[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.