[Closed] Trump strikes Syria

was a perfect response , canyt have ppl using chemical weapons , they should of targeted assad himself , the war would be over in a month !

Sent Asad a clear message, which I recon was the whole point. Hence targeting one airfield and not sticking one through his bedroom roof.

Hopefully he will think again before carrying out such atrocities.

Not sure if I agree or disagree. In some was dare I say it, at least Trump isn't messing about, Yes it's the right thing to do to Asad, but is it a sign of future shot gun diplomacy for other countries i.e. North Korea / Russia

...and what will Russia's reaction be?

Do you reckon he spoke to other world leaders before launching the strike to gauge opinion, or do you think he just made the decision in isolation lying on his lilo, smoking a cigar, sipping a JD, whilst in the White House swimming pool?

White House Swimming pool

Close, but no cigar:

[img] [/img]

why is Assad killing his own people?

why is Assad killing his own people?

And does anyone really believe that a war that has been going on for six years will be stopped in a month now America has dropped some bombs on an airfield?

nearly $100m to blow up one airfield!

Bombing things always stop wars everyone knows that. 👿

Torsoinalake read it properly , I said if they targeted Assad himself , even if it's early morning engage brain before mouth !

Thank **** for that.

Obama *should* have the deaths of very many people on his conscience for his utter lack of giving a damn when chemical weapons were first used against innocent civilians. And then the second time, and third time, and....

Wiping out any military unit that has used WMD against a city is a suitable response - targeted, limited and proportionate. The next military unit will think twice, and probably decide to live.

Oh dear - Kremlin has condemned strikes saying that Syria does not have chemical weapons.

Sky news:

07:06
Kremlin: Syrian regime does not have any chemical weapons
07:06
Kremlin: Putin sees the airstrikes as an attempt to distract the world from many civilian deaths in Iraq
07:05
Kremlin: US airstrikes carried out on 'invented pretext'
07:04
Kremlin: US airstrikes on Syria violate international law
07:02
Kremlin: Putin sees US airstrikes on Syrian airbase as aggression against sovereign nation

BBC news reported that Trump had been given 'proof' that it was Assad's say-so for the attack (ie has / had CW); Russia says he doesn't (which in Trump-speak could mean he did but he just used them)

I don't have a very good feeling about this; at the same time you can't stand back and allow regimes to murder their own citizens (take note Liam Fox)

Also some reports are saying Russia was told of the strikes before they happened. Which doesn't mean they Ok'ed them.

nearly $100m to blow up one airfield!

Strategically, it's more than just blowing up an airfield. It's about setting out their position.

At least action has been taken. Makes a change from all the other world leaders (including May) saying things like 'We will not put up with this." and then going on to do nothing abort it.

[img] [/img]

why is Assad killing his own people?

No evidence it was him. Anyone wonder why Russia is involved in all of this?

GO google Qatar, Turkey gas pipeline.

Taking a step back, I'm struggling to find a reason why Assad would suddenly use chemical weapons against his own people, especially in the middle of seemingly positive peace talks and when his regime were winning back areas from the rebels with the aid of Russia and, ostensibly, the US. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose for him. It just doesn't add up.

I await a missile strike on one of ours or USA airfield in retaliation for the civilians we have killed based from their.

So, just to be clear - were the victims of the chemical attack Syrian muslims like the ones Trump is trying to ban from the US? Or were they some other kind of Syrian muslims? Confused 🙁

Yeah but they're not our civilians rene.

So, just to be clear - were the victims of the chemical attack Syrian muslims like the ones Trump is trying to ban from the US? Or were they some other kind of Syrian muslims? Confused

Are you really trying to conflate a change in immigration rules with a chemical warfare attack on a city ?

Predictably bad move from Trump.
All just biased opinion where the chemicals came from.

depends on how far he goes

allegedly civillian casualties from trumps airstrike

does that make him better or worse than assad?

less than a month ago....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html

[quote=cranberry said]
Are you really trying to conflate a change in immigration rules with a chemical warfare attack on a city ?

You're surprised ?

Yes Nobby. Getting rid of Saddam and Gadaffi really brought peace and stability to the region. And Islamic fundamentalism is practically non-existent since they shot Bin Laden.

allegedly civillian casualties from trumps airstrike

What source is suggesting that please Kimbers?

I'm struggling to find a reason why Assad would suddenly use chemical weapons against his own people, especially in the middle of seemingly positive peace talks and when his regime were winning back areas from the rebels with the aid of Russia and, ostensibly, the US. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose for him. It just doesn't add up.

Agree.

A crime has been committed, who had motive and opportunity?

Rebels had the motive: Their only hope now is to draw the West into the War on their side and Assad using chemical weapons is about the only way to achieve that.

Assad had the opportunity: Eveyone agrees only Asssad has Sarin gas weapons. (If anyone does.)

So I have no idea who did it. Did a Rebel sympathizer at the Airbase load the wrong warhead? Did the rebels bribe/threaten someone at the Airbase to load the wrong weapon? Is that even technically possible? Did the rebels left of a Sarin Gas warhead they'd captured earlier in the campaign? Did someone on Assad's side go mad and order it/do it?

I don't think we'll ever know what happened, but clearly Assad wouldn't have anything to gain by this and everything to lose.

Considering Assad/Russia have been barrel=bombing civilians for the past couple of years with Trump inviting them to get on with it without US involvement, one can only conclude that the latest 'man of action' pose is designed as a distraction from his domestic difficulties, and to look like a bit of a hard man in front of his Chinese guest.

Throwing a few cruise missiles into the area is the typical move of an impotent US leader who has no real power, or even soft influence, in the whole region.

#MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Agree 100% with The Flying Ox .

It seems not all Americans agree with a strike on Syria.

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Considering Assad/Russia have been barrel=bombing civilians for the past couple of years with Trump inviting them to get on with it without US involvement, one can only conclude that the latest 'man of action' pose is designed as a distraction from his domestic difficulties, and to look like a bit of a hard man in front of his Chinese guest.

this

was a perfect response , canyt have ppl using chemical weapons , they should of targeted assad himself , the war would be over in a month !

Pretty much the worst strategy anyone could imagine. The idea that if you decaptiate a regime - remove the president/king/dictator - that the whole regime will just keel over as if they're all enthralled in that one persons spell and the moment they're gone they'll just drop their guns and take up gardening.

The difference between Assad (or Saddam, or Gaddafi) and the 100 or so people within his regime who would step into his shoes is you have a fairly good idea what Assad thinks and wants and does. You've got no idea who would take his place or how they would operate.

The US loves that kind of thing though. Because they nominate their own leader as 'Commander in chief' they tend to approach conflicts as if their enemies do the same thing. And yet they wouldn't imagine that is someone put weedkiller in Trump's coffee the whole US military industrial complex would just switch off.

It's still a very trump approach. 2 years of saying he won't bomb and being friendly with Russia and then, nah, bomb em, screw Russia.

I hope we all now feel safer.

I await a missile strike on one of ours or USA airfield in retaliation for the civilians we have killed based from their

Approval rating that is all

If it was Assad and if it was from that air base then, this is an appropriate response to start with.

However, and it's a big however...I need to get educated on this, someone point me to some (relatively) unbiased info please

vinnyeh - Member

What source is suggesting that please Kimbers?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-39521332

Oh dear - Kremlin has condemned strikes

But, Trump, Russia....

It is interesting to hear all the politicians who would normally condemn Trump (i.e. all of them), suddenly now support his "divisive action"

Divisive action is about right.

So a gay bloke who's in denial and is thus horribly overcompensating, is now banging heads with a terminally insecure bloke also trying to compensate for his extremely small... erm... hands?

Its like the kebab house in a provincial town just after last orders on a Friday night, just with big blowy-uppy things

Trump in 2012:

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

Something doesn't quite add up about the chemical weapons attack. A war he's winning. Olive branches coming from all over the international community - "oh, I dunno lads, let's do something completely outrageous." Seems an utterly bizarre action for little military gain and international condemnation.

The one question that comes to mind for me is, "Does this airstrike make it more or less likely that civilians will die from a chemical attack sometime in the future?"

why is Assad killing his own people?

Inspired by the Arab Spring a portion of the population tried to overthrow him and thus started a civil war

Obama talked tough after Assad's use of chemical weapons but did very little. Trump has been more decisive.

EDIT: I donagree with @deadly, I don't understand why Assad would have launched a chemical attack for little gain but maximum likely response.

IMO Assad with Russian help (they chose to get involved after being sanctioned by the West) has won. He will remain in power. The question is whether he will try and force the Turkish Army out of Northen Syria.

So now Trump has alienated all those that voted for him on the promise of a more isolationist US, he's alienated his best friends, Russia, and he's made all middle Eastern countries angry. Not to mention killed a few people. All in a day's work President Chump.

And as for any wet dreams of regime change at this point, it's a bit bloody late for that. The rebels are pretty much finished, their last stand was Aleppo. Assad is at the mopping up stage.

It's a bit like turning up to help the Rebel Alliance about two days after the Death Star has blitzed the place and there are bits of Han Solo and some Ewoks floating around in space.

The time for regime change was 2013, but there was no appetite for what that would involve. All the latest action does is highlight exactly how little power and influence the US has in the region.

"Does this airstrike make it more or less likely that civilians will die from a chemical attack sometime in the future?"

If they have no planes to drop them from - then less likely.

Something doesn't quite add up about the chemical weapons attack. A war he's winning. Olive branches coming from all over the international community - "oh, I dunno lads, let's do something completely outrageous."

As an argument, it has some weight, However the counter-argument that it takes serious amounts of pretty expensive kit and supplies to make these chemicals and that inconveniently for the "rebels" each time they get blown up by Assad's forces accidentally harming innocent civilians, seems equally implausible.

@nickc, I wasn't making any such counter argument. Just making the point that a chemical weapons attack at this stage by government forces seems pretty bizarre. Of course, it's a crazy bizarre conflict, and who knows what can happen next at any given time.

Something doesn't quite add up about the chemical weapons attack. A war he's winning.

It's a war he's won, with Russian assistance. We're onto the customary next stage where he feels he can dish out punishment to the communities hew views as supporting rebel groups during the conflict.

Assad will only look to Moscow for approval/disapproval of his activities. And if he can't punish these communities from the air, he will do it by other means.

the counter-argument that it takes serious amounts of pretty expensive kit and supplies to make these chemicals

Trump doesn't give a F about the Syrian kids but he (his advisors) knew this action would appeal to certain sort of person. Logically the whole thing stinks.

Its like having petulant child in charge of the red button.

Just to confirm....

America is now bombing both 'sides' involved in this conflict, right?

"America is now bombing both 'sides' involved in this conflict, right?"

Both sides? Aren't there about 5 sides?

America is now bombing both 'sides' involved in this conflict, right?

Trump would bomb downtown Seattle if it would boost his approvals.

Repeating history again. Seems we've forgotten about Iraq.

Proof first, no matter how horrid Assad is, need proof. Proof that there are chemical weapons involved yes, but not who fired them, if anyone fired them at all. Russians claim Syrian strike hit a weapons dump containing chemical weapons and former UK ambassador to Syria agrees with this. Sounds rubbish and it's easy to scoff and claim BS of anything Russia and Syria say, but again... remember Iraq?

Anyway, proof or not, all this succeeds in doing is pissing off more people and making them hate the west, which leads to more terrorist attacks.

A massive distraction which brings the media into line, stopping them from attacking Trump and researching his links to Russia, bringing about a public breakdown in relations between Trump and Putin.

All very convenient.

Still, probably a good time to invest in the arms trade...

"all this succeeds in doing is pissing off more people and making them hate the west, which leads to more terrorist attacks."

Does it? Bombing an airfield with prior warning strikes me as a very good way of making the point, without killing a load of people and pissing off a load more.

stopping them from attacking Drumpf and researching his links to Russia,

I doubt it will, but if it gets his redneck core vote chanting 'USA!USA!' as their federal aid programmes and medicaid are slashed, it's a win for the Donald.

I just hope he's pissed off Russia enough for them to start thinking about pulling the plug.

[url= https://www.instagram.com/evgeny.poddubny/ ]pics from the airbase[/url]

What concerns me is the way America keeps changing it's mind..
I remember the old days when a country had to go to the UN and get permission for military action...Americas gone rogue.

I'm glad I live in the countryside for when this all kicks off globally.

Having said that there's a Rolls Royce factory 20 mins away in Barnoldswick which might get a pounding when the bombs start dropping. 😥

I just hope he's pissed off Russia enough for them to start thinking about pulling the plug.

Russia still reeling from their own subway bombing last week, strong man Putin has a domestic audience to consider,
he's almost as unpredictable as Trump, But considerably smarter.
USA claiming they know what place dropped sarin and follow up hit on hospital, the day Russians were present at airbase at the time- putting out an image of detailed knowledge of the situation.

It's got McCain backing Trump for the first time ever!

Worst SNL video to date.

Agree that the chemical attack makes little strategic sense for Assad and we're being asked to believe that his 'evilness' is greater than his 'stupidity', and he doesn't strike me as stupid...

From Trump's perspective, his only real strength is that people don't know how to handle him - he's too unpredictable / inconsistent / petulant. This is a perfect way to build that strength - a limited show of force to prove that he can and will take unilateral action, enhances his 'nutter' credentials.

Deciding on a negotiation strategy against him must be a nightmare. Xi Jinping might be a little unbalanced by this...

Something doesn't quite add up about the chemical weapons attack.

I wouldn't underestimate the possibility for cock-ups, especially given the fog of war. I'm sure Assad doesn't plan or even approve every mission, and he certainly doesn't supervise arming the aircraft. I suppose Its perfectly possibly that some local commander overstepped the mark.

UN can't do anything as Russia is a member and they would veto any action.

So the choice is do nothing, which is what's been happening, or countries go it alone like the Donald has.

I'm not saying how wise or not this is, but that's basically the situation.

I'm glad I live in the countryside for when this all kicks off globally.

I wouldn't underestimate the possibility for cock-ups...

Obama *should* have the deaths of very many people on his conscience for his utter lack of giving a damn when chemical weapons were first used against innocent civilians

Do you really think that? I suspect that actually he carefully weighed up all the evidence, took advice from people with expertise, and decided that, AT THAT TIME (<<< and this is the critical point) it was not a better to retaliate with force.

So Trump has knocked a couple of holes in some bits of concrete, maybe destroyed a couple of planes. Those can (and will) be replaced quickly, you cannot "WIN" a war remotely, no matter what the generals and arms dealers of the USA might tell you (hence we got mired in Iraq/Afgan for so long)

All this does, and it certainly doesn't prevent any further use of chemical weapons, is make a complex situation, even more complex and difficult to defuse......

For a President who's promised to massively increase spending on weapons, using $100M of cruise missiles to break up a bit of concrete is a very very good way indeed to get people supporting his call for more military spending.........

It is.. But chemical weapons.. More'happy' coincidence?

Mind you.. 60 odd tomahawkes.. There can't be much left of the airfield....

I wouldn't underestimate the possibility for cock-ups,

I'm coming round to thinking that whatever happened the Sarin came from Assad and that's why this 'punishment' attack happened.

So Asssad's side failed to destroy a shell and it got mixed up with other shells, or a local commanded went mad or maybe the rebels got hold of it to use it to provoke the USA.

Whatever happened, somehow Assad must have been careless with Sarin Gas to some degree.

So I'm starting to think it wasn't a punishment for deliberately attacking civilians with Sarin, it was a punishment for not destroying their Sarin or keeping it under lock and key. So, given the pre-warning, smashing up an airbase seems a reasonable response to me. (Whether a country should appoint itself as policeman and judge of these things is a different question!)

There can't be much left of the airfield....

On R4 this morning their expert said it could be up and running in 4 days.

Do you really think that? I suspect that actually he carefully weighed up all the evidence, took advice from people with expertise, and decided

Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons against civilians was a red line. He managed to get it right up to that point.

Then the weapons were used because Assad correctly judged that Obama was weak and more interested in taking selfies of himself than protecting Syrians from their government:

[img] [/img]

I consider that Obama's inaction means that each chemical attack from that ignored red line, whilst not perpetrated by him, is partly his responsibility.

All it takes for evil to triumph, is for [s]good[/s] narcissistic, vain, weak men to do nothing.

Are you really trying to conflate a change in immigration rules with a chemical warfare attack on a city ?

Not remotely. I am saying that Trump claims to care about Syrian children one minute, but the minute before he was trying to prevent them from getting to safety.

On R4 this morning their expert said it could be up and running in 4 days

Well I suppose if you just mean rebuilding a serviceable runway, it won't take long, i suppose the real question is how much hardware was taken out at the same time, jets, ordinance and other expensive assets.

The Redline. Someone else spoke about that they said:

"The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A."

"jets, ordinance and other expensive assets."

I'd hope they got the jets away given the pre-warning!

But I assume the idea was to punish, not to hand the balance of power to Militant Islam, so presumably an 'appropriate' amount of damage has been done.

59, FFS. They must have been coming up to their best before date and due for decommissioning.

Pff, is but a drop in the ocean:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/20/global-arms-weapons-trade-highest-point-since-cold-war-era ]Global arms trade reaches highest point since cold war era [/url]

[img] [/img]

Still, I'm sure Rex Tillerson's oil interests will be getting good value for money for the $95,000,000ish those missiles cost.