President Trump announces Military Strikes on Syria

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

After the Chemical attacks on Syria, President Trump today announced that that US Military will be joining forces with France and the U.K. to strike Syria and to stop Assad.

Many critics come from conservatives, questioning whether or not military intervention in Syria is a good thing. For example, Fox News' Tucker Carlson questioned the decision.

Even Alex Jones from Info Wars, a long time and vocal Trump supporter, condemned the decision.

What are your thoughts on this? Was President Trump correct authorize a military strike on Syria? Should the United States intervene in those affairs? And will Russia retaliate?

If there were a hell, President Trump, his staff, and most of Congress would burn in it.

Buncha hypocritical fuckers wanted boots on the ground in Syria since before the Obama administration. They got what they fucking wanted and are crying crocodile tears because they know it looks bad. After all, these expect same sycophants disowned Trump last year when he launched a strike into Syria. They cared for, I dunno, hours? Days?

Meanwhile, we aren't taking refugees from Syria because the only heart these ghouls have is the child's heart they stole to power McConnell.

The thing to note is that there is an important distinction between taking action every time chemical weapons are used, and a consistent aerial campaign with the actual aim of ousting the local government. As a "red line", it is far more palatable, and far less likely to result in expanded conflict.

The other thing to note is that people rushing to condemn Trump for this seem to be overlooking the fact that other nations also believe it is the correct moral thing to be doing. I mean, I haven't seen Macron being accused of warmongering.

altnameJag:

Meanwhile, we aren't taking refugees from Syria because the only heart these ghouls have is the child's heart they stole to power McConnell.

The twisted bit about that is that Trump himself demonized the Syrian refugees, and now him and others are justifying this strike by saying "they killed Syrian children and need to pay". They don't give a fuck about human life, unless they can use it to their own benefit.

Who knows what's going to happen now. This could just be a one time thing, or there could be further strikes. How Russia will respond is also going to be a factor. Right now they're decrying Trump as "Hitler 2.0" and saying there will be consequences. They were also flat out denying any kind of gas attack happened...while also saying the gas attack was committed by the UK. I suppose anything to justify them still defending Assad right? They should at least get their own damn story straight though.

Burnouts3s3:
Was President Trump correct authorize a military strike on Syria?

Establishing a system of punitive military strikes in response to the use of illegal chemical weapons is perhaps defensible in theory, but not in these specific circumstances. Firstly, the Trump administration has ignored the numerous previous instances where the Syrian regime has deployed chlorine gas, even just in the past few months. Secondly, there's nothing to indicate that these strikes are having any impact on Syria's ability or inclination to use chemical weapons, given that similar strikes almost exactly a year ago appear to have accomplished nothing. Lastly, the whole thing is kind of moot because he's killing way more of his own people with conventional munitions anyway, so if the US gave a shit about the lives of Syrians, they'd be doing something about that. I mean, the first thing they'd do is start accepting more Syrian refugees, but we already know Trump's position on that.

These strikes will accomplish nothing. It's just hurling missiles at airbases without any followup or actual troop commitment. It's a fireworks show.

Burnouts3s3:
Should the United States intervene in those affairs?

Any possibility of a successful humanitarian military intervention in Syria expired years ago. The US could very easily topple Assad's regime, but without establishing a stable postwar government, the whole situation will deteriorate into Libya 2.0 very swiftly. And there are simply no groups left that could provide the US with an ideologically acceptable post-war government - the pro-democracy groups have all been extinguished or subjugated. Assad killed most of them and drove the survivors into the ranks of radical Islamist groups.

There was a point in 2011 or 2012 where a suitably-funded humanitarian intervention could maybe have succeeded. But the US didn't want the commitment that a proper humanitarian intervention would bring. Obama was inclined to avoid interventions generally, Libya had turned out to be a disaster, and the hope at the time was that the Arab Spring would result in democratic reform through its own momentum. But as soon as Russia went all-in backing Assad in 2015, he was effectively unbeatable; Obama wanted to focus more on ISIS, which was a less controversial objective.

The result was that people living in Syria got a choice between being killed in a US airstrike or a Russian airstrike. If the US intervened now, it would be the punchline to a bad joke. "Hey guys! We're here to save you from being blown up after years of being blown up by blowing you up all over again!"

Burnouts3s3:
And will Russia retaliate?

The Russian involvement in Syria comes in a few different forms. The first is by loaning planes and munitions to Assad that he can use to perform airstrikes. These airstrikes have not targeted US-backed forces in the past and probably will not start doing so.

The second is by supplying Assad with Russian mercenaries, essentially loaning him troops under the guise of private military contractors. These soldiers have actually already exchanged fire with US forces, but the official Russian stance is that those incidents were military accidents. That could potentially change, in that those forces may be discreetly encouraged to target US-backed forces, testing the boundaries of plausible deniability.

The third form is by supplying militant groups aligned with Assad - such as Alawite and Shi'ite sectarian militias - with weapons and intelligence. These groups are essentially rogue elements that not even Assad can directly control, and they have been fighting US forces directly and indirectly for some time now.

The tl;dr is that Russia is already retaliating, but indirectly and in a manner that poses minimal risk to Russia itself. It is unlikely - though possible - that Russia may retaliate directly, such as by conducting airstrikes on US forces in Syria. There is a very small chance of this happening because the risks for Russia are enormous and the benefits are small; they're more likely to just keep doing what they're already doing.

Does anyone recall how Trump desperately needed to be voted into office because otherwise warhawk Clinton would interfere in Syria and start a conflict with Russia?

Hades:
Does anyone recall how Trump desperately needed to be voted into office because otherwise warhawk Clinton would interfere in Syria and start a conflict with Russia?

I was thinking this exact thing just yesterday, after his stupid tweet about how Russia couldn't stop him. Good thing the sane, methodical candidate got into office and not the boisterous asshole without a lick of sense about foreign policy, right?

Well all that expensive military hardware isn't gonna bomb itself now, is it?

By this time next year when Trump needs a distraction he'll use 200 missiles.

Hades:
Does anyone recall how Trump desperately needed to be voted into office because otherwise warhawk Clinton would interfere in Syria and start a conflict with Russia?

Wonder when the Nazi fucks that still support him will start justifying this.

Watch a lot of people who resist Trump to suddenly support him on this.

There goes my entire "Trumps foreign policy is disproportionately peaceful for a US president" thing, I guess. Time to admit I was wrong on that.

I recall the last time this happened feeling a massive amount of pure bile because he only gave a shit because people died because of the specific type of weapon used, and that if all of these people had been rounded up and just shot in the head, he wouldn't have cared. I have to admit, I've been clogged up with so much of Trump's bullshit that I can't get good and pissed at him the way I used to be able to, but I can still snarkily and bitterly point out he's just as full of shit now as he was then.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Man, I'm begging you, don't tempt fate.

Like with most US militairy operations, I fail to understand what this will accomplish. Going by past record of US militairy operation, it won't help the local population at all or in fact, do much of anything. Is this supposed to scare Assad into not using poison gas but rather bullets to kill people?

It seems to me this will only prolong the conflict by slightly weakening Assad but not by enough to actually make him lose this war.

Besides that, what are May and Macron thinking? I expect stupidity from Trump. I had hoped that other western leaders would be more cautious with following Americans into conflict, with how brilliantly Afghanistan and Iraq turned out, let alone if Trump is involved, who I have even less faith in than Bush.

Oh goodie, we're at war again. Amazing that there isn't enough money to keep the NHS running properly but there is money available to go firing missiles at another country. In a conflict that doesn't involve us.

Pseudonym:
Like with most US militairy operations, I fail to understand what this will accomplish. Going by past record of US militairy operation, it won't help the local population at all or in fact, do much of anything. Is this supposed to scare Assad into not using poison gas but rather bullets to kill people?

It seems to me this will only prolong the conflict by slightly weakening Assad but not by enough to actually make him lose this war.

Besides that, what are May and Macron thinking? I expect stupidity from Trump. I had hoped that other western leaders would be more cautious with following Americans into conflict, with how brilliantly Afghanistan and Iraq turned out, let alone if Trump is involved, who I have even less faith in than Bush.

The european right-wing leaders always love sucking US dick, no matter who is president.

Our very own Rutte looked disappointed that the US did not ask him to join in, they are rotten scum, that is what they are.

Welp, here's hoping that their missle attack on damascus is the only one that happens. I don't want to see this turn into full blown war. WW3 with russia should be avoided at all costs. No one will win that fight. Here's hoping Trudeau has the sense to not touch this with a 100-foot pole, and if things go boom, they aren't pointed at us.

I'm also REALLY skeptical about the whole chemical attack thing.

Like, assad is already winning the fight against isis. Why would he resort to chemical weapons that are guaranteed to provoke international outcry when he's already kicking their ass?

Plus the fact that last time there was a chemical strike (one that was never conclusively proven to be by assad, to my knowledge), the US bombed his troops and very nearly went to war with him, and the establishment/military industrial complex were all salivating at the thought of war with syria...

Like...If he used chemical weapons at all at this point, it'd be basically pointing a gun at his own head and going "someone pull the trigger plz!" It's suicidal and stupid and I don't think he'd be that fucking dumb.

On top of that, the fact that independent observers were going to investigate the site of the attack this weekend and the bombing happened RIGHT before that? That's hilariously suspicious timing.

I'm getting "Iraq did 9/11 / has WMDs!" all over again.

rederoin:
The european right-wing leaders always love sucking US dick, no matter who is president.

Macron?

Right wing???

Right of the French centre, perhaps, but you are seriously distorting definitions to call him right wing.

Personally my problem with this is that it won't work, you can't lob a few missile at chemical plant and expect those to stop chemical weapon manufacturing forever. But at the same time doing nothing means tacitly accepting that chemical weapon be used. I agree it's way too late for an intervention but without a time machine you can't change the pass, you can only change deal with the present.

I guess what I'm saying is "what's your solution"?

aegix drakan:
Welp, here's hoping that their missle attack on damascus is the only one that happens. I don't want to see this turn into full blown war. WW3 with russia should be avoided at all costs. No one will win that fight.

Which is one reason why it won't happen. Not even the Trump administration is that stupid...mind you, being in cahoots with the Russians actually is good for something there.

aegix drakan:
Plus the fact that last time there was a chemical strike

One time. Not the last time. Trump suddenly decided to pretend to care about an ongoing issue.

Catnip1024:

rederoin:
The european right-wing leaders always love sucking US dick, no matter who is president.

Macron?

Right wing???

Right of the French centre, perhaps, but you are seriously distorting definitions to call him right wing.

Ye, right of centre, dude is as liberal as they come.

Catnip1024:
The thing to note is that there is an important distinction between taking action every time chemical weapons are used, and a consistent aerial campaign with the actual aim of ousting the local government. As a "red line", it is far more palatable, and far less likely to result in expanded conflict.

The other thing to note is that people rushing to condemn Trump for this seem to be overlooking the fact that other nations also believe it is the correct moral thing to be doing. I mean, I haven't seen Macron being accused of warmongering.

Yes, "other nations" are also influenced by an out of control military industrial complex. It's almost as if capitalism is international in its scope.

Alex Jones was literally crying. I haven't woken up to something so beautiful in many years. I may have a new ring tone...

Seanchaidh:
Yes, "other nations" are also influenced by an out of control military industrial complex. It's almost as if capitalism is international in its scope.

Do you also blame capitalism when the police have the audacity to arrest somebody for drink driving?

What is the point of an international agreement, if nobody has the balls or the conviction to enforce it? What do you see as the end result of allowing Russia et al to continually cross lines? Do you imagine they'll stop?

Or are you buying the Russia Today line about it all being a hoax set up by those sneaky Brits? Just like the last one they did. And, I assume, Litvinenko. And probably Arshavin being so disappointing when he was at Arsenal. What it comes down to, is, are you more inclined to believe a statement from the US / UK / France, based upon French intel, in nations where, let's be honest, pretty much everything gets leaked eventually, or a statement from Russia and Syria, countries with heavy media control and a habit of murdering anybody who thinks about leaking things?

Smithnikov:
Alex Jones was literally crying. I haven't woken up to something so beautiful in many years. I may have a new ring tone...

Hold on, really?
Shit I may actually have to go looking for this, and I've done as much as I could to avoid anything with his name on it.

So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

Sadly members of the democrat club at my college that were on campus were still trying to frame this in a way that shows that Trump is still a puppet of Russia. They just will not accept that he isn't and hasn't been a puppet of Russia.

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

kiri3tsubasa:

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

Sadly members of the democrat club at my college that were on campus were still trying to frame this in a way that shows that Trump is still a puppet of Russia. They just will not accept that he isn't and hasn't been a puppet of Russia.

Trump launched an ineffective military strike at targets that were announced well ahead of time to Russia (who then shared them with Assad). It's no different than when the airbase that had been abandoned the day before (because we informed Russia ahead of time who then informed Syria) was struck by cruise missiles only to be 100% operation again within 24 hours.

The US looks both inept for launching clearly ineffective military strikes as well as warmongering for launching strikes at all. It's a win for Russia because they get to trumpet (hehe) to the world that the US is instigating conflicts and making the situation in Syria worse. It's also a win for Assad because this continues the precedent of either no or inconsequential international repercussions; the rebels are going to take notice of that.

I do love how we're still downplaying the numerous indictments and convictions that continue to come from the special counsel's Russia investigation as if they're nonexistent. The amount of denial of Russian influence in this administration is almost cute in a way.

Burnouts3s3:

These things make for strange bedfellows. Assad just had every reason to NOT do this. I don't think it was him and we just did something stupid and expensive. And... with no clear and present danger to the USA, didn't Congress need to Declare war?

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

Well, what exactly do you mean by "Russian conspiracy theory?"

kiri3tsubasa:
Sadly members of the democrat club at my college that were on campus were still trying to frame this in a way that shows that Trump is still a puppet of Russia. They just will not accept that he isn't and hasn't been a puppet of Russia.

All that really demonstrates is that Trump has been tossing Putin's salad voluntarily.

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

It will never go away, because the Democrats will never admit that Clinton was just a shit candidate that ran a shit campaign. They need it to be true.

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
Yes, "other nations" are also influenced by an out of control military industrial complex. It's almost as if capitalism is international in its scope.

Do you also blame capitalism when the police have the audacity to arrest somebody for drink driving?

What is the point of an international agreement, if nobody has the balls or the conviction to enforce it? What do you see as the end result of allowing Russia et al to continually cross lines? Do you imagine they'll stop?

Or are you buying the Russia Today line about it all being a hoax set up by those sneaky Brits? Just like the last one they did. And, I assume, Litvinenko. And probably Arshavin being so disappointing when he was at Arsenal. What it comes down to, is, are you more inclined to believe a statement from the US / UK / France, based upon French intel, in nations where, let's be honest, pretty much everything gets leaked eventually, or a statement from Russia and Syria, countries with heavy media control and a habit of murdering anybody who thinks about leaking things?

Do you seriously believe that intervening here will actually help anybody and won't get the US pulled into yet another war?

Damn phone ate my post

BreakfastMan:

The Lunatic:
So, I take it this puts the Russian conspiracy theory to rest then?

It will never go away, because the Democrats will never admit that Clinton was just a shit candidate that ran a shit campaign. They need it to be true.

Dude, an awful lot of people are pleading guilty to Mueller. Something stinks.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here