Non-Interventionist President Launches Intervention

[Inhalaattori]

The reality is that Assad is better than any other alternative. There are no moderate rebels in Syria. They are practically all extremists. Look what happened in Libya. Look what happened in Iraq. Extremist will take over if Assad is removed. In the end most Syrian people support Assad and his regime. You have to understand that he is fighting against Al-Qaida, ISIS and other extremists.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah. I can give another example. Wahhabism is a corrupt form of Islam which is a legitimate threat to the United States. Wahhabism promotes actual terrorism. Promotes actual homophobia and misogyny and supports wife beating, etc.

We don't do anything about it. Why? Because it is in Saudi Arabia, a US ally. We're not going to go after them because we want their oil. This goes back to the whole thing. We're not even trying to 'stop terrorism'. We just want resources and power.

 

[r16]

and even that's passe . Wahhabism is the Saudi's biggest export as America flexes its muscles and tries to wrangle another century of American domination of the World .

 

[Perfection]

The reason Trump did this is because James Mattis told him to do it, and James Mattis knows what the hell he's talking about.

If James Mattis wasn't there it would have been a totally mismanaged disaster like Trump's other projects.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I really don't know what to think about this. So, Assad's military is winning the civil war and most of the world is fine with the regime's continuation, and instead of "quietly" going on and finishing up they decide to draw attention to themselves with a chemical attack and one day later the USA launches missiles. It all stinks to high heaven.

 

[Mouthwash]

The reason Trump did this is because James Mattis told him to do it, and James Mattis knows what the hell he's talking about.

If James Mattis wasn't there it would have been a totally mismanaged disaster like Trump's other projects.

Where did you hear that? This seems a lot like normal Trumpian capriciousness.

 

[Goodfella]

I really don't know what to think about this. So, Assad's military is winning the civil war and most of the world is fine with the regime's continuation, and instead of "quietly" going on and finishing up they decide to draw attention to themselves with a chemical attack and one day later the USA launches missiles. It all stinks to high heaven.

If we accept the events at face value, then I think a simple explanation is that in light of his victories and the world being fine with his regime continuing, Assad thought he could send a message to rebel groups that he's free to do whatever he pleases. Instead, he overplayed his hand and Trump seized the opportunity to strike for emotional or political reasons. But that's just one possibility.

 

[Perfection]

Where did you hear that? This seems a lot like normal Trumpian capriciousness.

From what I've seen (and I'll freely admit to the possibility of being wrong) the action seems:
1. Responding to a real situation (not mere fear-mongering like the travel bans)
2. Measured in its response (they performed a single proportional action in response)
3. Likely to effect change (it seems likely that Assad may abandon chemical weapons use)
5. Well executed (foreign governments alerted beforehand - even though it strikes me as plausible the Russians tipped the Syrians off)
6. Well communicated (the reasoning behind the actions was clear)

Now whether or not this is in the long run a good time will tell. And i also worry Trump won't be so discplined going forward. I also worry that this was meant as a distraction from Trump's failures.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Well that's depressing. Obama part 2.

Voting has become something purely formal without material consequences.

OTOH Assad using chems makes not much sense. Why to do such thing knowing it may imply strong international condemnation and USA missile ejaculation? There are thermobaric, cluster and other kinds of equally destructive bombs he can buy for cheap from Russia with all adventages and none of the inconveniences.

 

[ParkCungHee]

From what I've seen (and I'll freely admit to the possibility of being wrong) the action seems:
1. Responding to a real situation (not mere fear-mongering like the travel bans)
2. Measured in its response (they performed a single proportional action in response)
3. Likely to effect change (it seems likely that Assad may abandon chemical weapons use)
5. Well executed (foreign governments alerted beforehand - even though it strikes me as plausible the Russians tipped the Syrians off)
6. Well communicated (the reasoning behind the actions was clear)

Now whether or not this is in the long run a good time will tell. And i also worry Trump won't be so discplined going forward. I also worry that this was meant as a distraction from Trump's failures.

You forgot the other thing going on here:

7. In keeping with long term U.S. policies.

Trump got Sir Humphried.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

"In its attempts to excuse the military strike Washington utterly distorted the events in Idlib," the Foreign Ministry said. "The US side cannot but be aware that Syria’s government forces did not use chemical weapons there. Damascus does not have any, which has more than once been confirmed by competent specialists. The corresponding conclusions were made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which over the past years has inspected practically all facilities that had or might have been involved in Syria’s chemical weapons program. As for Idlib, terrorists there were making bombs stuffed with poisonous chemicals for their subsequent use in Syria and Iraq. That facility was eliminated by the Syrian Air Force."

"Undoubtedly, the US strike is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul where hundreds of civilians lost their lives due to actions, including by the US-led coalition, and the humanitarian disaster is mounting ," the ministry said.

"Apparently, the US cruise missile strike was prepared in advance," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "It is clear to any specialist that a decision on carrying out the strikes was made in Washington prior to the developments in Idlib, which were just used as a pretext for demonstrating strength."


More:
http://tass.com/politics/939940

 

[Mouthwash]

From what I've seen (and I'll freely admit to the possibility of being wrong) the action seems:
1. Responding to a real situation (not mere fear-mongering like the travel bans)
2. Measured in its response (they performed a single proportional action in response)
3. Likely to effect change (it seems likely that Assad may abandon chemical weapons use)
5. Well executed (foreign governments alerted beforehand - even though it strikes me as plausible the Russians tipped the Syrians off)
6. Well communicated (the reasoning behind the actions was clear)

Now whether or not this is in the long run a good time will tell. And i also worry Trump won't be so discplined going forward. I also worry that this was meant as a distraction from Trump's failures.

tl;dr: you don't have any evidence that Mattis is responsible, you simply assumed as such based on your knowledge of how Trump acts. That's quite different.

I do not believe that Assad ordered a chemical attack while he is winning the war, when it isn't much more effective than conventional bombings and he's already seen the uproar it created (assumptions about Trump notwithstanding, giving his regime legitimacy has been a major goal throughout the war). He has no reason to do it and every reason not to. Mattis is a hawk on Iran, but he's probably intelligent enough to come to the same conclusion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No. War is a mutual and continuous conflict. The United States is not actively invading Syria or attacking its military. Your reasoning would define every slave raid or airplane hijacking in history as a war.

Well... This seems to contradict you...

Spoiler And this :

Spoiler and this :

Maybe Soros and the Jews did it

Obviously Obama did it. Thanks Obama!

He needed a distraction from the investigation, so he started another fire.

This too

 

[red_elk]

About "war with Russia" thing - Russian military was allegedly warned about the strike in advance, which seems reasonable.
Which also means Syrians were warned about the strike too.
Trump spent a few dozens Tomahawks.
Syrians reported 5 or so killed people, showed video with slightly damaged runway and a few planes which seem intact.
Putin made angry face.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Democracy™ requires zinc boxes to be delivered on its altar and overseas little and harmless as a virgin countries to be sadistically mutilated. Similar to primitive religions of the past.

If it wasn't Syria it'd be N. Korea or Iran.

That's why North Korea has nuclear weapons and big army.

 

[Commodore]

There are thermobaric, cluster and other kinds of equally destructive bombs he can buy for cheap from Russia with all adventages and none of the inconveniences

Cluster bombs are actually illegal as well. It's why Saudi Arabia is facing strong international condemnation right now for using them in Yemen.

He goes around insulting everyone, even our allies.

Apparently our allies aren't too insulted as Israel, the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have all expressed strong support for the US strikes in Syria, with Turkey actually saying we should go for full-on regime change. The strongest condemnation is coming from Russia with them pushing for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council over this. We all know nothing will come of it though as the UNSC is controlled by the US and those who support our strikes.

 

[El_Machinae]

For the record, I also have the same chain-of-skepticism that Assad actually used chemical weapons. It seems a high-risk/no-reward action. But I also don't know how plausible I find it that rebels had such large quantities of chemical weapons themselves. I don't find CNN's witness testimonies very useful. I do think that proportionate counter-violence for such things is fine idea; the world could absolutely use more violence performed on those who willfully commit atrocities (insert a bunch of tired caveats here).

Sadly, I'll never know. Who's going to inform me that the evidence is credible?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The U.S. are run by the elite, it is an oligarchy pretending to be democracy and spreading that order of things everywhere in the world. There's no much difference what president will be there, because he doesn't rule, he follows. And if he doesn't, he is killed or impeached. But this is so rare, because American presidents are not chosen from the people, they are chosen from those, related to the elite and its clans.

 

[Tigranes]

Here is one logical question I cannot solve for myself: if US has warned Assad's ally Russia about missile strike to prevent any losses for Russians, what prevents Russia to inform Assad about the strike, so he can remove all the planes away from the harms way? And question number two: Russia responded in suspending the open line between US-Russia militaries designed to avoid causing any harm to each other. So what now? Russians want to shield Assad by their personnel which can no longer be warned by Americans?

 

[Lexicus]

I guess the major question is whether you believe Assad used chemical weapons

I don't see how that's the main issue. I'm certain Assad used chemical weapons but I don't support Western military action against him.

For the record, I also have the same chain-of-skepticism that Assad actually used chemical weapons. It seems a high-risk/no-reward action.

It seems obvious to me. Trump wins -> friendliness towards Russians -> Assad assumed there'd be no consequences -> he decides to drop some Sarin to show the price of opposing him as he finishes off the rebels. It's terrorism, plain and simple.

I do think that proportionate counter-violence for such things is fine idea; the world could absolutely use more violence performed on those who willfully commit atrocities (insert a bunch of tired caveats here).

The violence is not being performed on those who willfully commit atrocities, it's being performed as always primarily against the Syrian people.