Is it enough? When is it enough? Is it time? Russia and at some degree China put its veto in the United Nations, Security Council at all time, no matter what and "play" with the rest of the "world"!... Is it time?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/polit ... index.html

Trump has been talking out of both sides of his mouth about Syria, now the spotlight is on him do either do something or do nothing.

If he does nothing it exposes all his talk for the last eight years as pure bullshit and empty cheap shots at Obama.

But if he does "take out Assad's air force" it will liberate ISIS in much of Syria as well as raising the possibility of getting an American plane shot down by a Russian AA site. Also it would then be a case of the Republicans resurrecting George Bush's war in Mesopotamia. But of course the Pubbies would never admit that.


Here's some worthwhile analysis.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... oto%20(152)&CNDID=39995590&spMailingID=10763626&spUserID=MTMzMTg0NjkxNjg2S0&spJobID=1140375686&spReportId=MTE0MDM3NTY4NgS2

Syria has a strong chance of turning into another Iraq. Yes chemical weapons are bad We thought so when Saddam had them, but the take down of Saddam is what widely led to the rise of ISIS.

ISIS is bad as well, and I don't see anything turning out well in Syria.

At some point one would hope the UN would jump in and fulfill it's full mandate. I really hope the US does not go it alone on this.

I'd like to see what Republicans do. They spent years asking Obama to submit a war resolution from Congress (even as far as to draft the wording), which Congress sat on; they criticized his red-line speech but didn't allow him to act on it. They said we can't and shouldn't go to war (it's not our problem), though Assad needed to go. They said a vote for Hillary is a vote for war and that putting America first meant investing money here at home. Now what?

I saw the harrowing images. I agree there needs to be action and I would support a limited ground intervention with a coalition. This has gone far enough...but again, how will the GOP in the US respond?

There is no possibility of a limited intervention, there is no clear front, dozens of actors all over the country, it's a clusterfuck.

A no fly zone would be good but it should have happened years ago. Now that Russia is there with its Air Force and SAMs, it's an impossibility. Unless you want to try some movie-like operation, using B-2s to disable the Syrian Air Force.

Aesma wrote:

There is no possibility of a limited intervention, there is no clear front, dozens of actors all over the country, it's a clusterfuck.

Agreed. No way. Support (and don't abandon) the Kurds killing ISIS and that's all.

And why would have Assad used chemical weapon, I am wondering?
I am quite disappointed that the U.S. foreign policy is taken back to the Obama's tradition: immediate statement, without any investigation and any proof.

mham001 wrote:

Support (and don't abandon) the Kurds killing ISIS and that's all.

That of course will drive Turkey into the arms of Russia, and that's the optimistic scenario, it also might drive Erdogan to the Islamists instead.

Syria is just one awful clusterfuck...
I never tried to hide my disdain for Trump but honestly, I wouldn't want to be switching positions with him right now.

I was in a certain way disappointed in Obama back in '13 for laying out a red line and then proceeding to act in no way according to it.
If Assad is really responsible for the attack, which seems like the only realistic sounding scenario I would definitely see the reason for an intervention, although I don't know if I'd fully support it.
Trump would be best off not to get US boots on the ground in Syria because that would be the beginning of the end (end as in at least Iraq 2.0). The only viable way to strike would be to attack Syrian airbases with cruise missiles or high-altitude bombing runs at least in a way that renders the runways inoperable.
But that would be an extreme level game of Mikado since there is a considerable amount of Russian personnel stationed on Syrian airbases and if their barracks were to be hit, god help us.

casinterest wrote:

At some point one would hope the UN would jump in and fulfill it's full mandate.

There won't be a UN mandate because Russia will veto any Security Council resolution to do anything about Assad.

pylon101 wrote:

And why would have Assad used chemical weapon, I am wondering?

Maybe because he's emboldened by a combination of two things -
1) nothing was really done about it the last time he used them
2) he now his buddy Putin backing him up whatever he does
It doesn't take much to work it out.

As for the ludicrous Russian excuses...

As for Trump - I expect him to post a few angry Tweets at 3am.

I don't see Trump putting boots on the ground, nor would he want to have fighter pilots captured. That leaves cruise missiles to deliver surgical strikes and that is where I believe he will go.

After giving Obama hell during the campaign I don't believe that he will "pull an Obama" and not respond at all.

casinterest wrote:

Syria has a strong chance of turning into another Iraq. Yes chemical weapons are bad We thought so when Saddam had them, but the take down of Saddam is what widely led to the rise of ISIS.

ISIS is bad as well, and I don't see anything turning out well in Syria.

At some point one would hope the UN would jump in and fulfill it's full mandate. I really hope the US does not go it alone on this.

Yes I agree totally agree with you that any operation to punish and/or take out Assad needs to be a multi-nation operation headed by the United Nations.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Yes I agree totally agree with you that any operation to punish and/or take out Assad needs to be a multi-nation operation headed by the United Nations.

As scbriml pointed out above:

"There won't be a UN mandate because Russia will veto any Security Council resolution to do anything about Assad."

Could it be that Trump will now be brought to an understanding of why the Syrian refugees are refugees?

I should admit. Obama was smart when sent the decision to be made to the Congress.
A sort of machiavellian politics.
I have no idea what Trump is going to do. He is under pressure of neocons.
A U.N. investigation would be appropriate under the circumstances.
Sorry, I don't buy the version that Assad used sarin. I see no logic here.
Last week Trump and Haley (where do they get dumb U.N. ambassadors?) said Assad might stay.
And right after - this chemical attack? It doesn't match. But it does match the neocon agenda.

This isn't Iraq 2.0. Saddam Hussein didn't have a major nuclear armed ally in country in 2003 with substantial SAM assets deployed.

Putin has signIficant strategic reason to hold onto Syria. They aren't just going to step aside to let the Americans take down Assad via military strikes.

Talks of surgical strikes are bunkum. Are they going to hit the airbases of the Syrian Air Force, when Russian troops and equipment are located at those exact same bases? Good luck with the "surgicality" of that! We've seen how surgical the US military is in the Middle East (ie not at all). And unlike middle eastern civilians, Russian soldiers being killed in US air strikes will not be ignored

Are they going to hit Syrian government buildings? Sure, openly attack the buildings of a government who has an nuclear armed ally with substantial assets in country?

It's a terrible situation but openly attacking Assad's regime is going to put the US on a path to World War. At best a new volatile Cold War. Yes I am more afraid and petrified of that than Assad being allowed to "get away" with this attack. (Even though I have my suspicions about Assad's motives for this attack and the West's condemnation considering they've done the same with conventional weapons for decades.)

Best option now is to limit attacks on Assad to political statements, sanctions and withdrawal of support, though seeing how Russian support has gotten Assad to the point where victory is within reach it's probably moot. Then in a few years once the Islamist threat is gone and stability has returned bribe or force Assad out of power using political means.

Yes I know that seems like "letting a bad guy get away with murder". But I've watched movies like "The Day After", all those movies start with minor conflicts that get out of hand with hot headed leaders, and ended with total devastation world wide.

Why does the US have to act? We are very war-weary at the moment, and will be well into the 2020s. The public does not want another war, which will turn into a quagmire. Especially if we are going to fight the side that Russia is openly supporting. The argument can be made for the USSRs support during Korea and Vietnam but those were clandestine and not publically-traded released until the collapse of the USSR. Like another poster said, let the Kurds handle it, they're already doing a good job.

If it's 2 people you dont want to mess with in the Middle East, it's the Israelis and Kurds.

If the US is thrust upon into the conflict, it HAS to be with a strong coalition among the UN, not NATO or any other majority-West organization. And the only way a UN coalition would work is if big nations like China and India (not just US and Europe) are in on it too in a meaningful role. Until that agreement happens, which it probably wont, the US should stick to Tomahawks.

The US has the military power to eject Russia from Syria and there is nothing Putin could do about it short of invading Estonia.
In a purely military sense, Syria is a bridge too far for Russia, and it's not a threat to Russia itself so nukes wouldn't be a factor.

Just announced: About 60 Tomahawk missiles have been fired from US Navy ships to the airport in Syria where the planes were seen leaving (and returning to) for the mission to gas the population.

This might be a first of many strikes, or simply the limited response.

Unlike Obama, Trump did not go to Congress for concurrence. No surprise there as Congress does't want toilet. get near taking responsibility on launching any military action.

Does Syria have WMD?


Or to rephrase, can we make it look like Assad has got his hands on some nasty newklear stuff and is close to building a big fat bomb to blow up the infidels?

BawliBooch wrote:

Or to rephrase, can we make it look like Assad has got his hands on some nasty newklear stuff and is close to building a big fat bomb to blow up the infidels?

Not going to matter as I believe that the GOP has learned it's lesson with their Iraq FUBAR. After 4 - 5 Trillion Dollars in a wasted effort I think boots on the ground are not in the future.

The key tonight on the limited nature of the strike is seen in that no Tomahawks were used to knock out wit defenses, which is traditionally seen in preparation for extended said strikes.

Ken777 wrote:

Just announced: About 60 Tomahawk missiles have been fired from US Navy ships to the airport in Syria where the planes were seen leaving (and returning to) for the mission to gas the population.

This might be a first of many strikes, or simply the limited response.

Unlike Obama, Trump did not go to Congress for concurrence. No surprise there as Congress does't want toilet. get near taking responsibility on launching any military action.

Obama made an empty threat, did nothing. Trump didn't make empty threat and acted. Glad we elected a leader and not a speaker.

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

Ken777 wrote:

I believe that the GOP has learned it's lesson with their Iraq FUBAR. After 4 - 5 Trillion Dollars in a wasted effort I think boots on the ground are not in the future.

I don't think the GOP has learned much of anything from Iraq (or Vietnam) they want to double down and go to war with Iran.

NIKV69 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Just announced: About 60 Tomahawk missiles have been fired from US Navy ships to the airport in Syria where the planes were seen leaving (and returning to) for the mission to gas the population.

This might be a first of many strikes, or simply the limited response.

Unlike Obama, Trump did not go to Congress for concurrence. No surprise there as Congress does't want toilet. get near taking responsibility on launching any military action.

Obama made an empty threat, did nothing. Trump didn't make empty threat and acted. Glad we elected a leader and not a speaker.

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

A foolish question, it all points to Trump and his crew who were all enriching themselves dealing with Putin and Russia. Of course Putin is Russia.

salttee wrote:

Trump has been talking out of both sides of his mouth about Syria, now the spotlight is on him do either do something or do nothing.

I'd rather he did nothing. There are no good guys in the Syrian conflict. Let them kill each other, and stay out of it.

So between 50 and 70 Tomahawks to Shayrat airbase. Seems like a one-time action.
Let us figure out where the vessels were, where the airbase and if any S-300 were stationed there.

EA CO AS wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

To be fair, former Sec. Clinton earlier today publicly stated she'd support taking out Assad's airfields. Not that she, as a former candidate, really should be muddying the waters by weighing in on what she would or wouldn't have done anyway, though.

I think she is rightfully giving support to our government in this matter. Nothing wrong with her doing that.

pylon101 wrote:

So between 50 and 70 Tomahawks to Shayrat airbase. Seems like a one-time action.
Let us figure out where the vessels were, where the airbase and if any S-300 were stationed there.

The S-300s are about 80 miles NW of Ash Sha'irat, they are at Khmeimim air base which used to be known as the Latakia airport.
The Ships were in the Med.

NIKV69 wrote:

Obama made an empty threat, did nothing. Trump didn't make empty threat and acted. Glad we elected a leader and not a speaker.

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

This is a special kinda stupid re-imagination of reality, easily blown to smithereens by Trump's own contradictory quotes on Syria, never mind that one of the top complaints about 'warmonger Killary' was that she would get us into a conflict.

My take on the US bombing Syria this night, in response to the chemical attack, however that actually occurred, is really to send a message to China, whose leader happens to be meeting with the President, in Florida today, is, that this President is not afraid to strike unilaterally against a nation when he feels they have gone to far, IE N. Korea.

And so, to get China to get off it's arse, and take steps to reign in that little bitch, N. Korea, or we're going to strike them, with a response that I know not how extensive would be.

3-Dimensional Chess...

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education/hrxg91/picture131029599/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/2017%20congress%20brett

NIKV69 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Just announced: About 60 Tomahawk missiles have been fired from US Navy ships to the airport in Syria where the planes were seen leaving (and returning to) for the mission to gas the population.

This might be a first of many strikes, or simply the limited response.

Unlike Obama, Trump did not go to Congress for concurrence. No surprise there as Congress does't want toilet. get near taking responsibility on launching any military action.

Obama made an empty threat, did nothing. Trump didn't make empty threat and acted. Glad we elected a leader and not a speaker.

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

I would suggest that Obama was quite aggressive, during his time large amounts of leadership of various terrorist organisations have been taken out, including Bin Laden. Tomahawks are nothing. To be really taken seriously, you've got to put troops on the ground and take over the whole place, push the Russians out, get rid of Assad, etc.

For now, he's doing similar to Obama.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

My take on the US bombing Syria this night, in response to the chemical attack, however that actually occurred, is really to send a message to China, whose leader happens to be meeting with the President, in Florida today, is, that this President is not afraid to strike unilaterally against a nation when he feels they have gone to far, IE N. Korea.

And so, to get China to get off it's arse, and take steps to reign in that little bitch, N. Korea, or we're going to strike them, with a response that I know not how extensive would be.

3-Dimensional Chess...

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education/hrxg91/picture131029599/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/2017%20congress%20brett

CHINA? This has nothing to do with China! And usually when you fire a spread of missiles, you don't really know who or what was responsible for your retaliation. Ask Bill Clinton about that.

And if Russians were killed in this attack, it's going to get worse, not better.

Better to collect intel, find out what's going on, and then reply based on facts, not emotions. This won't help anything.

Hillis wrote:

And if Russians were killed in this attack, it's going to get worse, not better.

They need to fire first, ask questions later. It will make Putin think twice in future. It's exactly what Putin would do, so why shouldn't Trump also do the same.

EA CO AS wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

To be fair, former Sec. Clinton earlier today publicly stated she'd support taking out Assad's airfields. Not that she, as a former candidate, really should be muddying the waters by weighing in on what she would or wouldn't have done anyway, though.

Why not? Didn't stop the Republicans from being sedidious towards Obama when he was President. She has every right to make a comment.

NIKV69 wrote:

Obama made an empty threat, did nothing. Trump didn't make empty threat and acted. Glad we elected a leader and not a speaker.
.

Actually Obama took his plans to strike to Congress for approval, Congress had been vocal in the need to "act" but wen the plans were put in front of the they lacked the stones to approve the. That was when the deal was made with Russia.

Trump had a lot of people with a long memory telling him not to trust Congress. The rest was in the hands of the military and they appears to have done a great job. In the morning there can be some good satellite photos taken to ensure all targets have been hit. If not there can be ore salvos of Tomahawks.

The issue now is the need for he GOP to hold off their big tax cuts until they know the level of military funding for weapons, deployments, etc. That $883 Billion tax cut needs to be put off until we know we can meet the needs of our military.

In republicans-are-the-biggest-hypocrites-ever episode #1,982,519,823:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 100153944/

And who could forget Trump's butt plug Sean Hannity? Trump's not golfing this weekend, but that's only because Xi Jinping hates golf.
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/ ... 9643879425

NIKV69 wrote:

You guys still sure Putin wanted him and not Hillary? For sure she wouldn't have ever had the guts to take action.

Are you not among those users that insisted Hillary would get you into the war in Syria deeper and Trump would never, never ever do that since he is just so good a buddy with Putin?

No guts to fire cruise missiles from ships, but she would have started world war 3...... Right. Which one is it?

Best regards
Thomas

Oh great, less than 100 days into his presidency and he's launching missiles. Trump is a nightmare to military families. Please pray for our troops. Let me guess he ordered the strikes after consulting with his daughter since they both know more than the generals..

Wow.

Trump is actually putting Putin and Assad in his place.
With Trump's election one of my personal disappointments was that Assad was going to act unchecked. Just says ago US officials were saying Assad was a "political reality".

I was never a Trump supporter, but I deeply respect the fact that he was able to put these dictators in their place. They've gone unchecked for far too long, Assad apologists were getting too rampant around the internet.

1g wrote:

Wow.

Trump is actually putting Putin and Assad in his place..

Remember when Clinton cruise missiles at that chemical weapon factory in Sudan?

Putin could not not allow Trump to start those cruise missiles, he needs the diversion.

best regards
Thomas

1g wrote:

Wow.

Trump is actually putting Putin and Assad in his place.
With Trump's election one of my personal disappointments was that Assad was going to act unchecked. Just says ago US officials were saying Assad was a "political reality".

I was never a Trump supporter, but I deeply respect the fact that he was able to put these dictators in their place. They've gone unchecked for far too long, Assad apologists were getting too rampant around the internet.

how is this putting them in their place? I see this as being incredibly reckless.

Ken777 wrote:

The issue now is the need for he GOP to hold off their big tax cuts until they know the level of military funding for weapons, deployments, etc. That $883 Billion tax cut needs to be put off until we know we can meet the needs of our military.

That would only be needed if Trump decides to invade Syria Bush style and go for "nation building" and what not. Hopefully he has more sense than that.
No fundamental changes in economic policy are required in order to pay for a few salvos of Tomahawks.

so the US backed Islamic head choppers live to see another day..good work america!

what is it billy bob? i don't know, shoot it!

P1aneMad wrote:

That would only be needed if Trump decides to invade Syria Bush style and go for "nation building" and what not. Hopefully he has more sense than that.
No fundamental changes in economic policy are required in order to pay for a few salvos of Tomahawks.

I believe that we are get out for just the price of 59 Tomahawks. The miltary needs to review the various weapon systems, ammunition level needed, training requirements need as well as ongoing maintenance.

There will also need to be expanding recruitment and training of personnel because Trup is moving fast to two ocean conflicts

Hillis wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

My take on the US bombing Syria this night, in response to the chemical attack, however that actually occurred, is really to send a message to China, whose leader happens to be meeting with the President, in Florida today, is, that this President is not afraid to strike unilaterally against a nation when he feels they have gone to far, IE N. Korea.

And so, to get China to get off it's arse, and take steps to reign in that little bitch, N. Korea, or we're going to strike them, with a response that I know not how extensive would be.

3-Dimensional Chess...

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/education/hrxg91/picture131029599/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/2017%20congress%20brett

CHINA? This has nothing to do with China! And usually when you fire a spread of missiles, you don't really know who or what was responsible for your retaliation. Ask Bill Clinton about that.

And if Russians were killed in this attack, it's going to get worse, not better.

Better to collect intel, find out what's going on, and then reply based on facts, not emotions. This won't help anything.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Relea ... e-in-syria

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis on U.S. strike in Syria
Press Operations
Release No: NR-126-17
April 6, 2017

At the direction of the president, U.S. forces conducted a cruise missile strike against a Syrian Air Force airfield today at about 8:40 p.m. EDT (4:40 a.m., April 7, in Syria). The strike targeted Shayrat Airfield in Homs governorate, and was in response to the Syrian government's chemical weapons attack April 4 in Khan Sheikhoun, which killed or injured hundreds of innocent Syrian people, including women and children.

The strike was conducted using Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) launched from the destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. A total of 59 TLAMs targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars. As always, the U.S. took extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties and to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict. Every precaution was taken to execute this strike with minimal risk to personnel at the airfield.

The strike was a proportional response to Assad's heinous act. Shayrat Airfield was used to store chemical weapons and Syrian air forces. The U.S. intelligence community assesses that aircraft from Shayrat conducted the chemical weapons attack on April 4. The strike was intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again.

Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.

We are assessing the results of the strike. 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. The use of chemical weapons against innocent people will not be tolerated.

Seems that Trump needed to do something to not look like a pushover. So 60 cruise missiles fired at a single airbase. Current unconfirmed reports are that over 4 Syrian Forces members were killed in this attack and the base infrastructure was damaged.

Seems like Trump decided to look like he was doing something while not actually doing much to effect the situation on the ground and not provoke Russia. So in my opinion, this actually is not too reckless but rather smart on his part. Other than wasting 60 cruise missiles that is.

Also seems to me that obviously the US notified Russian Forces of the planned strike, and Russian Forces notified the Syrians, which is why the casualty count is so low with such a large ammount of missiles fired.

tu204 wrote:

Seems like Trump decided to look like he was doing something while not actually doing much to effect the situation on the ground and not provoke Russia. So in my opinion, this actually is not too reckless but rather smart on his part. Other than wasting 60 cruise missiles that is.

I understand that Trump was given two military options and I believe he picked a good one. The target was the airport where the gas attacks started and significant damage was done to the aircraft and their weapons bunkers as well as fuel bunkers. Other areas containing radars and other electronics were also hit.

I doubt that Russia is going to want to act proved as they have no idea what Trump will do next - it there is a next time.

As for Syria, they are going to be the interesting part of the equation. They might have some plans, but have no idea on how Trump will respond. That should concern them somewhat. Should concern North Korea as well.

y thought today is it is now time to spend big money building up supplies of missiles and other ammunition, Spend what is needed on maintenance o ships and planes are at 80% readiness and spend what is needed for training. And spend it in anticipation of a two was effort.

Sadly, for Donald'a Billionaire Boys Club that means a delay for a few years in the tax cuts they want. Fortunately there will be plenty of sales an profits to make up for it.

elect a clown
expect a circus

only four dead, almost none