President Biden

[Rayvin 4964]

I was just laying some bait for Parky

 

 

I expect Parky will tell us that this was a false flag. The best alternative theory (to the obvious) that I can think of is that this is more about making Trump look strong and independent of foreign influence. Might even have Putin's blessing, as it's doubtful that the Russians were pleased about the Sarin attacks, given that Syria appeared to be moving back into the fold with the international community somewhat, as the war was being won.

[Renton 17828]

Yep, definitely a good thing, I feel so much more secure now.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

The cynic might suggest he's trying to boost his poor approval ratings. I actually think someone had to respond to the use of chemical weapons on civilians. Whatever you think of the mess in Syria - it is a mess and it's difficult to have a political position on it - the use of chemical weapons has rightly been a red line for the past century.

[Rayvin 4964]

Yep, definitely a good thing, I feel so much more secure now.

 

What would you have done in his position?

[Rayvin 4964]

The cynic might suggest he's trying to boost his poor approval ratings. I actually think someone had to respond to the use of chemical weapons on civilians. Whatever you think of the mess in Syria - it is a mess and it's difficult to have a political position on it - the use of chemical weapons has rightly been a red line for the past century.

 

Whichever way we look at it, he wouldn't have done it just on principle. So aye, there will be domestic political benefits as well.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

But the sudden nature of this uturn only reinforces the idea that trump is a loose cannon, an unpredictable interventionist and not about to make the world a more secure place, as argued by some of his supporters.

[Renton 17828]

What would you have done in his position?

Personally, I'd step away and let this conflict play itself out. As horrific as this is for Syria, it's not worth risking ww3 for.

 

But it's the volatile nature of Trump that concerns me most. I'd feel much less concerned with Obama or Clinton at the helm.

[Rayvin 4964]

But the sudden nature of this uturn only reinforces the idea that trump is a loose cannon, an unpredictable interventionist and not about to make the world a more secure place, as argued by some of his supporters.

 

Ok, full devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Sure it makes the world appear 'less secure' but if "enemies" of the West have to consider that for each action they take, their might be a sudden and unpredictable backlash, they'll consider those actions far more carefully. For a long time Russia has had the upper hand in this, as they were the ones who would make the sudden and unpredictable moves. Now they might be in a position where they have to play the responsible power to the US' recklessness. I don't think Russia and Putin want a war any more than we do.

 

However, this is just one data point and it's hard to draw useful conclusions from it. If he ends up embroiled in a surface war, then he's no better than those who came before. If this missile strike is left to stand as it is, then it remains a significant statement. However unwitting, Trump may have actually averted some far worse actions by the Syrian regime. We'll have to see I guess.

[Rayvin 4964]

Personally, I'd step away and let this conflict play itself out. As horrific as this is for Syria, it's not worth risking ww3 for.

 

But it's the volatile nature of Trump that concerns me most. I'd feel much less concerned with Obama or Clinton at the helm.

 

I know what you mean - for all the points made in my last post it's equally possible that Putin could respond by fighting fire with fire, and that we see a general escalation in military bravado and tension. That said, as noted, Clinton said she would have done the same thing, so I'm not sure the outcome would have been fundamentally different either way, so far. It'd just be couched in more comforting narratives with her. Don't think we'd be any 'safer' though.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

Two strongmen leaders engaging in a willy waving contest with global security at stake ... great

[ohhh_yeah 2785]

 

In September 2015, the two countries agreed to share flight information to avoid mid-air crashes. Russia has already suspended the deal in response.

[Rayvin 4964]

Gloom, what he's done appears consistent with other US politicians...

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

 

Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country.

"Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said in a speech at the "Women in the World" summit in New York City. "And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

Edited April 7, 2017 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4964]

In fact, you could argue that the Trump move here is in fact less belligerent than what HRC has proposed...

[Park Life 70]

There is no logic whatsoever that Syria winning against Isis on many fronts would do some kind of half baked chemical attack on civilians and risk drawing America directly into the conflict. Something else is going on here.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life

[Dr Gloom 19839]

Gloom, what he's done appears consistent with other US politicians...

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

 

Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country.

"Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said in a speech at the "Women in the World" summit in New York City. "And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

Exactly, he isn't the non interventionist that some were claiming.

 

The move has also exposed how quickly he can flip flop and perhaps be manipulated by other players in the global stage to go steaming into conflicts.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Dr Gloom

[Park Life 70]

Have to agree with Gloom. Very worrying turn of events. No Congress approval and no time given for a fact finding mission to determine the reality on the ground. It's accepted that some of the Jihadi groups have stores of stolen chemical weapons as was revealed in 2016.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

I dunno man, a missile strike isn't a ground war. And he's stopped short of blowing up every airbase in Syria and giving Russia a 'you're with us or against us' ultimatum as recommended by HRC...

[Rayvin 4964]

Have to agree with Gloom. Very worrying turn of events. No Congress approval and no time given for a fact finding mission to determine the reality on the ground. It's accepted that some of the Jihadi groups have stores of stolen chemical weapons as was revealed in 2016.

 

Was under the impression that both Turkey and the US have intel confirming it was dropped from a plane..?

[Park Life 70]

Was under the impression that both Turkey and the US have intel confirming it was dropped from a plane..?

They don't work properly if you drop them from a plane because there is no 'misting'. They don't spread well. That is utter bollocks. Trump has gone off half cocked here and the only people celebrating are the head choppers.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

They don't work properly if you drop them from a plane because there is no 'misting'. They don't spread well. That is utter bollocks. Trump has gone off half cocked here and the only people celebrating are the head choppers.

 

Citation?

 

Also, presumably then you believe that the Russian story about Rebels blowing up a chem weapon storage facility is the likelihood?

[Park Life 70]

I dunno man, a missile strike isn't a ground war. And he's stopped short of blowing up every airbase in Syria and giving Russia a 'you're with us or against us' ultimatum as recommended by HRC...

This is a political move by Trump to distract from all the 'friends with Russia' stuff nothing more. There will be consequences that he certainly isn't prepared for.

[Park Life 70]

Citation?

 

Also, presumably then you believe that the Russian story about Rebels blowing up a chem weapon storage facility is the likelihood?

I ain't googling that bro. You can look it up.

 

The picture is confusing. It might be that a weapons dump was hit that contained some chemical weapons unbeknown to the pilots. This is the current Russian line. Think about it why would Assad use Chems just as he is winning the war and only last week the Trump lot were saying that Assad wasn't there problem etc...?

 

Russia offered another explanation. A spokesman for its Defense Ministry, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said Syrian warplanes had struck an insurgent storehouse containing toxic substances to be used in chemical weapons.''

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html?_r=0

Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

I ain't googling that bro. You can look it up.

 

The picture is confusing. It might be that a weapons dump was hit that contained some chemical weapons unbeknown to the pilots. This is the current Russian line. Think about it why would Assad use Chems just as he is winning the war and only last week the Trump lot were saying that Assad wasn't there problem etc...

 

I tried, I got nothing.

 

As for the rest of it, we know the Syrian airforce bombed that area at least 30 minutes before the alarm was raised about Sarin, so your argument could stand but - I was under the impression that the Russians had agreed with Obama that they would have all chemical weapons in Syria removed by mid-2014. So for your argument to be correct, the Russians would either be duplicitous or incompetent.

[Dr Gloom 19839]

I ain't googling that bro. You can look it up.

 

The picture is confusing. It might be that a weapons dump was hit that contained some chemical weapons unbeknown to the pilots. This is the current Russian line. Think about it why would Assad use Chems just as he is winning the war and only last week the Trump lot were saying that Assad wasn't there problem etc...?

 

Russia offered another explanation. A spokesman for its Defense Ministry, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said Syrian warplanes had struck an insurgent storehouse containing toxic substances to be used in chemical weapons.''

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html?_r=0

You know better than to link to a dreaded MSM source, such as the nyt, Parky

[Park Life 70]

I tried, I got nothing.

 

As for the rest of it, we know the Syrian airforce bombed that area at least 30 minutes before the alarm was raised about Sarin, so your argument could stand but - I was under the impression that the Russians had agreed with Obama that they would have all chemical weapons in Syria removed by mid-2014. So for your argument to be correct, the Russians would either be duplicitous or incompetent.

Some stuff was nicked or captured before that happened. Syria has no need at this stage of victory after victory to resort to Chems. It would be sheer idiocy wouldn't it?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life