Trump bombs Syria

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,034
Reaction score
2,041
U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government

The U.S. military launched approximately 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

Rand Paul isn't happy.

Rand Paul
7 mins ·
While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked. The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different.​

This whole things is a mess, made worst from Obama's complete and total incompetence. What do you all think about this?

Also would someone explain to me why the {bleep} is the UN even a thing anymore? The US should not give a penny to the UN ever again and should not even recognize it.
 
This situation is a mess, but I think I'll go with Rand here.

Rand Paul Is Right; Don’t Launch War in Syria Without Congressional Approval

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution means anything, it means that the president must obtain congressional approval before taking us to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies and is not threatening to attack the U.S. or its allies. Senator Rand Paul said as much in an interview today, and I agree with him. As Senator Paul said, “The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution.”
 
C8rpBatVYAAN_-G.jpg




C8wHXIZU0AAjo_s.jpg
 
Fake news? I am having a hard time believing any outlet these days.

Pentagon: Russia May Have Directly Participated in Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

A stunning update on Friday afternoon from the Associated Press said the Pentagon is investigating possible Russian participationin the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons attack.
These officials also supported the dire suspicion that nearby hospitals were attacked to cover up evidence of the WMD deployment:

The officials say Russia has failed to control the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.

They say a drone belonging either to Russia or Syria was seen hovering over the site of the chemical weapons attack Tuesday after it happened. The drone returned late in the day as citizens were going to a nearby hospital for treatment. Shortly afterward, officials say the hospital was bombed.

The officials say they believe the hospital attack may have been an effort to cover up evidence of the attack.

The officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity. They say they’re still reviewing evidence.​

According to CNN, the Pentagon is particularly interested in whether a Russian warplane actually conducted the bombing run on the Khan Sheikhoun hospital where victims were receiving treatment within hours of the attack, “with the aim of destroying evidence.”

Such an inquiry will not, of course, sit well with Russia, which is currently demanding a U.N. Security Council investigation of Americanaggression.

There have been conflicting reports about whether any Russian personnel or aircraft, particularly helicopters, were present at the Sharyat airbase. Videos can be found online purporting to show Russian helicopters at the base as recently as February, but Fox News quotes Pentagon briefers stating “no Russian aircraft were at the Sharyat airfield” when the missiles struck.

However, the Fox News report also quotes U.S. officials who said “between 12 and 100 Russian military personnel” were present at the base, complete with their own barracks, which the U.S. “took pains” to avoid blowing up. If the chemical weapons attack on Idlib province was indeed conducted from the base, it would be very difficult for the Russians to argue they were unaware a war crime was in progress under their noses.
 
Very worrying. This has been brewing for a long time, the propaganda campaign has been intense (and long). There must be a lot of pressure on Trump with continuous moves to topple him. Perhaps he has found he has no real choice but to go along with the war hawks in the sate department and CIA or wind up impeached or dead. The swamp is just too big.

The casus belli is bull but they always are. There is no military purpose for Assad to drop chemical weapons on people. I don't even think the neo-cons are too worried if people buy it or not. They are just trying to move fast enough to get a big war going. Since they had this big strike planned and ready to go they may have a whole series of escalations lined up to roll.

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be too much damage at the airbase considering the arms expended (though I hear US reports are saying the airbase was almost completely destroyed).

The attacked airbase would be an important facility in the defense of Palmyra which the Syrian government has already lost twice with extreme damage caused to historical structures by ISIS on both occasions. This is clearly an effort to strengthen ISIS militarily, in fact, ISIS has already started offensives in that direction immediately following the strikes (as if there was some level of coordination - similar to other US strikes).
 
I find the silence deafening in here for the most part. It seems a lot of people who hated Trump because he grabbed willing women "by the pussy", are now quiet because he is intervening in a foreign country conflict. The hawks on both sides are out in droves. Suddenly USA being the world police is good for them.

Anyhow, Ron Paul is one of the few voices I trust.

U.S. Strike Helps ISIS and Al-Qaeda


Again, I reiterate the UN is completely useless. I personally think they have a much more sinister purpose, but looking just at this situation you can see how useless they are.
 
redrumloa said:
With false flag accusations comes great responsibility. Any proof beyond memes?
Click to expand...

No motive, Assad was winning, why a gas attack to kill 75 women and children??

photos don't look like an actual gas attack, no dead fighters are shown
incident reported by "white helmets" who have a history of staging incidents
the bodies show blunt force trauma, a gas attack would not
the bodies look like they were taken from morgue and partially dressed
touching a body exposed to sarin gas without protective gear would kill you

This would not be the first time an incident was staged in Syria

Gloves Are for Sissies: Photographs Show White Helmets Are Immune to Sarin
 
To be clear I am conflicted here, but lean heavily toward the side of Isolationism. The US should not be the world police.
 
redrumloa said:
To be clear I am conflicted here, but lean heavily toward the side of Isolationism. The US should not be the world police.
Click to expand...
The smartest thing you ever said!

But i also think it's interesting on the different views here. You consider Obama incompetent whereas i think he is a champ. He is the only politican i would ever vote for. With any luck his wife will run for office.
 
I saw on the news that 8 people died and 20 planes destroyed. I haven't had a chance to really read about this but it all seems a bit pointless. The US commits to conflict in the long term with what seems a harmless fireworks display. If you are going to retaliate and launch dozens of tomahawks at least make them count.
 
Kesa said:
I saw on the news that 8 people died and 20 planes destroyed. I haven't had a chance to really read about this but it all seems a bit pointless. The US commits to conflict in the long term with what seems a harmless fireworks display. If you are going to retaliate and launch dozens of tomahawks at least make them count.
Click to expand...
I heard about 4 "missing" and 8 or so injuries including those injured fighting fires. 12 aircraft were destroyed in maintenance hangars and a radar installation was destroyed. The runways and taxiways were unscathed (because the US might want to land there or because the strike was more theatre than anything else?)
 
redrumloa said:
I find the silence deafening in here for the most part. It seems a lot of people who hated Trump because he grabbed willing women "by the pussy", are now quiet because he is intervening in a foreign country conflict.
Click to expand...
Personally, I am not someone who hated him because of any remarks about women, but I also do not have much to say about these latest events because it was blatantly obvious that Trump's prior remarks about non-interventionism could be not trusted for a second. It is not like pointing out yet another instance of Trump being a hyprocrite is going to change anybody's opinion on this forum. (FluffyMcDeath is already coming up with vague conspiracy theories about how the morally superior Trump must have been coerced against his will to pull the trigger...)

Morever, I fail to see how this is fundamentally worse compared to the massive increase of drone strikes since Trump took office, which Robert referenced here the other week. Trump blew up 50 million USD of tax payer-funded rockets, killed a few people and partially destroyed an airlfield, which - as of today - is still being used for jets to take off. In terms of human cost, this will have far fewer consequences than Trump's decision to allow the CIA to bypass the military and kill people via drones directly, which happened all the way back in March, yet has received far less attention on this forum than the attack on a Syrian airfield.
 
JoBBo said:
(FluffyMcDeath is already coming up with vague conspiracy theories about how the morally superior Trump must have been coerced against his will to pull the trigger...)
Click to expand...

vague? Well, perhaps that is the nature of the beast since conspiracies tend to be shrouded in secrecy or at least a loud smoke screen of distraction. I would be very surprised to find out that these incidents had occurred simply on the whim of Trump rather than on agendas run by powerful and conflicting groups in government who have each exercised whatever assets they have in their domain to coerce the outcome they want. That is generally how the world works in the smaller domains. I don't see why it would somehow work differently at the level of the people who via to run the state.

The attack that Trump has been under from the intelligence agencies has been pretty merciless and more effective than I would have hoped but it does demonstrate their power and the Donald would have to recognize that by now. They have been pretty good at blocking/overturning appointments and paralysing any rapprochement towards Russia. That fact is quite clear because it has been done, necessarily, in the public view. Perhaps he threw them a bone to get some breathing room, perhaps he has decided he needs to go along with the foreign policy to get his domestic one done, though his interests are in real estate and not the military industrial complex. Perhaps the insiders in the MIC have relented and will let him have a piece of that pie for his retirement - maybe that has helped sway his mind. Stuff like that would be more vague and speculative as it would generally happen on quiet channels.

One thing that very much happens to a person once they become president is that they become captive in the White House. If you can't fill that place (and by extension the rest of the executive and quasi executive apparatus) with loyalists then you are surrounded by other people's loyalists and they WILL exert influence to move things in the direction of their agenda.
 
JoBBo said:
... it was blatantly obvious that Trump's prior remarks about non-interventionism could be not trusted for a second.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I tried to point this out back in October but, other than you a couple of months later, nobody seemed to care:

Me:
If Clinton becomes president and pushes the no fly zone, things could get very ugly. I'm not convinced she will, though...

... I'm equally unconvinced that Trump won't do something stupid like that. The fact that he is currently saying he won't is almost meaningless to me. I don't know which of his utterances he actually believes and I'm not even sure he does. He's spent his entire life bullshitting people so why anyone would trust anything he says now absolutely baffles me.
Click to expand...

You:
Reuters reports: Trump says he will order 'safe zones' for Syria
"According to a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and the State Department in coming days to craft a plan for setting up the “safe zones,” a move that could risk escalation of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war."
Click to expand...

The mental gymnastics now being used to explain it away are as depressing as they are clichéd. It's been blatantly obvious from the start that Trump will be as much of a scumbag as any US president in recent history. If some people still can't admit that, it seems that it won't matter what happens on his watch, it'll never be his fault.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Perhaps the insiders in the MIC have relented and will let him have a piece of that pie for his retirement - maybe that has helped sway his mind. Stuff like that would be more vague and speculative as it would generally happen on quiet channels.
Click to expand...
According to his supporters, being a supposed billionaire makes him fully incorruptible. (So, remember: Always vote for the richest candidate!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top