President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

InTheTrees

News tonight that the US just launched an attack on Homs in Syria. Fifty cruise missiles were fired. A massive amount of ordnance.

aloyisious

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html

The Washington Post has covered the news as well, with a separate report on Steve Bannon threat to quit story from a friend in the W/House.

Manic Moran

It is unfortunate that we have gotten to the point where we think that 50 is a "massive amount" of ordnance. That many Tomahawks (well, 47, close enough) were fired into Syria against ISIS targets back in a single strike back on 23 Sept 2014. Nobody seems to have made much of it. The difference here is the direct attack on Assad, not the size of the strike.

A far more relevant figure is going to be the amount of damage done to Syrian capability. I suspect the Syrian Air Force has just suffered a dramatic drop in its operational readiness rate. It is an interesting choice, and at first blush, seems to be quite a good one on several levels.

Firstly, it hasn't cost the US any lives. Secondly, it has reinforced to the world at large that this administration is willing to back up its words with military action. It brings the US up to Russia's "OK, what are you going to to about it?" level that Russia has been playing the last few years. Politically, few people are going to have a moral issue with the punishment of Syria for the use of chemical weapons, or with the choice of target, the Air Force which dropped them.

As long as the Russians took no significant casualties (and it appears from initial reports that the US gave the Russians a bit of a heads-up that the missiles were coming), I don't see this escalating, and the point has been well made. There is no reason for the US to do anything more either. We'll see where this goes, but aside from some angry words, I suspect everyone will move on.

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

I hope Trump isn't stupid enough to take military action against Syria.

It was a really bad idea when Hillary Clinton wanted it, it is still a really bad idea today.

He can't, we were told Trump would bring peace to his new empire and that voting for Clinton would mean war.

BabyCheeses

B_Wayne wrote: »

Weren't they tweeting implications that Clinton had Parkinsons? It was all so cringey and political... Strange apolitical group, dedicating selves to target a particular politician....

They shared a link about the pizza thing as well. Then there was their merchandise.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--m0jnaYTm--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/qrwu9f58kculdvtd9boc.png

So yeah, you can trust everything they say, they're clearly not taking a side.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is unfortunate that we have gotten to the point where we think that 50 is a "massive amount" of ordnance.

So I'm confused, you're saying fifty cruise missiles isnt a massive amount?

Manic Moran

I am. Two B1 bombers can carry the same of JDAM bombs as fifty cruise missiles. In terms of pure HE load out, a single B1 can carry more.

Something I ve noticed in recent years is that after a decade of counterinsurgency, people have lost perspective of what truly constitutes a significant military engagement. All of a sudden, a dozen casualties is a major loss, a dozen aircraft constitutes major air strikes etc. This isn't just a civilian issue, in a course I'm currently taking, I saw folks coming up with Corp level commander's wakeup criteria of "loss of a soldier." If things ever truly kick off, the shock is going to be huge. And, unfortunately, given the levels of expectation today of what little damage military action tends to result in, I fear that the result is more liberal use of such action.

As I mentioned in my last post, we routinely enough lob lots of missiles at folks. What really made the news here was not the amount of weapons expenditure, it was the target.

Zubeneschamali

Manic Moran wrote: »

I suspect everyone will move on.

Yes, Assad, backed by Russia, got clean away with war crimes.

Wanderer78

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Yes, Assad, backed by Russia, got clean away with war crimes.

Strange how some world leaders behaviour is classed as war crimes and others is described as 'spreading democracy'! It's a very strange world!

Manic Moran

If I wasn't clear with the earlier post, what with all the focus on Syria and Russia, it may be easy to overlook another intended target. Note that this strike took place just after Trump dined with the Chinese premier. That same China who is North Korea's best friend, that same North Korea which is generally acting up in its quest for nuclear ICBMs. The strike may have been aimed at Syria, but the stick was most definitely being waved at DPRK.

Wanderer78

Is this the beginning of another major war? There truly are some dreadful human beings is postions of power on this planet. My thoughts are with the Syrian people as always

Christy42

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Is this the beginning of another major war? There truly are some dreadful human beings is postions of power on this planet. My thoughts are with the Syrian people as always

While it is a u-turn from Donald. This is one of the few things I agree with. Assad needs to be shown he can't commit war crimes without retaliation. This is dependent on Russia not having indicated a serious reaction, the strikes being ordered through proper channels and the airbases being the targets. These all seem to be the case. Also that it should just be left st this stage by the US. I see no reason to escalate.

Wanderer78

Christy42 wrote:

While it is a u-turn from Donald. This is one of the few things I agree with. Assad needs to be shown he can't commit war crimes without retaliation. This is dependent on Russia not having indicated a serious reaction, the strikes being ordered through proper channels and the airbases being the targets. These all seem to be the case. Also that it should just be left st this stage by the US. I see no reason to escalate.

Even though I do understand where your coming from, in my world, two wrongs don't make a right. Violence creates violence, expect repercussions, or maybe the Donald is 'spreading democracy', in that case I'm wrong

El_Duderino 09

Ha! I just had a look at fox news to see how they're covering the strikes on Syria. I imagined that given Trump's non interventionist stance and the lambasting of 'Hillary the Hawk' they'd be appauled by Trump getting the US involved in attacking another nation. But predictably enough, they're thrilled to bits that trump attacked.

Instead of talking about to much intervention, they're talking about how Obama was all talk no action. Strikes me the republicans would have loved Hillary if she was a republican.

ThisRegard

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Even though I do understand where your coming from, in my world, two wrongs don't make a right. Violence creates violence, expect repercussions, or maybe the Donald is 'spreading democracy', in that case I'm wrong

I think you're being a tad naïve. Remember this is a regime happy to kill its own civilians and now gas them and subject the victims to horrible suffering, regardless of age. Words were never going to work, especially with Russia having their veto in the UN.

I was interested to hear Russia say yesterday, after the attack, that basically their support for the regime is not without strings attached. I'm wondering if at diplomatic level of this was in a way a go for the US while they maintain their public stance.

Wanderer78

ThisRegard wrote:

I think you're being a tad naïve. Remember this is a regime happy to kill its own civilians and now gas them and subject the victims to horrible suffering, regardless of age. Words were never going to work, especially with Russia having their veto in the UN.

Am I naive or does history tell us something? We must push the Donald aside for a moment and realise, the warpubulican party are in control! Watch this space!

Christy42

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Even though I do understand where your coming from, in my world, two wrongs don't make a right. Violence creates violence, expect repercussions, or maybe the Donald is 'spreading democracy', in that case I'm wrong

As I said in the Syria thread I am largely unsure of where to go from here. Something had to be done as a warning that they can't use chemical weapons with impunity.

My own preferred response would have involved destroying a large proportion of the Syrian air force with no casualties caused but I have to accept this is simply not possible. They seem to have veered towards this response as much as possible.

It seems like Russia at least condoned the attack so I reckon they will stop repercussions. Who would Syria attack in revenge anyway, the US does not overly care about the rebels and attacking the US would be absolute suicide.

Anyway I am hoping this is warning enough to stop chemical weapons. If not then you are correct and it was needless killing. If the US pushes on from here into more involvement then you are also correct.

Igotadose

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Instead of talking about to much intervention, they're talking about how Obama was all talk no action. Strikes me the republicans would have loved Hillary if she was a republican.

Trump'll probably going to jump in the polls now and have his prime campaign issue in place for 2020. So much for the laughable naievte shown by posters here who were pro-Trump because he was non-interventionist and Hilary endorsed the Iraq war. How's that working for you this morning?

And that speech, Trump invoking God left and right. I bet Pence wrote it. Yeesh.


Next up: boots on the ground, military bases in northern Israel and steaming the navy off the coast of Damascus. John McCain (imagine - he could've been President, too, in 2008, with Sarah Palin as his VP!) has applauded the move and said the President has the authorization he needs - he doesn't but it won't matter, the GOP will come up with something in Congress and make it retroactive, it's what you do in a banana republic. Now there's all sorts of uses for that extra military budget, woo!

And, finally, the Russia influence investigations will be pushed to the back pages with breathless coverage of Syria's war coming to sell a newspaper or website near you.

Bad day for the world. Very bad.

Fr Tod Umptious

So Trump is carrying out Obama's ultimatium about Assad crossing the red line.

Just goes to show how much of a fraud Obama was.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Trump'll probably going to jump in the polls now and have his prime campaign issue in place for 2020. So much for the laughable naievte shown by posters here who were pro-Trump because he was non-interventionist and Hilary endorsed the Iraq war. How's that working for you this morning?

I never really thought that Trump was non-interventionist. I doubt that he has any principles or values, other than a conviction of his own worth, a conviction that everybody loves him like Mommy should, a conviction that facts which appear to suggest otherwise must be false, and a conviction that those few who don't love him are either mad or evil.

His non-interventionist posturing sat ill with his commitment to spending lots of money on shiny new military toys. I always assumed that it the right circumstances he would play with his toys to show how manly he was.

In policy terms, it's a complete U-turm face by Trump, from criticising Obama for being too interventionist to launching into an intervention which Obama declined to make. But Trump has a history of inconsistency, so in that sense he's doing exactly what is expected of him.

Timberrrrrrrr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, Assad, backed by Russia, got clean away with war crimes.

What punishment did the US fave for bombing a hospital?

HONKEY TONK

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So Trump is carrying out Obama's ultimatium about Assad crossing the red line.

Just goes to show how much of a fraud Obama was.

Does it not make Trump a Hypocrite?

Fr Tod Umptious

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

Does it not make Trump a Hypocrite?

I don't know nor care, I think the notion of Trump being a hypocrite was established well before this.

My point I that the Obama administration was weak on foregin policy and now with a new president that is changing.

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know nor care, I think the notion of Trump being a hypocrite was established well before this.

My point I that the Obama administration was weak on foregin policy and now with a new president that is changing.

I don't think lobbing a bunch of cruise missiles at Syria demonstrates that you are not weak on foreign policy. it just demonstrates that when you don't know what to do, your fallback is to drop some bombs on people.

Trump isn't the first American president to default to bombing. But I doubt if it will work out any better for him than it did for any of his predecessors.

ECO_Mental

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So Trump is carrying out Obama's ultimatium about Assad crossing the red line.

Just goes to show how much of a fraud Obama was.

This is the first thing that I think Trump has done right, but bombing s**t doesn't make a great president. You do realize people actually die because of these actions and he has now opened a Pandora's box.

and what do mean fraud...again hurling from the ditch. Yeah he might have thrown in a ball that went to over the fence but there are massive geopolitical consequences of this Russia Iran are allies of Syria and this could now bring them fully into the conflict. Its very easy to say this stuff but you dont live there and its easy for trump to launch a missile while sipping a mojito for mar-a-largo.

So listen while I do think it was a right move "maybe" and I am firmly in the camp where I think Trump is a pure fraud in the truest meaning of the word but we have to wait and see how this plays out......

ECO_Mental

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know nor care, I think the notion of Trump being a hypocrite was established well before this.

My point I that the Obama administration was weak on foregin policy and now with a new president that is changing.

You must be winding us up, bombing stuff and killing people is NOT good foreign policy its a last resort.................................

Leroy42

So Trump has changed his mind about Assad. And all it took was for him to get to know the actual facts rather than whatever nonsense he had seen on the TV.

He has gone from America pulling back from engagement to a new engagement. Did he get either congressional or Nato approval. Did he get UK permission (his closest ally apparently).

So if Assad promises never to do it again is everything ok? What if he continues to use conventional weapons to continue to kill 'beautiful babies'. And he is now open to actually helping those refugees trying to escape this monster?

No. Because the only reason Trump did this was because he could and because he wants to act the tough man. Is there a end game? What constitutes success?

It a mess. Trump is quickly finding out the these things are never simple. If it was simple that people would have solved it years ago. Obama didn't fail to act because he was a coward, it is because their is more than just one issue at stake and normally many competing issues.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Trump has changed his mind about Assad. And all it took was for him to get to know the actual facts rather than whatever nonsense he had seen on the TV.

He has gone from America pulling back from engagement to a new engagement. He has not got either congressional or Nato approval. He didn't even get UK permission (his closest ally apparently).

So if Assad promises never to do it again is everything ok? What if he continues to use conventional weapons to continue to kill 'beautiful babies'. And he is now open to actually helping those refugees trying to escape this monster?

No. Because the only reason Trump did this was because he could and because he wants to act the tough man. Is there a end game? What constitutes success?

It a mess. Trump is quickly finding out the these things are never simple. If it was simple that people would have solved it years ago. Obama didn't fail to act because he was a coward, it is because their is more than just one issue at stake and normally many competing issues.

Pretty sure the UK gave their approval. I agree that congress would have been a good idea. Hopefully this kills all talk of not helping Syrian refugees and his travel ban. I am ok to wait and see here. Further involvement from a military capacity would mean the desired effect has failed (and I will also be wrong in this scenario as well as Trump).

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

This is a really bad development for regional and world security. Russia being on the ground there gives this situation way too high of a chance of getting really out of control.

There hasn't even been time to properly verify who exactly carried out the chemical attack.

There is no reason to believe the Americans launching missiles into this conflict will result in less casualties in Syria in the future. The US using their military power in the Middle East has only ever led to making the place more dangerous and more out of control.

What's the end game here? Get rid of Assad and let ISIS fill in as the dominant power in the country?

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Pretty sure the UK gave their approval. I agree that congress would have been a good idea. Hopefully this kills all talk of not helping Syrian refugees and his travel ban. I am ok to wait and see here. Further involvement from a military capacity would mean the desired effect has failed (and I will also be wrong in this scenario as well as Trump).

OK, on the approval, you could be right. I haven't heard that he did but then I didn't read that he didn't either but I jumped to a conclusion on that. I edited my post to ask the question rather than state a fact.

It's not the attack that I have a problem with. I think that Assad has been allowed to get away for far too much for far too long. The west has turned a blind eye to this for too long.

On the other hand, anytime they try to get involved they tend to make things worse. I am of the opinion that US, at times, does actually try to do the right thing. Going after Assad after a chemical attack is 'right' in my view. However, this is not that.

This is nothing more that a dick waving exercise. A few runways, possibly a few planes.

As I said in an earlier post, if Trump and US, as well as the rest of the world, actually took this seriously and started to deal with the refugees in a proper manner. Create 'safe-spaces' within Syria. No Fly Zones, protected by a UN force, which would allow refugees to move back to Syria. Provide housing, and education, and water and food. Almost create a new Syria.

Sure Assad would keep the main city, but let him have it, he won't be going anywhere and what is the point of a kingdom without subjects?

If Trump starts to move down that path then this is the first step then well done. If all it is is a way to 'prove' he is better than Obama then all he did was waste a load of money and kill some people.