The attack on Syria

[Bootstoots]

Fair enough. At any rate, his treatment of Iran and North Korea is decidedly scarier than anything Hillary is likely to have done. Which one is a worse warmonger overall probably comes out roughly as a wash - both are pretty bad.

edit at add: The reason I bring this up at all is that we weren't given a non-warmonger among the major party candidates. For someone whose main issue was avoiding war, it does not (yet) seem that Trump is the worse candidate on Syria specifically. Most people, at least here, who held that Trump is likely to behave more peacefully than Clinton in Syria did not think he was really a dove, so much so as not quite as hawkish on this issue specifically.

A relatively limited missile strike is worse for that thesis than doing nothing, but it doesn't damage it much either. To really strike a blow against the idea that Trump is the better choice, he would have to launch a sustained air campaign, not just a single face-saving missile salvo.

Of course nothing can be proven definitively about the counterfactual scenario where Hillary won, but some educated guesses about what her response would have been can be made based on her past behavior and statements.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Bolton want the Airstrikes to inflicted casualties and hit critial targets. Mattis managed to change them to limited strikes
With Mattis rumoured to be leaving. Necocon Bolton is going to likely be a disaster.

Its Ironic that Trump attacked Obama for considering airstrikes on Syria without congressional approval. And here we are

 

[EnglishEdward]

Tactical Tomahawk is selling pretty well, thank you.

The referenced product is not listed as

MADE IN USA

so it is probably from China or Mexico.

 

[Mouthwash]

Every government on Earth would be condemning Israel if we had done this. Food for thought.

 

[mitsho]

Didn‘t Israel just bomb Syrian targets a week ago, right after the strikes?

Not saying there is no double-standard here, but the West hast been pretty ok with Israeli air attacks so far (and they were more strategically thought through than the current Western ones...).

 

[Миханя]

Every government on Earth would be condemning Israel if we had done this. Food for thought.

Doesn't Israel bomb Palestine on a daily basis? Food for thought.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That is different. Israel is a nobody and can only bomb people chasing its own petty local interests. US, UK and France otoh are in other whole league and represent the western world values and have the implicit authority to do humanitarian bombings wherever is needed.

 

[red_elk]

Fair enough. At any rate, his treatment of Iran and North Korea is decidedly scarier than anything Hillary is likely to have done. Which one is a worse warmonger overall probably comes out roughly as a wash - both are pretty bad.

edit at add: The reason I bring this up at all is that we weren't given a non-warmonger among the major party candidates. For someone whose main issue was avoiding war, it does not (yet) seem that Trump is the worse candidate on Syria specifically. Most people, at least here, who held that Trump is likely to behave more peacefully than Clinton in Syria did not think he was really a dove, so much so as not quite as hawkish on this issue specifically.

His pre-election stance and rhetoric on Syria were more peaceful comparing to Clinton's and it was reasonable to assume his policies will be more peaceful too. It seems that the president cannot fully define foreign policies in the US and in case of Trump, he has to throw a bone to pro-war parties in Congress from time to time. And this is also an easy and relatively safe way to demonstrate he is not a "Russian puppet" to anybody who still might be thinking so.

 

[Akka]

I wasn't the one bringing the spanish civil war, into this, in case you didn't notice. I did mock the one who invoked it. If there were parallels to be made, it wouldn't be the ones he was making. Too subtle for you.

Yeah, clearly. There is a fascist-like dictator going on a military rampage in a civil war, supported by other authoritarian governments and using wide-scale massacre against his opponents and civilians alike. And that's somehow closer to the republican side than Franco. Sure thing.

And in the meanwhile we learned that your country bombs others based on social media "proof".

You're going to simply pull a Russia and dismiss any source contradicting you as a proof of propaganda, so what's the point ?

Every government on Earth would be condemning Israel if we had done this. Food for thought.

Nobody but Russia, Iran and China give a damn about people bombing Assad.
(which should already say everything that needs to be said about it)

If there wasn't Turkey and Iraq, I bet everyone would simply support the Kurd to make their own country and flip the middle finger to Assad with half of his country gone. And it would probably halve the problems in the Middle-East to boot.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, clearly. There is a fascist-like dictator going on a military rampage in a civil war, supported by other authoritarian governments and using wide-scale massacre against his opponents and civilians alike. And that's somehow closer to the republican side than Franco. Sure thing.

You're going to simply pull a Russia and dismiss any source contradicting you as a proof of propaganda, so what's the point ?



Nobody but Russia, Iran and China give a damn about people bombing Assad.
(which should already say everything that needs to be said about it)

If there wasn't Turkey and Iraq, I bet everyone would simply support the Kurd to make their own country and flip the middle finger to Assad with half of his country gone. And it would probably halve the problems in the Middle-East to boot.

So... Assad attacking rebel civilians: crime.
Erdogan attacking rebel civilians: not crime.

I don't think Assad is worse than the rest in the region. I am sort of tired by the line of Goldstein and agents of Goldstein, ie Saddam, Qadafi, Assad etc. Looks like any dictator brutally killing people isn't that bad, unless they are not a western puppet or similar. Erdogan, Sissi, Israel stuff: good or neutral.

Also, WTH cares about chemical weapons? Even supposing they were used - which would make zero strategic sense, but whatever. Are you worried for future effects in Syria? The place has been in civil war for more than half a decade ffs.

 

[PanLi]

I Russian).
I look at this world and it seems so stupid))
Everything you hear on TV and the Internet with the truth has very little close.
I will not accuse anyone or convince anyone of anything, I will simply cite the facts.

Russia is modernizing its army.
On stream running mass production systems s-400
It is necessary to mark a large number Of s-300 as in warehouses and those that are on
combat patrulirovanie.
Where to put them? sell to other countries... the best conditions for their sale: 1. inadequate
enemy.(possibility of a threat of attack) 2 a positive example of their counteraction to this enemy))
It seems that all the actions of the countries participating in the incident in Syria ideal conditions?
America shows how great and terrible it is... Trump is a Kremlin agent? what do you mean he
also Syria was bombed. And Russia takes its cream))
Despite the fact that running 103 missiles in Syria. not a single person died. moreover, rumor has it
Russia and Syria knew about bombardirovke about the exact order within a week.(taking from there all valuable)
And what a good anti-air defense in Syria. 70 missiles out of 100 destroyed.(systems
made in the Soviet Union)
Not only to make sure that Syria will cope with the RAID. An external audit was carried out
Of Israel, out of 8 missiles at the requezt of the United States. After which improvements were introduced to protect the Syrian
airspace.
Draw conclusions of the Lord.

Я Русский)).
Вот смотрю на этот мир и он мне кажется таким глупым))
Все что вы слышите по ТВ и Интернету с правдой имеет очень мало близкого.
Я не буду ни кого обвинять или убеждать в чем то я просто приведу факты.

Россия проводит модернизацию своей армии.
На поток запущенно массовое производство систем С-400
Необходимо заминить большое количество С-300 как на складах так и те что находятся на
боевом потрулировании.
Куда их девать? продать другим странам... наилучшие условия для их продажи: 1. неодекватный
враг.(возможность угрозы нападения) 2 положительный пример их противодействия этому врагу))
Похоже что все действия стран участниц экцидента в Сирии идеальные условия?
Америка показывает какая она великая и страшная... Трамп агент кремля? да вы что он
же сирию бомбил. А Россия снимает свои сливки))
При том что запустив 103 ракеты по сирии. не погиб ни один человек. мало того ходят слухи
что Россия и Сирия знали о бамбордировке и о точных целях за неделю.(вывезя от туда все ценное)
А какая хорошая противо воздушная оборона у Сирии. 70 ракет из 100 уничтожила.(системами
изготовленными еще в советском союзе)
Мало того чтобы убедиться что сирия справится с налетом. Была проведена проверка со стороны
Израиля из 8 ракет по прозьбе США. После которой были введены улучшения по защите Сирийского
воздушного пространства.
Делайте выводы господа.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I heard the Syrians successfully intercepted 293 of the 107 missiles launched and the coalition hit 53 of the 5 targets.

 

[red_elk]

If we believe Russians/Syrians, 71 missiles were shot down.
If we believe Pentagon report, 76 missiles were used against one target.
The truth is somewhere in between, I guess.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

In Russian Syria targets intercept missiles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If we believe Russians/Syrians, 71 missiles were shot down.
If we believe Pentagon report, 76 missiles were used against one target.
The truth is somewhere in between, I guess.

I'm sure a Syrian military research base is smaller, but I live right down the road from a US military research base. It covers about twenty square miles and has at least thirty buildings, several of which are in the million square foot plus category. If you wanted to destroy that base 76 missiles wouldn't do it, unless you used nuclear warheads.

 

[red_elk]

I'm sure a Syrian military research base is smaller, but I live right down the road from a US military research base. It covers about twenty square miles and has at least thirty buildings, several of which are in the million square foot plus category. If you wanted to destroy that base 76 missiles wouldn't do it, unless you used nuclear warheads.

 

[PanLi]

"According to the defense Ministry, a missile attack on military and civilian infrastructure in Syria was caused by planes and ships of the United States, Britain and France on Saturday from 03:42 GMT to 05:10 GMT. According to the Ministry, out of 103 cruise missiles Syrian air defenses managed to shoot down 71. Earlier, Washington, London and Paris said that the strikes are a response to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of Duma."

Logically the last time the aircraft carrier at the airport had hit 60 missiles (although according to the Russian military equipment about 40) well, take the average of 50 missiles from each aircraft carrier. plus with planes as well, or not more than 20 missiles. on average, out of 120 rockets. Information Ministry of defense of trades abroad me seems more truthful.

"По данным Минобороны РФ, ракетный удар по объектам военной и гражданской инфраструктуры Сирии был нанесен самолетами и кораблями США, Великобритании и Франции в субботу с 03:42 мск до 05:10 мск. По информации ведомства, из 103 крылатых ракет сирийским средствам ПВО удалось сбить 71. Ранее Вашингтон, Лондон и Париж заявили, что удары являются ответом на применение химического оружия в сирийском городе Дума."

Если рассуждать логично то в прошлый раз с авианосца по аэропорту вдарили 60 ракет (хотя по данным русских их боевая комплектация около 40)
ну возьмем среднее 50 ракет с каждого авианосца. плюс с самолетов ну ни как не больше 20 ракет. в среднем выходит 120 ракет.
Информация Минобороны РФ мне кажется более правдивой.

 

[innonimatu]

edit at add: The reason I bring this up at all is that we weren't given a non-warmonger among the major party candidates. For someone whose main issue was avoiding war, it does not (yet) seem that Trump is the worse candidate on Syria specifically. Most people, at least here, who held that Trump is likely to behave more peacefully than Clinton in Syria did not think he was really a dove, so much so as not quite as hawkish on this issue specifically.

A relatively limited missile strike is worse for that thesis than doing nothing, but it doesn't damage it much either. To really strike a blow against the idea that Trump is the better choice, he would have to launch a sustained air campaign, not just a single face-saving missile salvo.

I'm relieved that it appears this was indeed a negotiated "settlement" of the issue. What I want to know is why it came up in the first place.

Who set things up to force Trump's hand with this symbolic bombing? Many claims of use of chlorine have been dismisses, not amplified by the media. This one, whether true or false, was professionally disseminated. Perhaps even professionally produced. Before it there were warnings by the russias that it would happen. It is insane to suggest that the russians wanted a dangerous confrontation right when the syrian government was winning another battle. They feared one was being set up, and would have brought their weight to bear on any syrian military involved to make sure they didn't provide any excuse for a chemical attack claim.

I'm waiting for a proper investigation, but more inclined to guess it was a "false flag" set up to justify an escalation than a real attack by the syrian military. The syrians and the russians did not want this. And if it was set up, then it's part of fights in Washington, London and Paris. Also very suspicions is the fact that the Saudis have been throwing lots money around in the last few weeks, and their dictator (this one is a real dictator, no attempt to pretend there are elections) and would-be warlord the crown prince made that tour personally. They are big clients of PR firms and have used them in the past to buy journalist and manipulate "public opinion" to support wars. They remain successful in keeping the war they're conducting against Yemen all but ignored. Who are they financing? Who's calling for war there, and who's blocking it in these capitals?

Regarding the photographs of the "weapons research center" mostly destroyed, are we supposed to believe that there were dangerous weapons there, or materials to produce weapons, and no casualties from releases of chemicals during or after the attack?
It seems they just picked some place to bomb and declare victory. Wonder if Trump was being sarcastic with the "mission accomplished".

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If that is all the complex with a dozen should be more than enough.

If anything you cant say they lack precission. The excavator guy has half the the work already done.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Regarding the photographs of the "weapons research center" mostly destroyed, are we supposed to believe that there were dangerous weapons there, or materials to produce weapons, and no casualties from releases of chemicals during or after the attack?

No, you are supposed to believe that if Portugal had all the power there would be peace across the entire earth through the awesomeness of their grand leadership.