US Launches Military Strike on Syria

[iNow]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-launches-military-strike-syria/story?id=46632349

The U.S. launched a military strike on an airbase in Syria, a U.S. official has confirmed.

 

The official says the airstrikes -- which consisted of more than 50 tomahawk missiles -- have been completed. The Tomahawk missiles were fired at Shayrat Air Base in Homs Province, according to U.S. officials.

 

The officials say that multiple targets were struck at the base. The missiles were fired from the destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross in the Mediterranean Sea.

Part of me is glad to see this. Syria used Saran gas on its people. Children, innocents, and others. Then (I understand) bombed the hospital where they were sent for treatment (I've not confirmed though).

 

The question now is: What comes next?

 

In related news - GOP changed rules in the US Senate today because they couldn't get enough votes for their Supreme Court nominee. Lies about Susan Rice are being used to prop up bullshit claims that Obama wire tapped Trump during the election. Steve Bannon was pushed out of the National Secutity Council. Chinese President Xi Jinping is having dinner with Trump at his Florida golf resort, and North Korea is throwing tantrums while Putin watches with a smirk. Aka: Just another Thursday in 2017.

[EdEarl]

What comes next.

 

I suspect the Republicans are willing to spend another trillion on war to make some of the 1% richer; though, I hope not because I'm concerned it will bankrupt the country.

 

Automation will continue to take jobs and make poor people more poor, and another trillion deficit will make people with few/poor jobs owe money they cannot repay. The Extremely Large Telescope and Square Kilometer Array will be built. Elon Musk will land probably land on Mars. etc.

 

The supreme court may overturn Roe v Wade, and many women will die.

 

Nick Hanauer, a 1%er, says if the rich continue the 99% will rebel and go after the plutocrats with pitchforks. I am angry, as many are. I'm not ready to lob a bomb onto the floor of the senate an congress, but I'd like to see those who take millions in bribes go to jail, except the Supreme Court made it legal.

 

I really think we are too quick to go to war especially because greed is a big motivator. We need to fix our own house before we act elsewhere.

Edited April 7, 2017 by EdEarl

[rangerx]

The west no longer has a case against Russia for unilateral acts of war. Vlad's investment in Trump just paid huge dividends.

[StringJunky]

Chemical weapons, of the nature used, amply illustrates the lack of humanity of a regime, especially towards its own citizens and, as such, talking is no longer an option. Trump or not, it has to be done. The doves need to sit aside and let the hawks get on with the job until they are needed again.

 

 

All in my opinion.

[EdEarl]

So to punish the Syrians, you would let the hungry in the US starve, those without healthcare die, those without homes die of exposure, women without access to family planning get abortions in back alleys or have unwanted children who are abused, etc. I believe women who have been raped are beheaded in some countries; I'm sure we can find many thousands of examples of man's inhumanity to man. I think it is fiscally irresponsible for the US to become entangled in a foreign war, which is not being a dove; rather it is being rational.

[rangerx]

The doves need to sit aside and let the hawks get on with the job until they are needed again.

 

 

All in my opinion.

 

And this strengthens cooperation with the Russians in the fight against terror, how? Likewise, the west's condemnation of Russia for unilateral acts of war by taking the moral high ground via UN security resolution and Congressional approval, out the window?

 

Three dictators in a pissing match can't end well. Not that it wasn't already complicated, it's now ripe for chaos and tyranny.

[StringJunky]

So to punish the Syrians, you would let the hungry in the US starve, those without healthcare die, those without homes die of exposure, women without access to family planning get abortions in back alleys or have unwanted children who are abused, etc. I believe women who have been raped are beheaded in some countries; I'm sure we can find many thousands of examples of man's inhumanity to man. I think it is fiscally irresponsible for the US to become entangled in a foreign war, which is not being a dove; rather it is being rational.

But America has put itself as the biggest kid on the block. You are Buddhist and, thus, fundamentally oppose violence even if it was overwhelmingly justified,. Your belief allows you no room for pragmatism it's a core tenet of Buddhism; 'no harm'. I have to take your viewpoint with a pinch of salt.

 

 

 

And this strengthens cooperation with the Russians in the fight against terror, how? Likewise, the west's condemnation of Russia for unilateral acts of war by taking the moral high ground via UN security resolution and Congressional approval, out the window?

 

Three dictators in a pissing match can't end well. Not that it wasn't already complicated, it's now ripe for chaos and tyranny.

War is always messy but if a country crosses a bright red line, like chemical and nuclear weapons, it has to be dealt with in the strongest manner, whatever the prevailing conditions.

Edited April 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[rangerx]

But America has put itself as the biggest kid on the block. You are Buddhist and, thus, fundamentally oppose violence even if it was overwhelmingly justified,. Your belief allows you no room for pragmatism it's a core tenet of Buddhism; 'no harm'. I have to take your viewpoint with a pinch of salt.

 

 

War is always messy but if a country crosses a bright red line, like chemical and nuclear weapons, it has to be dealt with in the strongest manner, whatever the prevailing conditions.

 

I'm not defending Syria (Assad, not the helpless victims) and won't any time soon. However, acts of war without congressional support is not the biggest kid on the block. It's the lowest form of civility. A UN Security Council resolution is also the greater thing to do.

 

The thing is, if he went to Congress or the UN, he would have gotten the approval, and allies. It's bad enough he's not believable on minor issues, he'll never be trusted in a time of war with the truth.

 

America is no better than Russia now with a rogue leader at the switch, comrade. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, America has created a new power vacuum for ISIS to thrive, with no measures in place to counter it or redevelop afterwards.

 

Nope, not great.

[StringJunky]

 

I'm not defending Syria (Assad, not the helpless victims) and won't any time soon. However, acts of war without congressional support is not the biggest kid on the block. It's the lowest form of civility. A UN Security Council resolution is also the greater thing to do.

 

The thing is, if he went to Congress or the UN, he would have gotten the approval, and allies. It's bad enough he's not believable on minor issues, he'll never be trusted in a time of war with the truth.

 

America is no better than Russia now with a rogue leader at the switch, comrade. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, America has created a new power vacuum for ISIS to thrive, with no measures in place to counter it or redevelop afterwards.

 

Nope, not great.

The UK, officially, fully supports the action. I think this is a military decision and Trump rubber-stamped it.

 

World reaction in BBC News gives a few statements from various countries: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39526089

Edited April 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[rangerx]

The UK, officially, fully supports the action. I think this is a military decision and Trump rubber-stamped it.

 

World reaction in BBC News gives a few statements from various countries: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39526089

 

So Trump blew up an airport. What exactly was achieved here? Does than mean Syrians can go home now? Russia vindicated for unilateral annexation? Thwarting international and constitutional laws? Trump is now a pillar of truth?

[Delta1212]

I have very mixed feelings about this and will straight up admit that a large part of that is that I do not trust in Trump's ability to negotiate complex diplomatic waters.

 

There is a marked difference between boldness and stupidity, but it is often difficult to distinguish between the two at the opening salvo.

[StringJunky]

 

So Trump blew up an airport. What exactly was achieved here? Does than mean Syrians can go home now? Russia vindicated for unilateral annexation? Thwarting international and constitutional laws? Trump is now a pillar of truth?

He has the moral support of several, diverse countries so it's not a unilateral action in that sense.Like I said, I don't think this was premeditated by Trump... lines have been crossed.

[EdEarl]

Buddhist philosophy is in many ways rational, which is why I like it. On the other hand, parts are irrational, for example reincarnation, which is why I don't claim Buddhism or any religion.

[StringJunky]

I have very mixed feelings about this and will straight up admit that a large part of that is that I do not trust in Trump's ability to negotiate complex diplomatic waters.

 

There is a marked difference between boldness and stupidity, but it is often difficult to distinguish between the two at the opening salvo.

I see where you are coming from but I think this is firmly in the hands of the military and part of long-term military thinking on how certain conditions would be dealt with if they arose.

Buddhist philosophy is in many ways rational, which is why I like it. On the other hand, parts are irrational, for example reincarnation, which is why I don't claim Buddhism or any religion.

I like it too, or aspects of it, but I just get the feeling, perhaps wrongly, that you are very principled towards the 'no harm' aspect of that philosophy.

[rangerx]

He has the moral support of several, diverse countries so it's not a unilateral action in that sense.Like I said, I don't think this was premeditated by Trump... lines have been crossed.

 

Morally, it has my support too, but the law is the law. Morally I don't support vigilantism either, hence it's a poor excuse. Alliance to war needs consensus, not being put on the spot. It's a fool's errand to blindly follow a non-credible president into war without a plan or oversight. Period.

[Raider5678]

It has my support morally. Trump decided to bomb the military airbase(not just some airport) that held planes that had launched chemical attacks upon citizens and may have been getting ready to launch more.

Deciding to immediately destroy those assets may or may not have helped stop any further chemical attacks from happening. While I can't confirm he stopped further chemical attacks, waiting for congressional support and UN approval might have been too long.

And while I agree he should get go ahead by both groups before doing military action, I can't say I'm terribly against him doing this.

 

Morally, it has my support too, but the law is the law. Morally I don't support vigilantism either, hence it's a poor excuse. Alliance to war needs consensus, not being put on the spot. It's a fool's errand to blindly follow a non-credible president into war without a plan or oversight. Period.

It wouldn't so much be a war as a matter of how long it would take us to completely annihilate the Syrian government. We could go in full guns blazing and have the place cleared in 2 months with minimal casualties on our side, but the collateral damage as well as all the innocent lives lost would make that a bad idea.

And you say a non-credible president. He has military advisers. I'm positive some of them support him declaring this attack.

[Delta1212]

I see where you are coming from but I think this is firmly in the hands of the military and part of long-term military thinking on how certain conditions would be dealt with if they arose.

 

I like it too, or aspects of it, but I just get the feeling, perhaps wrongly, that you are very principled towards the 'no harm' aspect of that philosophy.

Even if the military is fully handling things and Trump is just rubber stamping plans made by smarter men, the military is a hammer and not every problem is a nail. When you want a tactical response, you turn to the military. When you then don't want that response to escalate further, you turn to other institutions, and I'm less than confident that the other instruments of government are in full working order.

 

The State Department is barely staffed at the top levels right now and who the hell knows whether Tillersom is even competent yet. He even has Kushner unofficially pulling State Department duties. Trump has been provoking a lot of people around the world, and I'll even admit that at least some of them deserve a little poking with a sharp stick, but without a fully functional State Department, he's tinkering with live ordninance without an explosives expert on hand.

It has my support morally. Trump decided to bomb the military airbase(not just some airport) that held planes that had launched chemical attacks upon citizens and may have been getting ready to launch more.

Deciding to immediately destroy those assets may or may not have helped stop any further chemical attacks from happening. While I can't confirm he stopped further chemical attacks, waiting for congressional support and UN approval might have been too long.

And while I agree he should get go ahead by both groups before doing military action, I can't say I'm terribly against him doing this.

 

It wouldn't so much be a war as a matter of how long it would take us to completely annihilate the Syrian government. We could go in full guns blazing and have the place cleared in 2 months with minimal casualties on our side, but the collateral damage as well as all the innocent lives lost would make that a bad idea.

And you say a non-credible president. He has military advisers. I'm positive some of them support him declaring this attack.

Two points. I was 13 when we invaded Iraq and had much the same thoughts about how that war would go as to what you are currently describing re:invading Syria.

 

Second, it's not so much Syria itself that is the problem. It is the fact that Assad is considered a close ally in the region by Russia. They're already on the ground there, so you're hardly going to see the US waltz through that territory unopposed.

[Raider5678]

Two points. I was 13 when we invaded Iraq and had much the same thoughts about how that war would go as to what you are currently describing re:invading Syria.

 

Second, it's not so much Syria itself that is the problem. It is the fact that Assad is considered a close ally in the region by Russia. They're already on the ground there, so you're hardly going to see the US waltz through that territory unopposed.

Desert storm? I know for a fact I probably don't have all the details there, so could someone fill me in slightly more on this before I say something stupid?

[Airbrush]

The attack seemed like a fair idea to me, for a "one off". Each Tomahawk cruise missile costs us about $1.6 million, and carries 1,000 pounds of explosives, so the attack cost over $90 million USD to send 59 Tomahawks. That is what a single military action costs the US nowadays.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

[rangerx]

While I can't confirm he stopped further chemical attacks, waiting for congressional support and UN approval might have been too long.

And while I agree he should get go ahead by both groups before doing military action, I can't say I'm terribly against him doing this.

It wouldn't so much be a war as a matter of how long it would take us to completely annihilate the Syrian government. We could go in full guns blazing and have the place cleared in 2 months with minimal casualties on our side, but the collateral damage as well as all the innocent lives lost would make that a bad idea.

And you say a non-credible president. He has military advisers. I'm positive some of them support him declaring this attack.

 

 

The law is the law. These things take time, but not that long. A few days before congress and a day in the UN would have sufficed to get the resolution and support needed in light of recent events.

 

Obama could and should have done that after diplomacy failed, but Republicans are opposed to anything your former president did, no less in his final year, right?

 

For Trump, even up until a few days ago, Syria was Syria's problem and flatly rejected American involvement. Trump has again proven he's a flip flopping fish on the deck of non-credibility. He needlessly cried wolf too many times.

 

Do you like the idea of being drafted when you come of age? Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe? Are Syrian refugees still terrorists in the Republican eye? Should they still be barred from entering the US?

 

War's not easy, it's complicated.

[Delta1212]

Desert storm? I know for a fact I probably don't have all the details there, so could someone fill me in slightly more on this before I say something stupid?

The sequel. Iraqi Freedom seemed like it was going to be US forces steamrolling through resistance. And that's exactly what it was. At first. And then it wasn't.

[Phi for All]

The sequel. Iraqi Freedom seemed like it was going to be US forces steamrolling through resistance. And that's exactly what it was. At first. And then it wasn't.

 

When you put "businessmen" in the Oval Office to run the country like a business, you shouldn't be surprised if profit takes precedence over running the country like a country.*

 

 

 

* "You" not being directed personally, of course.

[Raider5678]

 

When you put "businessmen" in the Oval Office to run the country like a business, you shouldn't be surprised if profit takes precedence over running the country like a country.*

I can agree with that.

Do you like the idea of being drafted when you come of age? Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe? Are Syrian refugees still terrorists in the Republican eye? Should they still be barred from entering the US?

A draft is highly unlikely.

We're not currently stressed on the number of troops we have.

Now the idea that this may happen isn't impossible. Just saying that it doesn't seem likely.

 

We bombed them for using chemical weapons on what would be considered syrian refugees if they left the country. So if we see them all as terrorists, we just intervened on the side of terrorists. Which I, nor most people, don't think of it that way.

 

And, if you say that this would have been approved by the UN and Congress anyways, why does being drafted play into what Trump did? The end result would have been the same just 3-4 days later.

 

 

 

 

Also, delta, I still see Syria as no threat to the United States. Perhaps it has the ability to resist the United States and make it hard to invade/immobilize/stop them, but they pose no to little of an actual threat to the US. Is this thinking flawed?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Raider5678

[DrmDoc]

The sequel. Iraqi Freedom seemed like it was going to be US forces steamrolling through resistance. And that's exactly what it was. At first. And then it wasn't.

 

Syria enjoys the full support of Russia, so it's very unlikely that Trump is willing to escalate a Syrian conflict to Iraqi levels. I believe it likely that Putin was informed well ahead of this attack on an airstrip previously used by Russian military support in Syria. It's curious that this bombing excluded, according to an ABC News report, the buildings near this location where the Syrians are believed to be storing their chemical weapons.

Edited April 7, 2017 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

Russia also received a heads up so they can evacuate / move their stuff. This basically means Assad also knew we were coming.

 

Like I said, what matters here is: What comes next?