Trump Orders Strikes On Syria Over Suspected Chemical Weapons Attack

Submitted by: panth753 7 months ago in News & Politics


One week after a suspected sarin gas attack on the last rebel-held town in Ghouta left scores of Syrian civilians dead, President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the United States had conducted a retaliatory strike against Syrian military interests.

"A combined operation with the armed forces of France and the United Kingdom is underway," Trump said. Trump had met with top military and national security advisers earlier in the day. Trump had wavered on the possibility of military action in response to the attack, at one point warning Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin that "missiles are coming,” then later saying that an attack “could be be very soon or not so soon at all!" 

The strike is the second retaliatory action in response to suspected use of chemical weapons by Assad; in April of last year, Trump responded to a similar attack by launching over 50 Tomahawk missiles at an airbase near Homs. Russia, which has backed Assad’s regime, had threatened to shoot down any American missiles detected in Syrian airspace. Source: New York Times




There are 22 comments:
Male 9,632
This was more wagging the dog actions.  Seems completely choreographed. No Civilian deaths, no Syrian Military casualties, anything that could have been moved was moved, we bombed empty buildings again.  Russia didn't activate their air defense,we probably warned Russia which warned Syria again.  I'm sick of this wag the dog shit.
0
Reply
Female 6,693
But John Kerry said.... 
0
Reply
Male 9,632
melcervini I think we need to hold Russia's feet to the fire.  The whole thing was based on Russia facilitating the removal of chemical weapons.  It's clear they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.  I'm not sure why you are going to rail Kerry for stating this, if all we hear is Russia is taking care of it and they don't why is this Kerry's fault?  Let's blame the guilty party, Russia and Syria.
0
Reply
Female 6,693
normalfreak2 my beef was 'dont brag if its not true'
0
Reply
Male 9,632
melcervini If Russia says they facilitated the removal, and by all accounts that's all we know at the time why not brag about it?

0
Reply
Female 6,693
normalfreak2 Because Russia has always  been upfront with the rest of the world... :/
0
Reply
Male 1,876
melcervini "declared" Also, 4 years is a long time to setup a new lab.
0
Reply
Female 6,693
punko exactly "declared" yet they claimed victory?  If they set up again (which is bs, they've had stores since Iraq and got rid of little to zero), must have made an impression the first go around with president O-pology/Redline.
0
Reply
Male 946
melcervini neither has the first strike or threats from the Trump administration apparently...
0
Reply
Female 6,693
mischeif954 I'm torn on this whole thing.  1) stay the fuck out of everyone else's problems  2)How can we sit by and let that fuckstick gas his own people?
1
Reply
Male 7,283
Not sure what this fixes exactly.

I DO see it as a fine reason that other nations should chase after nuclear weapons.

Countries with nukes do not get bombed by others for ANY REASON.  When you have a nuke, diplomacy is always the first and best option.
-1
Reply
Male 2,755
Can't win for losing if he did nothing he's a chicken shit and letting the Syrian gov. kill people with gas, (not that he has never done it before) Just weeks ago people on this sight were all up in arms when Putan, made some threat to nuke the U.S with films and color pictures with circles and arrows and writing on the back and and Trump said nothing.
  Obama made threats to take steps if gas was used and did nothing, the atrocities in Syria continue and he used gas again. (not that Britain and France did not agree with the gas and air strikes)
    I know the U.N. will take care of it like they take care of all the other tinpot dictators.  NOT
  (See squirrel paragraphs and everything.) 
0
Reply
Male 13,401
Russia apparently has a new kind of nuke
-2
Reply
Male 6,502
The strike was a required response to the use of chemical weapons.

What scares me is just five days into the job, John Boton was already pulling his strings toward war:

“As President Donald Trump stood before television cameras on Friday to announce he’d ordered a sustained campaign of strikes in Syria, his new national security adviser John Bolton was standing a few paces away, reading along.” Link
0
Reply
Male 7,283
Notice the date of the tweet:
1
Reply
Male 18,342
My gut feel is this is a dangerous proxy war that is at the point of escalating into a direct war between NATO and Russia. We are there ostensibly to protect civilians and fight radical Islam, but Russia would fight the radicals (at the cost of some civilians) so I believe we are there for regime change to swap a pro-Iranian/Russian government for a potentially less anti-Israel government, ignoring the longstanding social connection between Syrians and Russians.

However, I want to wait before judging as I have much more to learn.
-1
Reply
Male 1,124
I'm going to be on the trumpo's side on this specific instance.
Assad will not answer to reason, and Putin is getting way too used to do whatever the fuck he wants. And, this was not a US-alone action but in collaboration with France and the U.K.  
I heard experts discussions Friday morning where one side was against the attack because that could give the victory to the rebels and repeat an Iraq. Bullshit. The reaction should have not, and was not, decisive in the conflict. It was to undermine Assad in a way that he needs to understand that any chemical warfare will be akin to shooting himself. So, if he does this again and again, and the retaliations amount to toppling hm, it was a result of his own actions.
And screw Putin. He needs to be reminded of the mutual assured destruction principle. He is not dealing with a defenseless Ukraine here, but with a might that can flatten him and his cohorts. 
1
Reply
Male 18,342
bearbear01 remember that mutually assured destruction works both ways. Though I'm angry at the regime's actions, I'm not ready to kiss bye-bye to the world over it.
-1
Reply
Male 1,124
Draculya it only works both ways if one side is keenly aware that the other is not to be taken lightly. I support commensurate attacks gains Assad, not an overthrow. That's for the locals to resolve. Of course, Russia is already tilting the scales, so it's not simple. And, we already proved that our lack of understanding can fuck up countries beyond any fucked up state that they may already  be in. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,867
 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
0
Reply
Male 685
Done and done.
0
Reply
Male 902
Trump is foolish, and I have no doubt that he should have kept his mouth shut, but ultimately a military response of some sort was likely needed.  Unless we give up on being world-police.  

Diplomacy doesn't seem like it was getting very far with Assad, and chemical weapons on civilian populations seems like one of those firm lines that we can't allow people to cross.
2
Reply