CNN: Syria chemical attack victims gassed as they slept

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, visionary said:

Warning Russia about the strike.

 

No Syrian jets hit

 

Meant to cause little damage

 

Ok, yep it's as I thought. This wasn't Trump being big and decisive, this was Trump saying to Russia "Hey, I need to do something here, clear the airfield 'cause I gotta blow something up to appease people."

 

This was like I said earlier...a political response.
1) slap Assad without actually doing anything about him
2) look like standing up to Russia
3) act like he has a pair

[Burgold]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

Does this mean Trump doesn't always do what Putin wants?  Or is the conflict an act?  

I can see two sides to the warning. First would be that the US doesn't really want to cause an international incident with Russia so it probably does make sense to tell them to get out of the way since they have "interests" there. Second, Trump is asking permission and the strike was little more than a tough guy PR stunt.

[RedskinsFan44]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

Does this mean Trump doesn't always do what Putin wants?  Or is the conflict an act?  

Not sure which but we let him know what was coming and the whole "wanted to minimize casualties" thing makes this look like a largely symbolic act.  The fact that we have ground troops in Syria near Russians makes this whole thing dicey.

[Burgold]

The  one "big" criticism I would levy at Trump would be this. Throughout the campaign, Trump accused the US of telegraphing all its military moves thus rendering them ineffectual. If he believed this and still gave Russia the playbook: the where, when, and how of this attack so that Assad could move the planes, leave the runways unblemished, and basically blow up an empty building... then that makes this worse than a PR stunt.

[ixcuincle]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

Does this mean Trump doesn't always do what Putin wants?  Or is the conflict an act?  

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-us-missile-strike-syria-bashar-assad-chemical-attack-khan-sheikhoun-reaction/

 

Russia, Syrian President Bashar Assad’s most important backer on the world stage, condemned early Friday a U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airbase as “an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement that Putin believes President Trump ordered the strikes under a “far-fetched pretext.”

[Bang]

And so trumps balls get squeezed.

Trusting the russians.. who never saw that coming?

 

The strike was needed, and Russia knew it and maneuvered Donny right into their parlor.

See how the game is played yet, Donny boy? Still think you have bigger enemies at home?

Can't wait til tomorrow when Saturday Morning Tweeting On The Toilet lets us know how Russia really condemned Obama for allowing missiles that do so little damage into our arsenal.

 

Bang

[Zazzaro703]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

The  one "big" criticism I would levy at Trump would be this. Throughout the campaign, Trump accused the US of telegraphing all its military moves thus rendering them ineffectual. If he believed this and still gave Russia the playbook: the where, when, and how of this attack so that Assad could move the planes, leave the runways unblemished, and basically blow up an empty building... then that makes this worse than a PR stunt.

I've read the launch strip is unusable, 20 jets were destroyed and 7 Syrian solidiers including a senior officer were killed. Now switch Syrian with Russian and imagine where we would be if we destroyed their planes and killed 7 of their solidiers.

 

"Initial indications are that this strike has severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment at Shayrat Airfield, reducing the Syrian government's ability to deliver chemical weapons," Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said, according to Reuters.

 

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the missile attack damaged over a dozen hangars, a fuel depot and an air defense base. About 60 U.S. Tomahawk missiles hit the Shayrat air base, southeast of Homs, a small installation with two runways."

 

Now imagine if the strike included killing Russian solidiers and what the response would be. We are supposed to be working WITH Russia as allies in Syria, we owed them the courtesy of being able to warn their people on the base. 30 minutes isn't much time to do anything other than get out of the way. If we hit the hangars and the air strip, where are you asserting they were able to move their planes and equipment making this an empty threat on an empty base?

 

I'm asking you all these questions throughout my few posts because my mind is not made up and I'd genuinely would like to know and learn, not to be argumentative.

[Bang]

I don't mind the warning so much, because it is true, risking war with Russia is risking world war 3.. and no sane person wants that.

But i think Russia is much more willing to push it to try to get us to touch it off, and their immediate condemnation is exactly what they hoped they could get out of it. Trump probably doesn't like being told he was wrong more than he doesn't like kids being gassed.

it's an old trick,, a power propping up a small fry in a big spot like Assad to throw jabs at us and absorb the counter-punches... so they can throw haymakers from the rear. Winning the PR war is important to them.

see Korea, Vietnam..

Hopefully he recognizes it as a betrayal, and as bait that he must be careful not to take.

 

~Bang

 

 

[TheGoodBits]

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Ok, yep it's as I thought. This wasn't Trump bring big a decisive, this was Trump saying to Russia "Hey, I need to do something here, clear the airfield 'cause I gotta blow something up to appease people."

 

This was like I said earlier...a political response.
1) slap Assad without actually doing anything about him
2) look like standing up to Russia
3) act like he has a pair

 

Glad I wasn't the only one to think this. Notifying the Russians in advance meant notifying the target in advance. This was all for show. Exchange a few harsh words, score some political points, then move on.

[Llevron]

Hopefully military operations will be our "Thing" with this admin, assuming we are stuck with them. We have to do something right. Im totally cool with this being our something. 

 

And if this stops more people from being gassed, even if this is just for politics and for all the wrong reasons, its a good thing. 

[techboy]

Trump really was in a no win situation here.

 

If he does nothing, Assad feels empowered to keep gassing his people. On a more personal level, Trump is called out for criticizing Obama for drawing red lines and then not following through.

 

If he uses limited missile strikes while warning the Russians, people say it was just political theater and it shows he's still in thrall to the Russians.

 

If he uses limited missile strikes WITHOUT warning the Russians, people say that he is a deranged lunatic risking hitting Russian assets and touching off World War III.

 

If he uses an even more forceful response involving bombers etc., it's deranged lunatic writ even larger.

 

Still, I think doing something was the right thing to do, and I don't want World War III, so I honestly think the response in this case was pitch perfect.

 

Which is, of course, why I immediately assume that this came from McMaster and Mattis and had little to nothing to do with Trump at all. 

[Riggo-toni]

Yeah, I think this was the most prudent course of action. As I said earlier in this thread, Assad did this as a sort of trial balloon to gauge how the new US regime would react. It's not like the first time he used gas, which he did out of desperation.  All we needed to do was enough damage to ensure it would not be worth it. Failure to do anything would have emboldened not only Assad, but also N.Korea.

[LD0506]

So, who actually wins here? Trump et. al. will be painted as meddling warmongers, Assad lost some minor assets but gets seen as a bad guy for the gas attack, etc. Putin rakes in all the chips. He diverts attention from the casualties caused by the Russian military in Syria, gets to huff n puff about a strike he was given a heads up on, all serious aircraft were moved, no Russian losses, he gets to show some distance and difference w. Trump as the investigations heat up, yadda yadda yadda. Vlad anted up nothing, got a good return.

 

 

[Llevron]

11 minutes ago, techboy said:

Trump really was in a no win situation here.

 

 

Agreed and I dont think you get to win all the time as President of the United States. I just hope hes learning that. 

 

May not have been the right move but really was the only move. 

[justice98]

Why would Russia just go along with this?  What's in it for them?

[Riggo-toni]

What would be their alternative?

[justice98]

6 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

What would be their alternative?

 

Say no.  Stand up for their ally.  What were we gonna do, just bomb Russian jets and personnel on purpose if they didn't comply?

 

 

[Bang]

34 minutes ago, techboy said:

Trump really was in a no win situation here.

 

If he does nothing, Assad feels empowered to keep gassing his people. On a more personal level, Trump is called out for criticizing Obama for drawing red lines and then not following through.

 

If he uses limited missile strikes while warning the Russians, people say it was just political theater and it shows he's still in thrall to the Russians.

 

If he uses limited missile strikes WITHOUT warning the Russians, people say that he is a deranged lunatic risking hitting Russian assets and touching off World War III.

 

If he uses an even more forceful response involving bombers etc., it's deranged lunatic writ even larger.

 

Still, I think doing something was the right thing to do, and I don't want World War III, so I honestly think the response in this case was pitch perfect.

 

Which is, of course, why I immediately assume that this came from McMaster and Mattis and had little to nothing to do with Trump at all. 

 

You'd almost think some foreign power who is masterful at manipulation and plays global games undermining sovereign nations backed him into a corner at home over his possible relations with them, and then hung him out to dry on the world stage.

 

~Bang

[Riggo-toni]

We told them we were bombing; we didn't ask for permission. The only other choice they had was to remain and be killed in order to spark outrage. Some jihadists might be into martyrdom, but not atheist Russians.

3 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

Say no.  Stand up for their ally.  What were we gonna do, just bomb Russian jets on purpose if they didn't comply?

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

53 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Hopefully military operations will be our "Thing" with this admin, assuming we are stuck with them. We have to do something right. Im totally cool with this being our something. 

 

And if this stops more people from being gassed, even if this is just for politics and for all the wrong reasons, its a good thing. 

This is like saying "change is good". It couldn't a more absurd cliche. Military operations for the sake of having military operations is crazy, wreckless, and murderous. And for the reasons you suggest it is tantamount to gamg warfare,

"No one has attacked us lately."

"Yeah, but you've killed 10,000 people."

"It worked didn't it?"

[Llevron]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

This is like saying "change is good". It couldn't a more absurd cliche. Military operations for the sake of having military operations is crazy, wreckless, and murderous. And for the reasons you suggest it is tantamount to gamg warfare,

"No one has attacked us lately."

"Yeah, but you've killed 10,000 people."

"It worked didn't it?"

 

I didn't say any of that. Im simply trying to find some positives in an otherwise ****ty situation. Not that hard to figure my intent there. Clearly im not advocating military action for the fun of it. I dont know why you would even pretend i eluded to that. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not exactly sure why everyone keeps lumping North Korea in this discussion. It's an entirely different animal. Syria can't hit us or any allies hard enough to matter much before we could level Damascus into a parking lot. North Korea is a nuclear power and capability to kill hundreds of thosands if not millions while we could only watch. Assad is dependent upon his allies for military support, North Korea is nearly entirely isolated with a rogue dictator. Our knowledge of inside the Syrian regime has many sources and back channels. North Korea is a black hole.

 

They are NOT the same.

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I didn't say any of that. Im simply trying to find some positives in an otherwise ****ty situation. Not that hard to figure my intent there. Clearly im not advocating military action for the fun of it. I dont know why you would even pretend i eluded to that. 

Military action being our "thing". 

Yeah...no that's dumb.

[techboy]

22 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

You'd almost think some foreign power who is masterful at manipulation and plays global games undermining sovereign nations backed him into a corner at home over his possible relations with them, and then hung him out to dry on the world stage.

 

 

Hung him out to dry? Are you referring to Putin's statement of condemnation? I don't think anyone really cares that Valdimir Putin is condemning a military action. I'm not sure that PUTIN cares that Vladimir Putin is condemning a military action. I was referring more to the domestic political response.

 

If anything, this might push back on Putin just a tiny bit because his MO is to take aggressive actions in smaller states like Ukraine and Syria and hope that the West won't respond with anything more than such statements of condemnation.

[Blake Allyn]

The story of horrible.  It reminds me of when the US supported Sadaam Hussein for a decade while he gassed Iranians and his own people.  And how we blocked the UN from condemning him for it.  And how we gave him dual use chemical and biological weapons, including the bubonic plague.  And we gave him helicopter gun ships that he delivered them by. 

 

If you take a look at this whole situation, the US never should have illegally invaded Iraq.  That causes all of this bull ****.  The US right now is supporting the brutal saudis who are threatening millions with starvation in Yemen.

 

The hypocrisy of all leaders, yes all, worldwide, is staggering.  Trumps show acting like he cared was an absolute joke, aand logically impossible, by the govenrments who he supports right now.

 

I'd also be careful.  i am not sure this was deliberate yet by Assad.  Due to his having them in the first place, for sure.  But not sure if he did it on purpose.  

[techboy]

1 minute ago, Blake Allyn said:

The hypocrisy of all leaders, yes all, worldwide, is staggering.

 

Hypocrisy is a defining human characteristic. We're all hypocrites by nature. Actions can't really be judged by potential hypocrisy or we'd never be able to praise or condemn anything or anyone. The only reasonable path is to judge each situation on a case by case basis and use observations of hypocrisy to encourage self reflection and possible change.