine in decades, and it’s important for decent U.S. citizens from across the political spectrum to admit our government’s hands are soaked in blood.
Soaked in blood? I’m afraid he has a point. He backs it in part with this quote from The Intercept:
Saudi Arabia relies heavily on the U.S. military for intelligence sharing, refueling flights for coalition warplanes, and the transfer of American-made cluster bombs, rockets, and other munitions used against targets in Yemen.
Congress, however, has never authorized U.S. support for the war, which has caused 10,000 civilian deaths and has spiraled in recent months into one of the worst humanitarian crises of the century. For two years, Saudi Arabia and its allies have imposed a sea and air blockade around Yemen. Now, more than 7 million Yemenis face starvation and thousands, mostly children, are dying from cholera. Coalition warplanes have repeatedly struck crowded markets, hospitals, power plants, and other civilian targets.
Several members of Congress indicated an interest in the issue, noting that the Obama and Trump administrations’ reliance on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] to justify U.S. involvement in the conflict is absurd. That authorization, after all, was designed to fight the terrorist groups responsible for the September 11 attacks, not to intervene in Yemen’s civil war.
For 16 years, the executive branch has pointed to the AUMF as legal justification for its involvement in conflicts across the Middle East and Africa, a strategy that is legally questionable. But the use of the AUMF in the Yemeni context is especially bizarre given that the AUMF’s target is Al Qaeda, and the group AQAP — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – is fighting alongside the U.S.-Saudi coalition against the Houthi rebels.
For those of you who thought we were draining the swamp, we’ve just shuffled a few swamp creatures while continuing on the same warlike course we grew numb to during the daily bombings around the world under the Obama Administration and during the assaults on other nations during the Bush years.
As one of my good friends put it when I once dared to criticize our invasion of and endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., “at least we were doing something about the problem of terrorism!” Indeed.
And now we are once again truly doing something about the problem of terrorism, though perhaps a tad more counterintuitive in appearance, by joining forces with the one nation most directly linked to 9/11 whom we provide with weapons and never, ever invade, and by simultaneously joining forces with Al Qaeda (!) to help carpet bomb civilians in Yemen. Please don’t confuse a lack of patriotism with my discomfort with the Military-Industrial Swamplex. (Hey, I like that phrase! You heard it first here.) One can love a spouse but dislike the cancer taking his or her life. You don’t have to love and feed the cancer. In fact, the loving thing, the patriotic thing, is to excise it or do whatever possible to curtail its growth. Some of you thought we’d be draining the swamp in Washington. So sorry about that delusion!
As a patriotic American who lives his country and believes the Constitution should be followed and was a relatively inspired and precious document that could help preserve our liberty and rights if followed, I think it’s time we get out of selling weapons to the Saudis, get out of giving weapons and support to terrorist groups (who often start as apparent allies in the first place and then use our weapons against our real or putative allies and eventually against us), get out of being the world’s policeman when we can’t even tell good guys from bad anymore, and immediately find ways to get aid to Yemen.
This graph from the Washington Post shows the explosive growth of weapon sales to the Saudis:
Krieger on the Liberty Blitzkrieg site points out that we are involved in a clearly unconstitutional and illegal war effort in Yemen that has killed many thousands and could soon result in millions dying. But our elected officials — your Congressmen — have been largely silent. They don’t want to even discuss this. Give it a try and let me know what you experience! Watch the video on Michael’s site for a preview of what you might encounter.
As reported in the Washington Post, “The shameless arms supplies to Saudi Arabia … may amount to lucrative trade deals, but the U.K. risks aiding and abetting these terrible crimes,” said James Lynch, head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International. Lucrative for the winners, devastating for the people being carpet bombed and now starved.
Yemen should matter to Congress, but it doesn’t. But if it matters to you, we can change that. Let’s change that now.
Let’s stop aiding the carpet bombers of Yemen. Let’s quit flooding the world with weapons. Let’s get aid to Yemen. And may we, in a short while, be able to visit and maybe even strengthen that precious land and its more precious people.
Up until 5 minutes ago I had no idea there was a war going on in Yemen. I’ve no idea what it’s about but so far as our alliance with Saudi Arabia goes, I am very glad we have it. It has been very valuable in the fight against ISIS. The only thing in your article which raises a red flag to me is having a military alliance with Al Queda / Al Queda group. So far as authorization of the war goes, Congress needs to gather and debate it and decide fo fund it or defund it. If that check is not used then the war goes on with our involvement.
I agree with John Haltiwagner, this is not enough, not nearly enough:
“ The U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution Monday that declared the U.S. government's military assistance to Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war is unauthorized.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/congress-says-us-role-in-yemen-war-is-unauthorized/ar-BBEXLpI
This comment has been removed by the author.
Personally I do not mind assisting Saudi Arabia is counterstriking against an Iranian-backed Shia group in Yemen. Power transfers are unfortunately many times messy to say the least. Our assistance, should, however, focus on military targets.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423
Well, the Houthi group apparently have threatened Saudi Srabia’s border areas. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the Saudi coalition that the Houthis are hiding among civilians. If so, as unfortunate as it sounds, that makes these areas military targets.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/05/09/Saudi-led-coaltion-conducted-130-airstrikes-against-Houthis.html
Jeff,
I very much agree that the situation in Yemen is deplorable, and the duplicity of both our government (USA) and the Saudi's glaring.
However, you paint with a broad brush those of us who are employed by, and work hard in the defense industry. While I agree with you about the US gov't arms sales to Saudi being questionable, those sales are between the US and foreign governments. I do not advocate for or sell weapons/systems. I am employed to design and build the most capable equipment for C4I (or materiel, if I was in that sector of the industry), which has the allowed the US to be the invincible power on the planet. Peace through strength is a real thing, and without the systems and equipment of the caliber produced by the industry, we would perhaps be suffering with domestic attacks or much more push-back in the world. I am an honest, hard working engineer but am not liable, nor a meaningful cog worthy of your distain as part of your "military-industrial swamplex" as described in your post. Is my industry a little over-the-top? At times, yes, but our government and military leaders are constantly looking for more capable systems year after year as technology improves and provides a way to project more strength while keeping the warfighters safer. I'm not sure which industry you are in, but I'm sure that someone is paying you money to do a job where you have probably have no control of where/how whatever you deliver is used.
Our government, which allows such transactions with equipment built and produced by our taxes, are the problem. It is like saying that car manufacturers are responsible for the thousands of deaths each year on the highway due to drugs/alcohol/phones, etc. No, the one actually responsible (using the term loosely) are those who purchase a comfortable, capable and world class car and then choose to drink and drive, etc.
There is also the fact that this war goes back years and years and is based more on tribal/religious disputes, which is not usually solved by war. I would love nothing more than to see Yemen and Saudi Arabia sit down and actually try to discuss their issues at a table instead of the killing fields. Humanity overall is deeply wounded by all these atrocities. Unfortunately, in that region of the world, no one seems to be able to put the past away, granting forgiveness and move forward in peace and love.
You may recall that in the bible the Israelites were commanded to destroy everyone including women, children and animals in a complete genocide, which also makes my blood run cold. How can this be any less a crime?
I appreciate your thoughts on Yemen, with me firmly in your camp about the terrible situation that it is. I hope that you see my perspective in that it is not the weapons/technology/swamplex that are to blame, but the leaders on many fronts that bring such power to bear in their corrupt and evil desires to rule and destroy on both sides.
Just an aside—the Washington Post/Associated Press has been following the Yemen disaster extensively, with more than a dozen stories just this last week alone.
— OK
Where the flip was the outcry in the past 8 years under Imam Mubarek Mao Obamastan bin Alinsky? And every single Congress cretin and Senate cretin bent over for Obama Sotero from Kenya and Vietnam liar John Kerry, Songbird ISIS John McCain and Spirit Cooker Occultist Hilary KKKlinton.
The Nazi Bush 43 exacerbated the Middle East mess, Bill the sexual assaulter KKKlinton made things worse in the Middle East and in North Korea, and Marxist Obama the Muslim Brotherhood star fuelled even more destruction in the Middle East.
Democrat Tulsi Gabbard said USA politicians have committed treason in the Middle East by aiding ISIS and other terror groups. No one listened to her. Marxist mainstream media blackout!
President Trump is not the problem……the Marxist Uniparty of the Dems and Republicans in the Senate and Congress have utterly destroyed the world and are openly tyrannical against the citizens of the USA, ignoring the Constitution and all laws. The propaganda mainstream media is in league with the sewage government.
The Western World coubtries needs to butt out of every country. The CIA needs to be destroyed. Certain people need to be taken out…..George Soros for starters.
I know what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere. The people are suffering.
But….. These "humanitarian" groups such as the one named in the article are controlled by Marxists and do more damage than help. They are nothing but Communist propaganda arms. They do not tell the truth of what is really going on and who is doing what.
You got Evan Egg McMuffin McMullen pegged correctly during the presidential race Mr. Jeff. Now Get other facts straight.
Why should the US give aid to Yemen? If you say the US should quit taking sides, then why start taking sides all over again by providing aid to Yemen. If the US is on the wrong side with Yemen, then why is Yemen more important than other parts of the world? Every dollar given to Yemen is a dollar not given some place else.
Yemen is near rich neighbors, so why are you calling for the US to provide aid instead of its neighbors?
Wow. Anon 1:54 is quite the specimen. Where does this kind of lunacy come from? Anyone have any ideas?
— OK
Yemen has been a problem area for years because the Saudis and Iranians are fighting a proxy war there through the Yemeni tribes. I don't see any easy solutions.
CT – Exactly. If it was not arms sells, then Mormanity would complain the US is blood soaked because it buys Saudi oil. For Mormanity, no matter what, the simple answer is the US is the bad guy. In his mind, merely declaring he loves America means he is not anti-American. The truth is, Mormanity is no more pro-American than he is a Mormon Apologist.
He is an odd duck. Mormon’s are usually more pro-Isreal than the Evangelicals. But here is Mormanity going against the Israeli grain.
OK,
He gets it from AM talk radio.
Steve
Paul, I didn't mean to belittle those who strive to defend America or who work for the many segments of the economy that are tied to defense. Yes, we need defense. And no, the problem is not the engineers, scientists, accountants, cooks, truck drivers, paper makers, etc. whose work is directly or indirectly part of the mighty military machine. The problem is simply what President Eisenhower described in his farewell speech, a man who well knew that the machine/Swamplex was becoming far too powerful. Vast power and wealth controlled by a few will often be used for villainous purposes that would shock the many if they knew. When America is dragged into endless no-win wars with huge winners on Wall Street, when the war machine is rarely involved in protecting our borders, when it is fighting wars without a proper declaration of war via Constitutional procedures and fighting for objectives that seem at odds with American principles and interests — the horrific racist aspects of the war in Libya is but one example — then we have a serious problem. There is a cancer that needs to be treated.
Mormography, does patriotism mean cheering when leaders usurp their power and violate the public trust and the Constitution? Does one become anti-American for objecting to an illegal war that provides support to our terrorist enemies? I recognize that your anti-Mormon agenda must lead to the result of endless criticism of all things Mormon with every post here (bully for you!), but in your less agitated moments, when you learn of issues like lending support to terrorists or promoting atrocities, does your brand of patriotism require overlooking the atrocities or crimes or possibly accidental blunders and just smiling, saying all is well, let our leaders do whatever they want because we loyal Americans must trust every man, woman, or swamp creature that manages to get into a position of power? When FDR locks up Japanese Americans for being Asian, do you have to cheer? If the atomic bombs on Japan actually were dropped after Japan's surrender and were completely unnecessary slaughter, if that is in fact the case, must your form of patriotism say "Good show!" no matter what? More locally, if corrupt police seize a man's car and home illegally, do you feel compelled to endorse that action and condemn those who speak out against the crime? I'm just wondering where you get your keen ideas on patriotism in contrast to, say, the public duty our Founding Fathers felt that citizens had to watch their leaders with a doubtful eye and never trust one man with too much power.
As Romney told Jan Mickelson, neither Skousen (nor Mormanity) get to be the dictators that decide what is constitutional. That sir, is not the rule of law. So, it is most definitely patriotic of me to stand-up to you.
We already proved you lie when you say Japan surrendered before the bombs dropped. I could not agree more about the potential abuse of search and seizure laws. You have never heard me say otherwise. The Utah nurse won against the officer, contrary to the Utah opinion lawyers who op-ed’ed on Mormanity and other places that authority is usually in the right. That just goes to show what a biased ideologue you are: just because I stand up to irrational ideologues such as yourself, you falsely assume I am ideologue at the other extreme.
As I have always said here, the fascists look in the mirror and cannot see any flaws. The socialist look in the mirror and are full of self-hate. The America way is to look in the mirror and see room for improvement without self-hating. You sir, cross the line into self-hate.
I am no more anti-Mormon than you are a Mormon apologist, but I understand ad-hominem attack is all you could come up with. Not only was it an ad-hominem, it was non-sequitur as I clearly stated your position is a break from mainstream Mormons. But as I have always said here, you have the delusion that you are Mormonism personified and you believe constructive criticism of yourself is an attack on Mormonism.
Mormanity, if you were not so hyper sensitive, you would know that my position is similar to yours. Why don’t you call up your Mormon politicians and ask them to quit subsidizing Israel’s self-defense. Senator Gordon Smith told Mormon head leadership, in a closed meeting, he voted for the Iraq war to open it up to missionary efforts (check it out on mormonleaks). Personally, I don’t think that was Smith’s full reasoning, I believe he was merely justifying his vote to his religious leaders. I am all for the US’s 4% of GDP on the military, but it could be better redirected to RnD instead of bases in rich countries of Europe, Korea/Japan, and the Middle East.
In summary, criticism is patriotic. When you simplify the universe into the US is always the bad guy, you cease to be a critic and become simply anti-American. For the record, you never answered my questions regarding Yemen … why is that?
"If the atomic bombs on Japan actually were dropped after Japan's surrender and were completely unnecessary slaughter, if that is in fact the case"
"We already proved you lie when you say Japan surrendered before the bombs dropped."
Wow, Mormography, this is a new low for you. You're claiming Jeff lied because he used a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.
Ramer – You are coming late to the party, this was already discussed on another thread. Unless of course, you are suggesting that Mormanity's position is so weak he had to go an an tirade irrelevant hypotheticals. But it is a complement to see that was the only thing you could nick pick.
You are coming late to the party
I've been here this whole time, I just never thought to comment because, to be honest, this whole subject matter is kinda over my head.
Unless of course, you are suggesting that Mormanity's position is so weak he had to go an an tirade irrelevant hypotheticals.
You are the only one that ever suggested anything like this.
But it is a complement to see that was the only thing you could nick pick.
Well, you did finally admit you were anti-Mormon, but the rest of your comment is either regarding the topic that is (again) over my head, or just bullying Jeff through projection.
Mormography, thanks for the response. I apologize if I mistaken your seal in criticizing with an "anti" attitude. Maybe it's more anti-Mormanity than anti any specific religion, but whatever it is does seem rather zealous. But I think you have over zealously extrapolated my complaints about some serious misdeeds into blaming America for everything or, as you put it, crossing the line into self-hate. America's Constitution, it's example (though waning) of free enterprise and personal liberty, and it's people's goodness, charity, and moral principles (in spite of lapses) have brought dramatic blessings to the world. The principles the country is grounded on are what the world needs and have already lifted many nations. The greed and corruption of many recent leaders are not what the world needs, and their impact has been disastrous. To speak against that is hardly self-hate.
I was also confused over your statement about being proven a liar. I think you are conflating "arguing against a position" with "proving my opponent is a liar." Be careful there.
In previous discussions on the bombing of Japan, I think we agree that the issue was whether "unconditional surrender" was needed or not. The Japanese, fearing that this meant the Emperor would be deposed or worse, could not take that risk, and we chose not to clarify that other options were possible. In the end, we let the Emperor stay. Had we made that clear, it is possible that much less blood and horror would have been on the menu. So why didn't we? And was Japan trying to end the war before the bombs were dropped? There is a strong case that this is so. See:
1. John V. Denson, "The Hiroshima Myth" at the Mises Institute, 08/02/2006.
2. Doug Long, "HIROSHIMA: WAS IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY?" at The Ethical Spectacle, 1996. See the sections "Japan seeks peace through the Soviets" which shows the US was aware of Japan's willingness to seek peace, though not an unconditional surrender. But there was no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter.
In the section, "Objections to letting Japan keep the Emperor," we read that "It is sometimes argued that an unconditional surrender was absolutely necessary for the purpose of keeping allies Great Britain and the Soviet Union committed to participation in the Pacific war. But Churchill had reservations about requiring Japan's surrender to be unconditional. He stated them to Truman on July 18, 1945: 'I dwelt upon the tremendous cost in American and to a smaller extent in British life if we enforced 'unconditional surrender' upon the Japanese.' Churchill came away from his conversation with Truman believing "there would be no rigid insistence upon 'unconditional surrender'" (Winston Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy, paperback edition, pg. 547-548). The Soviets favored unconditional surrender because they felt it would prolong the war, enabling them to advance their troops further into conquered territory. But any desire the West had for Soviet participation in the Pacific war was luke-warm at best after July 21st, when President Truman received the full report of the successful atomic bomb test of July 16. Moreover, the U.S. did not even consult with the Soviets on the Potsdam Proclamation, which contained the terms of surrender, before sending it out."
Also see the section "Military rather than Diplomatic approach" which shows the unwillingness of the US to explore diplomatic solutions and the apparent thirst for vengeance in dropping the bomb — on civilians. Sigh.
Then in the section, "Were Atomic Attacks Necessary?," Long writes:
"But was the use of atomic bombs on Japanese cities necessary to bring Japan's doves to play the Emperor card? The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne (JDTS, pg. 141) before the a-bombs that killed over 200,000 people were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (John Dower, War Without Mercy, pg. 298).
"Might the war have been ended sooner, with fewer deaths on both sides, before the Soviets had gotten into northern Korea (thus possibly avoiding the Korean War), before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima frightened the Soviets into putting their atomic bomb program into high gear (David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, pg. 127-129, 132), and before an atomic precedent had been set? While there can be no conclusive answer to this question, it is worthwhile to study this topic for whatever insight it may give for future decision-making and the future saving of lives on all sides.
— cont. in next comment…
Continuing:
"Historian and former Naval officer Martin Sherwin has summarized the situation, stating, 'The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare.' (Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 ed., pg. xxiv).
"Long-time historian of the atomic bombings Barton Bernstein has taken a cautious view of what might have been: 'Taken together, some of these alternatives [to dropping atomic bombs on Japan] – promising to retain the Japanese monarchy, awaiting the Soviets' entry, and even more conventional bombing – very probably could have ended the war before the dreaded invasion [of the Japanese mainland by the Allies]. Still, the evidence – to borrow a phrase from F.D.R. – is somewhat 'iffy', and no one who looks at the intransigence of the Japanese militarists should have full confidence in those other strategies. But we may well regret that these alternatives were not pursued and that there was not an effort to avoid the use of the first A-bomb – and certainly the second.' (Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered, Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1995, pg. 150).
"Echoing the concern of Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Captain Ellis Zacharias that the Allies became overly dependent on military means, Leon Sigal writes, 'At worst, withholding force might have prolonged the war for a while at a time when little combat was taking place; it would not have altered the final result. Yet restraint could have significantly reduced the gratuitous suffering on both sides, especially for noncombatants.' Sigal concludes, 'it could be argued that the United States behaved as if the objective of inducing Japan to surrender was subordinated to another objective – in Stimson's words, that of exerting 'maximum force with maximum speed.' American policy was guided by an implicit assumption that only the escalation of military pressure could bring the war to a rapid conclusion.' (FTAF, pg. 219).
"U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, 'The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.' (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
"It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, 'Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.' (AB, pg. 52-56)."
3. John McManus, "Dropping the Bomb", 1995.
These articles may be mistaken and as I may be, but they provide what strikes me as a credible basis for questioning the necessity of atomic bombs in the war against Japan, who was already facing the reality of the need to surrender. Truman knew it. It is reasonable for us to sharply question the atrocity of atomic slaughter in Japan.
Also see Ward Wilson, "The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did" in Foreign Policy, May 30, 2013. A different perspective challenging the myth that the bomb was what forced Japan to resign. Not consistent with the other articles I provided, but still an interesting perspective.
We could play what-if all day long.
Given all sides agree fire-bombing was more horrific, it sounds as if you have a deep objection to non-conventional means of war. If that is the case, one would think you would be extremely concerned about stopping the use of chemical weapons in Syria and not blocking the investigations into how they were used. But what you did was hunt for western opinion makers to suggest it was a false flag attack. Unfortunately for you, all you came up with was one EX-ambassador, which has to be some sort of record for western agreement.
I have long objected to chemical weapons use, including those used in Laos against the Hmong people (see my Hmong pages at JeffLindsay.com). But what is the evidence that Assad was behind the alleged chemical weapons attack that prompted Trump's bombing in Syria? There were and are good reasons to suspect the authenticity of the reports. See Ron Paul on this topic and the weakness in BBC's reporting. But if there is conclusive evidence that Trump did the right thing, let me know! I admit to not following this closely in the past couple of months. I recognize that the UN says it is confident that Assad was behind the attack, and he's certainly no saint worthy of any support, but even the Wikipedia page on the attack lists a number of significant voices who have raised skepticism about the claims being made to justify our attack. Trump fired missiles before he had confirmation of the origins of the attack. Seems like a typical military-industrial response, but not the response of one seeking caution and avoidance of unnecessary bloodshed.
Mr. Lindsey, Please read the article that is linked.
Thank you
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/19/macron-and-trump-agree-on-coalition-plan-to-counter-iran-and-hezbollah-saudi-grand-mufti-forbids-killing-jews/
The site that is linked is one of the most informative sites on the Internet. It gives news not found anywhere else. And this site is 95% accurate in it's observations as well as 100% honest in all things.
Totally opposite of both the Communist liberal controlled USA media and Western Europe media.
Seymour Hersh’s report on Trump’s I’ll-informed decision to bomb Syria is also essential reading: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
You see what I mean. Well at least most readers do.
Wow this something first of Ur is in the south this has been known for a very long time. Christopher woods a expert in Mesopotamia was not impressed with this Oilshem claim. In fact the geography does not even work if you assume that location and in later years Even John dee has stepped back from this.