Trump orders strikes against Syria over chemical weapons attack

[Thechook]

6 hours ago, Different said:

Shove up those missiles up your asses white hypocrites, because it only sends a message to Assad and Russians to keep killing Syrian children and their families but without the use of chemicals.

A little bit racist there.

[Grouse]

Again, I think this is a token punishment for using chemical weapons. Not much damage but not a good day for Assad either.

 

But what about the Syrian civil war. What does the west want? The refugees have destabilised Europe. We can't remove all the bad people on the planet! We do want a stable Syria if only to send the refugees back. How many refugees has the USA taken in?

 

For me, we should use great diplomatic skill to develop some balance. I would assist Iran to balance the new Israeli/Saudi axis. I would bolster the Kurds to keep Turkey and Assad apart. I suggest the British and French get their big pencils out and divide up the area. I don't think the Americans are really interested. Oil is less of an attraction than previously. ?

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Again, I think this is a token punishment for using chemical weapons. Not much damage but not a good day for Assad either.

 

But what about the Syrian civil war. What does the west want? The refugees have destabilised Europe. We can't remove all the bad people on the planet! We do want a stable Syria if only to send the refugees back. How many refugees has the USA taken in?

 

For me, we should use great diplomatic skill to develop some balance. I would assist Iran to balance the new Israeli/Saudi axis. I would bolster the Kurds to keep Turkey and Assad apart. I suggest the British and French get their big pencils out and divide up the area. I don't think the Americans are really interested. Oil is less of an attraction than previously. ?

 

What you are advocating is, in fact, not balance - but ongoing conflict. Quite the opposite of the announced goal.

[Basil B]

One thing for sure Putin ain't going to take this lying down...

 

What will he do??? Syria, Iran & Russia declare war on USA, France and the UK??? 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Basil B

[metisdead]

A post containing content/links to unapproved sources has been removed. 

 

Off topic trolling posts about the US election has been removed as well as the replies. 

[Hummin]

10 hours ago, Sealbash said:

What alternative do you support?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Trouble in middle east started long time ago, but If we (UN) did not declare Israel as an state, Pakistan, interveened the first legal votes in Iran, let Saddam stay in place,  Gaddafi, and let Assad clean up, it would have been less deaths and less people in pain for decades, but Russia would have been stronger. And if Usa let the russians to Afghanistan as well, how would it look like now? 

 

Chess game of high rank. You move, you get an conteraction, you do not move, what then? 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Hummin

[soalbundy]

20 hours ago, hanseman said:

How about the strike to chemical storage, isn't that releasing a huge gas cloud?

precursors, not the finished product 

[soalbundy]

We had no choice, America told us we want your support or else poodle

[Hummin]

33 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

precursors, not the finished product 

Just cosmetic bombing, where target hav been decleared and proved. Show must go on

[Krataiboy]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Regardless of what you're "buying" Assad's regime did use chemical weapons on multiple occasions. As for the Iraq nonsense argument - do you see any invasion on the horizon? It was a limited response, designed more as a statement and PR value. There is no indication that the US intends to get further involved. There is nothing in the current attack which hints at Assad's departure from the scene.

 

 

Over the years, both sides in the conflict been blamed for using chemical weapons, with denials all round and conclusive evidence hard to substantiate. You pays your money. . . 

 

You are probably right about Trump grandstanding for PR purposes - though what "statement" he was trying to make, other than about the size of the bulge in his pants, is hard to fathom. We have been here before, almost a year ago to the day, with that earlier Tomahawk strike, which had little deterrent effect.

 

The official cover story for this latest show of military might is a hard one to swallow.

 

Assad had the Douma rebels on the run, to the point where, according to a local journalist, they were caging civilians and using them as human shields against Syrian air force raids. A chemical attack could only bring international condemnation and the Coalition cavalry galloping to the rescue of the US's beleaguered proxy fighters.

 

Assad has his faults, but he is no dummy when it comes to strategy.

 

Even the Israelis, who launched an air attack of their own on Iranian-backed positions in Syria only two months ago, are sceptical about the value of the Trump-orchestrated fireworks display.

 

An article in today's issue of The Times of Israel concludes: "With critical Russian and Iranian support, Assad is poised to complete his victory in the civil war . . . and much of his air force and other military installations remain untouched."

 

One hopes were are not witnessing the stumbling start of a new US-led campaign to oust the stubborn Syrian leadership, and that the ongoing build-up of US, British and Jordanian armour close to the Syria border is, as the Pentagon claims, merely part of a joint training exercise. 

 

However, with the hawkish John Bolton, one of the architects of the PNAC plan, now dispensing the President's ear whisky it might make sense to fasten that seat belt

Edited April 15, 2018 by Krataiboy

[owl sees all]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

But what about the Syrian civil war. What does the west want? The refugees have destabilised Europe. We can't remove all the bad people on the planet! We do want a stable Syria if only to send the refugees back. How many refugees has the USA taken in?

Yes!! What about the civil war? Once the US had decided that Syria was to have regime change; everything else would be consequential and irrelevant. Just as it was with Libya and Iraq.

 

Russia was the fly in the ointment; and still are. Soooo,,, the plan is to demonise them at every opportunity; dragging other countries into their plan along the way. Step up to the plate UK marionette!!

 

It's not always the first reason given for most US driven conflicts, but behind it looms the petro-dollar. Dissenters who see things differently, and want to do deals without the US orchestrating, are devastatingly dealt with.

 

The US must do everything they can to stop these countries either 'going it alone' or as a group, or it will reverberate around the would that big business can be conducted without the US's approval

Edited April 15, 2018 by owl sees all

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Basil B said:

One thing for sure Putin ain't going to take this lying down...

 

What will he do??? Syria, Iran & Russia declare war on USA, France and the UK??? 

 

Guess it depends on how "lying down" is defined. What did Putin do after the last, similar attack? Not a whole lot, directly. Assuming this would be different does not rely on much.

 

Putin's main interest in Syria now is to keep the country stable, and Assad's regime on top. This, while keeping Iran and Turkey's ambitions under control. Not an easy feat, and war is the last thing he needs right now. There could be more, improved military systems provided to Assad's regime. There will a whole lot of the usual disinformation campaign, the divide-and-conquer strategy and a bit of poking here and there. 

 

 

[Krataiboy]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

Again, I think this is a token punishment for using chemical weapons. Not much damage but not a good day for Assad either.

 

But what about the Syrian civil war. What does the west want? The refugees have destabilised Europe. We can't remove all the bad people on the planet! We do want a stable Syria if only to send the refugees back. How many refugees has the USA taken in?

 

For me, we should use great diplomatic skill to develop some balance. I would assist Iran to balance the new Israeli/Saudi axis. I would bolster the Kurds to keep Turkey and Assad apart. I suggest the British and French get their big pencils out and divide up the area. I don't think the Americans are really interested. Oil is less of an attraction than previously. ?

Like we did before - and with the same disastrous divide-and-rule consequences for the rest of the world?

Edited April 15, 2018 by Krataiboy

[Krataiboy]

8 hours ago, Basil B said:

One thing for sure Putin ain't going to take this lying down...

 

What will he do??? Syria, Iran & Russia declare war on USA, France and the UK??? 

No, probably just a few more press-ups before breakfast.

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What you are advocating is, in fact, not balance - but ongoing conflict. Quite the opposite of the announced goal.

Nope, stable equilibrium is what's required. I don't see the Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Saudis, Israelis and Syrians inviting each other for tea do you? No, but we can enable strategic balance where no country in the area has hegemony. USA has Saudi and Israel covered. Russia has Syria. What about the Kurds? They COULD be a great counter balance! Where are our leading diplomats?

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Like we did before - and with the same disastrous divide-and-rule consequences for the rest of the world?

Sykes Picot worked fine for a century. 

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Over the years, both sides in the conflict been blamed for using chemical weapons, with denials all round and conclusive evidence hard to substantiate. You pays your money. . . 

 

You are probably right about Trump grandstanding for PR purposes - though what "statement" he was trying to make, other than about the size of the bulge in his pants, is hard to fathom. We have been here before, almost a year ago to the day, with that earlier Tomahawk strike, which had little deterrent effect.

 

The official cover story for this latest show of military might is a hard one to swallow.

 

Assad had the Douma rebels on the run, to the point where, according to a local journalist, they were caging civilians and using them as human shields against Syrian air force raids. A chemical attack could only bring international condemnation and the Coalition cavalry galloping to the rescue of the US's beleaguered proxy fighters.

 

Assad has his faults, but he is no dummy when it comes to strategy.

 

Even the Israelis, who launched an air attack of their own on Iranian-backed positions in Syria only two months ago, are sceptical about the value of the Trump-orchestrated fireworks display.

 

An article in today's issue of The Times of Israel concludes: "With critical Russian and Iranian support, Assad is poised to complete his victory in the civil war . . . and much of his air force and other military installations remain untouched."

 

One hopes were are not witnessing the stumbling start of a new US-led campaign to oust the stubborn Syrian leadership, and that the ongoing build-up of US, British and Jordanian armour close to the Syria border is, as the Pentagon claims, merely part of a joint training exercise. 

 

However, with the hawkish John Bolton, one of the architects of the PNAC plan, now dispensing the President's ear whisky it might make sense to fasten that seat belt

 

Yes, there were such claims about rebels (not necessarily the group in question) using chemical weapons. Fair enough, and quite probable that there were such instances. When it comes to scope, though, asserting that their capabilities of production and delivery are anywhere on par with Assad's, is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

 

Assad did not have the Douma rebels on the run. Negotiations for their surrender stalled a few days before the chemical attack. Then came the chemical attack, followed by the rebels' surrender the day after. So, in effect - the rebels staging this would seem dubious, whereas Assad's concrete gains are obvious.

 

It is not clear which "local journalist" you are citing, and I'd doubt it is not an extremely partisan source (again, putting it mildly). I'm also yet to see anything to substantiate repeated claims about these rebels being the US's "proxy fighters". That the US supported some rebel groups in the past is fact, but other than this not applying to all rebel groups, support was canceled a  while back.

 

Assad has his faults, and there's not indication that he's much of a strategist, other than you claiming so. Going from firmly in-place dictator, to the country being shredded by a civil war, does not give the sense your comment is on the money.

 

We have no argument over the value of the current attack. At best, it would serve as a temporary set-back and deterrent.

 

One hopes that people will keep a grip on reality. The so-called "buildup" is no match for the amount of troops at Assad's disposal. There's no real indication of this developing further.

[samran]

22 hours ago, riclag said:

Allies against chemical weapons being used by a government on their own people,  UK France  USA

 

 April 12,"American TV network NBC has quoted US officials as saying that blood and urine samples from the victims of Saturday’s attack showed traces chlorine and a nerve agent, and that US intelligence had other evidence pointing to the Syrian regime’s culpability, which would be presented to the president.

The reports echo a statement by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who said earlier today that his government had “proof” that the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the attack".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/apr/12/uk-russia-tensions-rise-over-syria-attack-and-salisbury-poisoning-live-updates?page=with:block-5acf9f39e4b0d501a38c5996#block-5acf9f39e4b0d501a38c5996

Trump turning into an expansionist globalist leader that he promised the MAGA crew he’d never be. Offering to rejoin the TPP in the same week. His true colours are coming out. 

[owl sees all]

40 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

No, probably just a few more press-ups before breakfast.

As much as Putin must be annoyed he will not, IMHO, retaliate in a  like-for-like fashion. Instead he will press on with Russia/China/Iran trade without the petro-dollar. This is far more likely to bring down the US than a  bomb or two. 

 

The US are trying hard to convince it's citizens that what they are doing is fair and just, but they do not have public support for this. The UK even less so. In fact, I would opine that the majority of UK people do not believe there was a Syrian chemical attack any more than there was a nerve-agent incident in Salisbury,

Edited April 15, 2018 by owl sees all

[jenny2017]

We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria.  We pray that God will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of peace.

 

Another President with god on his side? 

[owl sees all]

1 minute ago, jenny2017 said:

Another President with god on his side? 

I've not heard Trump say "God bless America" yet!! But there is time; although it could be running out.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, jenny2017 said:

 

Another President with god on his side? 

 

Never mind.

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, jenny2017 said:

We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria.  We pray that God will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of peace.

 

Another President with god on his side? 

It really didn't take too long for the wind to change against Trump :D 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Yes!! What about the civil war? Once the US had decided that Syria was to have regime change; everything else would be consequential and irrelevant. Just as it was with Libya and Iraq.

 

Russia was the fly in the ointment; and still are. Soooo,,, the plan is to demonise them at every opportunity; dragging other countries into their plan along the way. Step up to the plate UK marionette!!

 

It's not always the first reason given for most US driven conflicts, but behind it looms the petro-dollar. Dissenters who see things differently, and want to do deals without the US orchestrating, are devastatingly dealt with.

 

The US must do everything they can to stop these countries either 'going it alone' or as a group, or it will reverberate around the would that big business can be conducted without the US's approval

 

The usual, over-reaching unsubstantiated waffle. There's always a supposed long term master plan in place. Anything and everything that happens corresponds to said master plan. Nothing is random, no miscalculations allowed for. Sounds pretty much like religion to me.

[owl sees all]

Just now, Morch said:

The usual, over-reaching unsubstantiated waffle. There's always a supposed long term master plan in place. Anything and everything that happens corresponds to said master plan. Nothing is random, no miscalculations allowed for. Sounds pretty much like religion to me.

Oh, do wake up and smell the coffee.

 

All this world chaos and turmoil is just a part of the master plan.

 

I'm an atheist. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Nope, stable equilibrium is what's required. I don't see the Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Saudis, Israelis and Syrians inviting each other for tea do you? No, but we can enable strategic balance where no country in the area has hegemony. USA has Saudi and Israel covered. Russia has Syria. What about the Kurds? They COULD be a great counter balance! Where are our leading diplomats?

 

The current situation in the Middle East is one in which no country "has hegemony". It doesn't make for a particularly peaceful Middle East. How would "the Kurds" serve your design? In order for them to be a power reckoned with there needs to be a whole lot of breaking countries apart (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), and for "the Kurds" to overcome their internal differences. Don't see this happening anytime soon, and not without a whole lot of the bloodshed and mayhem your claim to seek to avoid.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

As much as Putin must be annoyed he will not, IMHO, retaliate in a  like-for-like fashion. Instead he will press on with Russia/China/Iran trade without the petro-dollar. This is far more likely to bring down the US than a  bomb or two. 

 

The US are trying hard to convince it's citizens that what they are doing is fair and just, but they do not have public support for this. The UK even less so. In fact, I would opine that the majority of UK people do not believe there was a Syrian chemical attack any more than there was a nerve-agent incident in Salisbury,

 

Any actual support for lack of public support, or most of the UK populace subscribing to your views?

 

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

Any actual support for lack of public support, or most of the UK populace subscribing to your views?

Alex Jones and David Icke for starters.

 

Last UK poll showed just 22% agree with the UK Gov's narrative.

Edited April 15, 2018 by owl sees all

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Oh, do wake up and smell the coffee.

 

All this world chaos and turmoil is just a part of the master plan.

 

I'm an atheist. 

 

Just had a wonderful large cup, thanks. That you claim "world chaos and turmoil are just part of the master plan" does not actually make it so.

 

You may think yourself an atheist, yet the world view represented in your post corresponded in structure to religious belief.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

Alex Jones and David Icke for starters.

 

Guess we're down to plain old trolling, then. No others but verified conspiracy theorists?