Syria About to Reignite

Way too late for a no-fly zone
It may have been possible at some point back in time, maybe, but not anymore
Fantasy



Hillary thinks their airfields should be destroyed
If anyone cares what the old hag thinks
 
US launched 50+ Tomahawks at Air Bases In Syria
Airfield near Homs, where the gas attack is believed to have originated
The Russians were warned before hand

nearly 60 missiles designed to hit within one minute of each other
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
US launched 50+ Tomahawks at Air Bases In Syria
Airfield near Homs, where the gas attack is believed to have originated
The Russians were warned before hand

nearly 60 missiles designed to hit within one minute of each other
Click to expand...
I just hope the evidence is solid. Maybe Assad greenlighted CW after thinking the US was off his back. If so, he is a crazy MF.
 
Ground reports confirmed the planes dropping bombs were fixed wing. Only two countries in this region of the conflict have those assets immediately deployable; Russia and Syria. Russia's backpeddling this morning to say Assad's support was "not unconditional" tells me they're now distancing themselves. Who else could it be?
 
mchammer said:
.... Maybe Assad greenlighted CW after thinking the US was off his back. If so, he is a crazy MF.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the timing of this on his part is so dubious, it made me think there is no way he is this dumb. But our IC seems 100% convinced they know what happened (noting they have been wrong before).

Apparently we tried something at the UN first, but the Russians blocked it (which was not the first time the Russians did this). Tillerson tonight had some strong words for Russia -- that they are either being complicit or incompetent.

I can also tell you that my side (a big part of his core support group) is extremely unhappy with this action.

Here is one example
 
Last edited:
txlandagent said:
Ground reports confirmed the planes dropping bombs were fixed wing. Only two countries in this region of the conflict have those assets immediately deployable; Russia and Syria. Russia's backpeddling this morning to say Assad's support was "not unconditional" tells me they're now distancing themselves. Who else could it be?
Click to expand...
Syria always said they were bombing a target. The dispute is whether they dropped chemicals or did they hit a munitions depot that stored chemicals. Neither Russia nor Syria ever denied it was a Syrian plane.
 
Regardless if Sarin was stored nearby the strikes, wasn't Assad targeting a hospital with kids?
 
Some folks are saying Russia shot down many of the Tomahawks fired at the Syrian airbase.

Doesn't sound too good if true
 
This is kind of interesting

McMaster: "There were measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas there."
 
Musburger1 said:
On your second point, Saddam was considered by most Americans to be the most evil guy on the planet. He used gas against the Iranians and also against the Kurds. He was accused (and believed) to be hiding a nuclear program and also a bioweapons program. A Kuwaiti woman, later on outed as someone in the royal family, claimed Iraqi soldiers were taking babies from incubators in hospitals. Similar rhetoric is being ramped up now against Assad. Just being a harsh dictator isn't enough. We not only point out true atrocities, we also manufacure unproven and false ones.
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer. You're correct that people thought Saddam evil, though I'd say Bin Laden was considered the most evil guy on the planet. Was Saddam as bad as ISIS? No. Was he as bad as the neocon narrative on Assad? Probably so. However, what I'm talking about isn't rational. It's instinctive. People are uniquely motivated by what they see in detail and in the recent term. It's one thing to hear that Saddam Hussein gassed some people in the '80s. It's quite another to have high-definition video of the terrible things in stark detail.

I think it's also noteworthy that there was substantial opposition to taking on Hussein - both in the United States and abroad. Much of the American and European Left liked Hussein. Outside of Russia and Iran (neither of whom are popular in the United States), Assad has very few friends.

Musburger1 said:
As I've stated frequently, defeating terror is a complete impossibility when you are allied with Saudi Arabia. The ruling class is very large and not homogeneous. Many within the ruling class support Wahabbism and the jihadists which are spawned out of the ideology. The quest to remove Assad is nothing more than a geopolitical objective to defeat Iran and to wrestle as much control as possible from competing factions around the Middle East.
Click to expand...

You are partially correct. So long as we're aligned with Saudi Arabia, we can't completely end Islamic terrorism. We have to disentangle ourselves from that mess. However, that doesn't mean we can't stop non-Saudi bad apples when we can. We certainly can and should, but it needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on Syria and if we go, I'll hope for the best. However, I think the emphasis needs to be on ISIS, not Assad. Furthermore, I'm suspicious of this chemical attack. It's not that I think Assad is too good or moral to use chemical weapons. If he thought it would save his ***, I think he'd do it. However, I just can't imagine him being that dumb. I see no upside for him, and I see a massive downside - turning a Trump administration that had just extended an olive branch to him into an enemy.
 
Russia cancelled the memorandum signed w/ USA over Syria: no US jet guaranteed any safety if flying over Syria


Also
Russian military says it will help Syria strengthen its air defenses
 
The UN prosecutor for the Rwanda and Serbia genocide tribunals said back in 2013 that the sarin attack at that time was probably the "Syrian rebels," not the Govt

"Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed......"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/​
 
Is this good or bad? --
I suppose that at a minimum, you must concede that Trump is good at quickly building coalitions. And maybe he has now cleared out enough Obama riffraff to prevent leaks.


British PM Theresa May said the action was an “appropriate response”
UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon noted that the strike was a United States operation, “but let me emphasize again we fully support it.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Hollande "President Assad bears sole responsibility for this development”
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called the attack “understandable"

Italian PM Paolo Gentilon - "The action Trump ordered tonight was a response to a war crime”
Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano -- "Italy understands the reasons for U.S. military action proportionate in time and manner”

Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull said his government fully supported the strike, called the move a “swift and just response.”"

Israel "fully supports President Trump’s decision"

Japanese PM Shinzo Abe offered his "full support for the U.S. strike"​
 
If so, they certainly have a weird way of expressing themselves



C80WKxDXkAEksao.jpg
 
Putin says he has ordered the expansion of Russian presence in Syria

Medvedev said the US missile strikes came 'within an inch' of a military clash with Russia.

The US-Russian memorandum on flight safety over Syria was suspended -- effectively making Syria a no-fly zone for the US coalition - can now be shot down on sight
http://tass.com/politics/939940

They say they put their S-400s into "combat readiness"

jI7heR2u
 
Obama's messes are transglobal

Ted Cruz: 'There is no good answer in Syria after 8 years of Obama weakness'

Cruz called on President Trump to make the case to Congress if he wants to launch further military action against Syria. He warns against any "protracted military involvement" in Syria, as some in Congress seek.

Cruz called Bashar al-Assad a "monster," but said it would be an even worse situation if his chemical weapons stockpiles fall into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/07/ted-cruz-syria-attack-no-good-answer-after-obama-weakness
 
Joe Fan said:
Ted Cruz: 'There is no good answer in Syria after 8 years of Obama weakness'

Obama's messes are transglobal

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/07/ted-cruz-syria-attack-no-good-answer-after-obama-weakness
Click to expand...

Life comes at you fast is the phrase used on this board, right?

Ted Cruz Op Ed in 2013.
Ted Cruz: Why I’ll vote no on Syria strike



By Ted Cruz September 9, 2013


Ted Cruz, a Republican, represents Texas in the Senate, where he is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

No decision by an elected official is more serious than whether to send our armed forces into conflict. President Obama was right to seek Congress’s authorization to use military force against Syria. But having carefully considered the president’s substantive arguments, I am compelled to vote against the requested authorization.

I do not make this decision lightly. I want to support our commander in chief. I emphatically condemn Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people, and all Americans mourn the loss of innocent lives in Syria’s civil war.

But I do not believe a limited airstrike, as proposed by the president, will lead to success or improve conditions in Syria. There are other actions we can and should take to confront this atrocity, starting with forcing a vote in the U.N. Security Council condemning Assad for this attack; doing so would unify the world against the regime and expose China’s and Russia’s support for this tyrant.

Read These Comments

The best conversations on The Washington Post


The president insists on using a military option, which I oppose for three reasons:

First, Assad’s actions, however deplorable, are not a direct threat to U.S. national security. Many bad actors on the world stage have, tragically, oppressed and killed their citizens, even using chemical weapons to do so. Unilaterally avenging humanitarian disaster, however, is well outside the traditional scope of U.S. military action.

Second, just because Assad is a murderous thug does not mean that the rebels opposing him are necessarily better. As of May, seven of the nine major rebel groups appeared to have significant ties to Islamists, some of whom may have links to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Their presence and power have only increased, according to media reports. We should never give weapons to people who hate us, and the United States should not support or arm al-Qaeda terrorists.

Third, the potential for escalation is immense. Syria is in the midst of a sectarian civil war, born of centuries-old animosities. We have no clear ally in this Sunni-Shiite conflict, and any “limited” and “proportional” strike could quickly get out of control, imperiling our allies and forcing us into the civil war.

The president and his secretary of state have repeatedly said that Assad’s use of chemical weapons violates an “international norm.” They insist it is critical that we send a “message” to Assad that his behavior is unacceptable. But it is not the job of U.S. troops to police international norms or to send messages. Our men and women in uniform have signed up to defend America.

On the cusp of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we should remember that radical Islamic fanatics have declared war on the United States and are determined to destroy our way of life. Although the president has said that the threat from radical Islamism has receded, the reality is that the threat remains.

This threat was active at Fort Hood, where a terrorist attacked our soldiers in 2009. It was active in Libya, where terrorists murdered our ambassador and three other Americans one year ago this week. It was active this spring in Boston, where two terrorists who self-radicalized on the Internet used pressure cookers to kill civilians.

Today, the threat is active in Syria, where jihadists have infiltrated the rebel groups while Hezbollah is supporting Assad, making the presence of chemical weapons in Syria ever more perilous. And it is active in Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism that seeks a nuclear bomb to wipe the United States and Israel off the map.

Tom Toles draws Congress
c_04102011.jpg


If the president’s proposed military strike against Assad succeeds, al-Qaeda could be strengthened and terrorists could seize control of Syria’s vast cache of chemical weapons.

U.S. military force should always advance our national security. Should we in the future have intelligence that al-Qaeda or Hezbollah is on the verge of acquiring chemical weapons or that Iran is nearing a nuclear breakout, I would support aggressive military action to prevent them from acquiring those weapons because the alternative is unacceptable: allowing Islamic extremists to acquire chemical or nuclear weapons that could be used to slaughter millions in New York or Los Angeles or London or Tel Aviv.If such occasion arises, the United States must lead to defend its national security interests. No other country is capable of putting together a coalition of like-minded nations and leading the fight against tyranny. And our allies should be encouraged to join us because it is in their own interests.

Yet none of this is occurring now. The administration’s current policy is based on averting immediate risk and accommodating the international community, as is demonstrated by its proposed defense of international norms in Syria. This action fails to protect U.S. long-term national security interests. I cannot in good conscience support it.

The president has rightly sought the will of Congress and, through Congress, the American people; he should heed the verdict.
Click to expand...
 
It might be worth remembering that the same people who bragged about getting all of Assad's chemical weapons out of Syria also promised us Iran won't get nukes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top