Trump orders strikes against Syria over chemical weapons attack

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Thechook said:

I'm not an American but I now sit and wonder about all the anti Trump people who said he was sleeping with Putin and Russia rigged the elections to get their boy in over Hillary.  I'm thinking to myself just how stupid these anti trump people now look in the eyes of others around the world.

 

I world love a trump to running Australia, a man with balls who throws out these ridiculous racist and political correctness cards that all the me, me, me snowflake generation now carry.  Trump is the only politician in the world to make little kimmy sit up and think and ask for talks.  He warned Syria and they tried to call his bluff. Donald, you are a strong, straight shooting leader with not crap attached.

He can't read. He is a moron. Please take him. Please.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

S-400 not deployed perhaps due to liaison between Russia and US military. Watched the briefing by Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chair. US advised Russians the airspace over Syria which Western assets would utilise for the attack to avoid unintended contact with Russian forces. Accordingly one assumes Russia will not be responding militarily even though lots of Russian bluster?

 

 

"We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace, we did not coordinate targets," Dunford said. The Russians were warned beforehand, said French Defense Minister Florence Parly at a press conference on Saturday.

"We do not seek confrontation and we refuse any possibility of military escalation and that is the reason why, with our allies, we have insured that the Russians were warned beforehand," she said.

 

That would certainly apply for aircraft. However, the Russians do claim certain capabilities with regard to intercepting cruise missiles and such. Not intercepting incoming missiles would be going an extra mile, considering the claims made with regard to the system's capabilities. 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, CGW said:

You have to read the "fake news" to realise the real reasons behind this madness! It nothing to do with 'chemicals" thats for dam sure!

(PS. Oil is not a chemical!)

 

How does a one-off, limited attack, on military targets promote supposed goals regarding "oil"?

 

[Grouse]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would certainly apply for aircraft. However, the Russians do claim certain capabilities with regard to intercepting cruise missiles and such. Not intercepting incoming missiles would be going an extra mile, considering the claims made with regard to the system's capabilities. 

Cruise missiles FLY at roughly the same speed as attack aircraft. Now ballistic missiles, well that's a different matter. BTW the British and French Storm Shadows were launched outside Syria air space (they can stand off 100 nautical miles). 

 

In conclusion, tokenism. Slapped wrists. Now, bedtime.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Grouse

[Morch]

11 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

What a nonsense, the right process is to wait for the investigation to finish (hasn't started yet), then when you have actual proof instead of opinions, you react.

 

Is this supposed "process" something commonly internationally adhered to?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Cruise missiles FLY at roughly the same speed as attack aircraft. Now ballistic missiles, well that's a different matter. BTW the British and French Storm Shadows were launched outside Syria air space (they can stand off 100 nautical miles). 

 

In conclusion, tokenism. Slapped wrists. Now, bedtime.

 

Not really. Cruise missiles flight pattern aren't similar to those of aircraft, not at least for experienced air defense personnel and a top of the line system. As the system in question was so hyped - one would have thought they'd jump on the opportunity to demonstrate it's worth. Just imagine all them missiles intercepted - quite an egg on Trump's face, and a great marketing feat. The distance at which missiles were launched isn't quite relevant - not talking about intercepting the aircraft, but of shooting the missiles themselves out of the sky.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

Russia has to react otherwise it will become worse and worse. Wondering or destroying of some US destroyers were also in the deal they made to prevent that the US losing it filthy face ...

 

How would Russia reacting would prevent things from becoming "worse and worse"? Not that there is an actual reasoning as to why or how things would get "worse and worse" anyway. Somehow doubt that trying to destroy Us destroyed would do anything but making things "worse and worse". Russia carrying a full blown direct attack on the US, in response to a limited strike by the US on Syria - yeah, about as unhinged as they come.

[Grouse]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not really. Cruise missiles flight pattern aren't similar to those of aircraft, not at least for experienced air defense personnel and a top of the line system. As the system in question was so hyped - one would have thought they'd jump on the opportunity to demonstrate it's worth. Just imagine all them missiles intercepted - quite an egg on Trump's face, and a great marketing feat. The distance at which missiles were launched isn't quite relevant - not talking about intercepting the aircraft, but of shooting the missiles themselves out of the sky.

Stand off cruise missiles are good for aircrew. S400 can certainly shoot down cruise but not the launch aircraft at stand-off range. The point is that this was minimum risk. Tokenism.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Grouse

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Do you really believe that, no other ulterior motive? You cannot be serious!

Your not related to "Baghdad Bob" in any way are you?

 

Can the personal baiting.

My point was obviously that the chemical attack was real. Not fake as you'll hear from Russian propaganda.

As far as extra benefits for "trump" -- yes, obviously there are some of those such as obviously taking attention away from his many and very serious political scandals threatening his very presidency. A military "victory" as "trump" is proclaiming this now even to the absurdity of using the W. Bush phrase MISSION ACCOMPLISHED might help in the approval polls for a few days anyway.

 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Stand off cruise missiles are good for aircrew. S400 can certainly shoot down cruise but not the launch aircraft at stand-off range. The point is that this was minimum risk. Tokenism.

 

I think you may want to check advertised/estimated ranges regarding said air defense. Either way, the point made was that shooting an aircraft is one thing (very serious), whereas intercepting an incoming missile of whichever sort is another (not serious). The Russians obviously skipped the former, and claims aside, not much of the latter as well.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Well if the Russians don't retaliate military ,  I hope Putin announces to stop export of Titanium to US & UK , France and China to stops rare earth metals , vital to US war industry and aviation (Airbus & Boeing) .

 

Japanese researchers map 'semi-infinite' rare earth reserves

https://japantoday.com/category/tech/japan-team-maps-'semi-infinite'-rare-earth-reserves

 

The tremendous potential of deep-sea mud as a source of rare-earth elements

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf

 

[FritsSikkink]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Is this supposed "process" something commonly internationally adhered to?

It was before Trump and May got in charge. 

Trump is getting less and less supporters: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-supporters-slam-decision-to-launch-strikes-against-syria/ar-AAvSjii?ocid=spartandhp

Edited April 14, 2018 by FritsSikkink

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Jonah Tenner said:

I find it fascinating that every time the Syrian government gets the upper hand and appears to win the war, there is a "gas attack" which gives the West an excuse to intervene on the side of the so called rebels, ISIL and Al Queda.

Fascinating and totally unbelievable.

 

The "gas attacks" do not necessarily correspond to "every time the Syrian government gets the upper hand and appears to win the war". The Syrian government carried out many such attacks during the Syrian Civil War, most of which did not result in a direct military response by "the West".

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

It was before Trump and May got in charge. 

Trump is getting less and less supporters: 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-supporters-slam-decision-to-launch-strikes-against-syria/ar-AAvSjii?ocid=spartandhp

 

That you claim it was so does not carry a whole lot of weight. The link in your post does not say anything about this supposed "process" something commonly internationally adhered to. Trump losing support is a good thing, in my book.

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The "gas attacks" do not necessarily correspond to "every time the Syrian government gets the upper hand and appears to win the war". The Syrian government carried out many such attacks during the Syrian Civil War, most of which did not result in a direct military response by "the West".

Who was the US president? That explains lack of response.

[Silurian]

Aww, the reality TV president made Alex Jones cry. I wonder how many other deplorons feel the same way as Alex?

 

Alex Jones Weeps Over Syria Strike in Live Meltdown: Trump is ‘Compromised’

 

Quote

“Welp, Trump’s now a fraud,” Jones said. “Done.”

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Silurian

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Who was the US president? That explains lack of response.

 

Unless much mistaken there were such attacks by Assad's forces, which did not result in a direct US military response. The ones that make for major headlines aren't all of them. Regardless, my post was aimed at countering a bogus claim which had little to do with who's POTUS.

[bristolboy]

"Defense Secretary James Mattis’s argument on Friday night that the president was authorized to order strikes under Article II of the constitution is dubious, given that it’s hard to argue Assad’s chemical weapons attacks threatened Americans or U.S. interests. Paul Ryan’s argument earlier this week that a strike on a regime fighting against al-Qaida is justified by the 2001 authorization targeting the perpetrators of 9/11—in other words, al-Qaida—is patently ridiculous. In his remarks last night, the president referred to international law, namely Assad’s violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but these strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. "

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/another-limited-response-to-syrias-chemical-weapons-will-assad-get-the-message-this-time.html

[BuaBS]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Japanese researchers map 'semi-infinite' rare earth reserves

https://japantoday.com/category/tech/japan-team-maps-'semi-infinite'-rare-earth-reserves

 

The tremendous potential of deep-sea mud as a source of rare-earth elements

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23948-5.pdf

 

I had read that , but they are far off from exploiting that , 5 km underwater. That's why China needs to cut rare earth minerals NOW.

And since the Russians have about 60 % of the Titanium on the world market and have not only sanctions on them by the EU and US and get attacked in Syria after warning Trump , the least they can do after yesterdays strike is put sanctions on US & EU , starting with immediate stop of Titanium exports. ( or up the price x 100 , paid in gold , not paper or digital debt )

[Morch]

11 hours ago, CGW said:

You wouldn't believe anybody could be so stupid to do the same thing Twice, despite the reaction last time, maybe he thought it had been forgotten?

Or maybe he never did it as he is a little bit smarter than that? lucky we have the EVIDENCE???????????

Were not being lied to are we

 

(a) Why assume Assad is some mega brain?

(b) Why assume Assad decision making employs the same factors outsiders postulate?

(c) Despite the reaction last time how? The previous reaction was pretty much like this one, limited in scope and effect.

(d) In case you missed it, them rebels were quick enough to accept terms and surrender a day after the chemical attack.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

I had read that , but they are far off from exploiting that , 5 km underwater. That's why China needs to cut rare earth minerals NOW.

And since the Russians have about 60 % of the Titanium on the world market and have not only sanctions on them by the EU and US and get attacked in Syria after warning Trump , the least they can do after yesterdays strike is put sanctions on US & EU , starting with immediate stop of Titanium exports. ( or up the price x 100 , paid in gold , not paper or digital debt )

 

Yeah, well - you're welcome to fantasies about either country giving up major exports, or both of them being united against the US. The Russians were not attacked, as you claimed.

[bristolboy]

Assad uses chemical weapons to evict the rebels and in return loses just a few assets. I think Assad comes out way ahead on that exchange.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

Bad move. The US should just get out. Regional conflict, regional solution.

 

But that's the US government. Always some reason to go to war.

 

Whereas Russia's involvement in a regional conflict is a non-issue. For some.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

11 hours ago, hanseman said:

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

 

Not necessarily. It would depend on which chemicals are stored and how. Then there's mission planning and perhaps a re--configuration of armaments used. I think they had pretty good target intel, from various sources.

[FritsSikkink]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That you claim it was so does not carry a whole lot of weight. The link in your post does not say anything about this supposed "process" something commonly internationally adhered to. Trump losing support is a good thing, in my book.

Never heard of UN resolutions, like the ones before the attacks on Iraq?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Never heard of UN resolutions, like the ones before the attacks on Iraq?

 

If by "internationally" you actually mean "the US", or "the West" - may have a point. Me, I think "internationally" implies a wider scope, and that the same demands aren't as forcefully or vocally raised with regard to other parties. Since UN (or rather, UNSC) resolutions can be vetoed at the pleasure of one involved (and possibly, implicated) party, the "process" is somewhat bogus to begin with. I'm not denying that the "process" is generally accepted and acknowledged by "the West",  even sometimes to its own disadvantage. The point made was with regard to double standards, and claims that the "process" was internationally adhered to.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

I do think this is possibly a conspiracy but Sky News? No, just incompetence

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tv-news-interview-former-army-12358938

[Morch]

5 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

I find it ironical that the decision made by those leaders was done without parliamentary approval (democracy anyone?) and hours before an independent analysis that would prove or disprove that a chemical attack took place (transparency anyone?). No United Nations resolutions?  It is worth mentioning the strike might have botched the investigation. It looks like the leaders (and the military) of those countries are acting in ways they do not like others to act. Of course, it looks like Cambridge Analytica (and who knows what else) helped elect Trump. Looks like democracies are being run like dictatorships.

 

Other than the usual nonsense complaints about democracy and due process being directed at countries mostly abiding by such, rather than at more obvious targets - how did the strike potentially botch the investigation? Was the area in question directly attacked? Would Russia's and Syria's motivation for demonstrating their innocence, disappear?

 

Kinda rich whinging about democracies presumably run like dictatorships, when there are dictatorships run like dictatorships.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, JemJem said:

Lies...lies.....lies. I am not buying this 'Chemical weapons have been used by the regime' thing.

 

When the truth comes out (as it did in the case of Iraq years ago), who is going to pay any price for these lies ? Sadly no one !

 

If Assad regime is weakened, Islamic extremists and the neo-Ottomanist imperialism of Erdogan will have a field day. I am thus hoping that the Assad regime will stay strong.

 

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.

 

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Silurian said:

Aww, the reality TV president made Alex Jones cry. I wonder how many other deplorons feel the same way as Alex?

 

Alex Jones Weeps Over Syria Strike in Live Meltdown: Trump is ‘Compromised’

 

 

Alex Jones is a elixir peddler,no more no less