International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Trump Launches Missile Strikes on Syria After Chemical Attack
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti ... as-expectations-of-strike-grow
Published: Apr 13, 2018
Author: Jennifer Jacobs, Donna Nabu-Nasr, Daniel
Post Date: 2018-04-13 21:29:24 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 6186
Comments: 82
President Donald Trump said he launched missile strikes on Syria in retaliation for an apparent chemical attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad on a rebel town. Trump said the missile strikes, which were focused on chemical weapons sites, would be carried out in coordination with France and the U.K. and he made clear that the U.S. is prepared to sustain the strikes until Syria stops using chemical weapons. The president also blasted Iraq and Russia for supporting Assad’s regime, particularly in the wake of the chemical attack.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#10)
You should be ashamed of yourself. Au contraire mon amis! He wants to make sure he gets full boot-licking credit if the Soviets come back into power. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The doers are always the last to know. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Excellent question! Because we CAN? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
What? You are saying that the timing of this launch was to take the heat off of Trump and get the news media to focus on something else? Nah...that's never been done by a President before. Certainly not Clinton, Obama and Bush. < / sarcasm > Excellent question! Because we CAN? Because we "can" is not a good enough reason. How about because we "should"? In this case we should not. Why would Assad gas his own people only days after both Russia and the U.S. indicated that they would withdraw their troops from Syria? OK, Sneaky. Can you tell me why me why men die earlier than women?
I really don't think you were replying to me... but the answer is: Because they WANT to........
Same shit, different day....
Sure. We live with women. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
A little more direct than my answer,but essentially the same. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Ok,I thought you were asking for a reason,not a justification. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Who needs evidence at a time such as this. All you need is supposition and bull shit to do what you want, including get us into WW111.
Yes Trump is a tool of the military/industrial complex. He has made a restrained response which will be taken as weakness by Assad and Putin. Madam May is making much of the opportunity to ramp up the rhetoric against the Russians linking gas in Syria to nerve agents in the UK
Assad and Putin are very, very smart (they would not be where they are, if they didn't). They understand the situation of Trump well. probably they sympathize with him.
Putin might be smart or just cunning, Assad didn't get the job by being smart, like Kim he took over from his daddy and has succeeded in pissing off his people, not smart, devastating his country, not smart
Depends on how you believe the MSM. He is exceptionally intelligent and educated and holds ample political power to offset the BULLSHIT you believe in.
This woman knew the answer in 1999. A few of her predictions haven't come true yet but most of the time, she was a prophet. Karen Talbot (RIP) Cinnabon for Syria! It's Freedom!
How many interviews of him have you seen?
I wonder how long you would last in his place, I think couple days at most. You have a set of templates from the cartoons and more cheesy Hollywood movies and are conditioned like a Pavlovian dog. You cannot point to a country on the map or spell its name, but you know the character of the rogue leader better than his closest family. Strange thing, each of those designated rogues is IDENTICAL to the others. Saddam, Milosevic, Allende, Noriega, Milosevic, Putin, Kim, ... No matter that earlier they could have had a different role assigned, memory is flexible.
Pooty Poot grew up in the KGB. Being smart wasn't a requirement,but if you weren't cunning you ended up dead or in a labor camp. AND.....,he rose to the rank of Colonel there before branching out into Russian politics and becoming the President of Russia,so there can be no doubt about how cunning he is. Or how ruthless. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
and what bullshit do I believe? certainly not the bullshit Trump is peddling, or the bullshit Putin is peddling, or the bullshit you are peddling
Maybe,maybe not. Don't forget,he has the whole police state system behind him trying to protect him because protecting him is protecting themselves. He could have the IQ of a toad and still hold his hereditary position as long as he hands out power and a percentage of the take. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
How many interviews of him have you seen? I THINK the point he was making is that Assad's IQ is irrelevant as he is the hereditary ruler of a police state. He had an established system in place and running when he took over. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Assad was not expected to take over the regime, his brother who got killed was groomed for the role, much as Joe Kennedy Junior was the son that old Joe wanted to run for prez. When he got killed in the remote-controlled bomber over England, JFK was his father's pick to run for prez. Assad did become a qualified ophthalmologist after medical training in Britain. I never read any complaints about his professional qualifications so he must have been fairly bright and had basic competence. And he does seem to be pretty intelligent, maybe a little on the autism scale. Something about his appearance and behavior makes me think that when I do see him on TV, despite how carefully they control any video of him that we can see in the West. However, Assad is the figurehead of his country's military/political elite. Exactly as Kim Jong-Il is. In either case, even if we drove the "dictator" from power, the (primarily) military regime would simply select another figurehead as ruler. There is no other way to rule a country that is so culturally and religiously divided as Syria is. In some respects, Putin plays the same role in Russia. He just didn't inherit the role from Daddy. If you want an American example of this, look at how Rand Paul mostly inherited his father's political base. And Rand is, like Assad, an ophthalmologist.
Assad did become a qualified ophthalmologist after medical training in Britain. I never read any complaints about his professional qualifications so he must have been fairly bright and had basic competence. And he does seem to be pretty intelligent, maybe a little on the autism scale. Something about his appearance and behavior makes me think that when I do see him on TV, despite how carefully they control any video of him that we can see in the West. However, Assad is the figurehead of his country's military/political elite. Exactly as Kim Jong-Il is. In either case, even if we drove the "dictator" from power, the (primarily) military regime would simply select another figurehead as ruler. There is no other way to rule a country that is so culturally and religiously divided as Syria is. In some respects, Putin plays the same role in Russia. He just didn't inherit the role from Daddy. If you want an American example of this, look at how Rand Paul mostly inherited his father's political base. And Rand is, like Assad, an ophthalmologist. Why is America involved with Syria?
It's...complicated. Trump wants out. But he also doesn't want to look weak. He isn't the first prez with exactly this problem.
How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there?
We abolished the Department of War after WW II and replaced it with the Department of Defense. Ipso facto, anything we do with our military is defensive. You're old enough to know this, Buck.
Typical government DOUBLE-SPEAK. I have no reports that Syria launched a missile towards the USA or much less attempted to invade the USA.
questions that no one wants to answer, but you can bet Israel and jewish influence is in there somewhere. Before the current shamoozle Syria was an active enemy of Israel and now Iran is closer to Israeli borders than they were before
They slaughter their own people and support terrorism against our allies. Therefore, their government needs to go. Also, if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American, the Russian base there can be closed - and that is the only Russian naval anchorage in the Mediterranean. Poor Russians.
The poor Russians have enough nukes to virtually destroy the entire USA and probably Europe too, so they are not that "poor". Best not to attempt to back a nuke power into a corner. And they have the Crimea back, so they still have Met access.
Like in Libya?
Best not to attempt to back a nuke power into a corner. And they have the Crimea back, so they still have Met access. As I said: their military option is to blow up the world, including themselves. Sure, they can commit suicide (and wake up in Hell after doing it), but they don't have any option. As far as Med access goes, take another look at the map. Sevastopol is on the Black Sea. To get to the Med they have to steam through the Dardanelles inside of NATO ally Turkey. And once they get to the other side, in the NATO-ally Greece's private lake called the Aegean, with Syria gone they have nowhere to base, nowhere to refuel, nowhere to repair. Their underway replenishment capability is very weak. So sure, they can send a fleet past Istanbul, in peacetime, and float around in the Med until they run out of fuel and food. They can't stay there very long, and in a war scenario, they can't get their fleet out of the Black Sea, or back into it if it's in the Med. The loss of Syria would be a massive blow to their strategic position. They need to negotiate. I'm sure that leaving them a Guantanamo Bay type of arrangement regarding their Syrian base can be worked out that doesn't require Assad to sit there. But maybe not. Poor Russia has nuclear weapons - and that's all they've got. Nuclear weapons give them the option of being a suicide bomber - blowing up the whole world, themselves included - in a tantrum. They would do that if armies were closing in on Moscow. So would the French is armies were closing in on Paris. But over Syria? Nah. The Russians will not commit suicide over Syria. They'll take their lumps and be angry and move on.
Sure.
Lol.
Turkey has all sorts of difficulties getting along with us, with Greece, etc. But Russia is a permanent enemy of the Turks, and the Turks know it. Let's suppose Turkey goes inert and lets the Russians through the Dardanelles during a war. They steam into the Aegean, through the middle of Greece, a NATO ally, where they would be blown out of the water by airstrikes if it came down to it. Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria.
Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria. Seems contradictory.
I really have to think you don't know how small and unimportant that "base" really is. They can't even put any except the smallest battleships in to dock. If their big missile cruiser (they've only got the one) needed shipyard work of any kind, they have a kind of floating machine shop that they can float out to it. Otherwise, it's just a smallish fuel depot and a transshipment point for parts like electronics, possibly a place you could (but wouldn't want to) use to replenish perishables and depleted ordinance. People really make too much of that base. And the fact that it is the only Russian base considered active around the world makes it clear how limited Russia's reach is a naval power. They do still have basing rights in Cuba but that place really is in mothballs. And Russia explored but never concluded any agreement with a willing Vietnam to re-open that large and ambitious naval base in Cam Ranh Bay. That was a real naval base and the one in Cuba would count as one too (though it mostly hosted Russian spy ships disguised as trawlers). Not the one in Syria because it's too small and has such limited capabilities.
When you "corner"someone, that's when they run out of options. Turkey is not exactly a foe of Russia. Russia is selling them S-300 systems, much to the chagrin of the US. Putin WANTS to negotiate. But it's the west that is completely refusing to do so. Putin instead simply being push and shoved, again and again and again. The west doesn't care at all about anything Putin has to say. According to the west, "negotiation" means only one thing: Shut up, get back in the fucking line and do what we say! And you *know* that's true. Latest word on Skripal case: The chem used was not Novichok. It was instead something called "BZ", which was known to be developed only in NATO countries and the USA. That bolsters Russia's claim of non-involvement, and compromises the west's decision to expel the 120 or so diplomats by not only the US & UK, but a dozen or more other western allies that are at risk of being severely embarrassed as having been proven to be mere puppets of the USA. And we'll see what the International inspectors will say about Douma. Russia has boldly claimed there is no evidence any chem attack even occurred. What's in the videos we've all seen could have been merely a hysteria response, if not staged outright. The "disturbing" video doesn't even show a single person or child suffering any effects of any chemical agent. It shows only a few adults and kids getting watered down and administered eye drops and inhalers. That's not exactly true. It seems to me Russia has focused their much smaller military budget on strategic offensive weaponry and tactical defensive weaponry, mainly in missile and torpedo tech. They may well be leading the world in such areas. And that's to be expected as they simply don't have the budget to spend money on boondoggle projects as the US is doing with the F-35 program. The US invests in military areas they believe will help them push their influence offensively worldwide. New carriers, big fleets. The Russians instead are investing in tech that can sink fleets, which is much cheaper than the fleets themselves. Will they use it? Doubtful. Just as the USA will, doubtfully, attack Russia outright. But you know what Vic? Maybe the best advantage Russia has is, is in the so-called "propaganda" war. Russia is gaining sympathy and the US is losing it. I'll use myself in this example. I'm pissed off. I'm pissed at Trump. I was his supporter. Whereas before I was enthusiastic about Trump beating Hillary, I'm now taking a "what can be salvaged" type view of Trump. I find myself instead viewing Putin and Assad as underdogs and victims of a huge misinformation campaign and war promoted by a very real Deep State that has successfully taken Trump down. I, as an American citizen who has never set foot in Russia, on an emotional level have almost completely sided with Russia and Putin, that based on my sickening disappointment with the absolute injustice dispensed on Putin and Assad with with what I see as non-credible accusations of their using chem weapons in the UK and now Douma, both accusations not making any sense whatsoever for their complete lack of credible motive. And while I don't believe that there is a large segment of Americans that feel the degree of sympathy for Assad and Putin as I do right now, there's no question that Trump has disappointed a great many of his supporters with this Syrian strike as it violated everything he passionately broadcast as a candidate. In my view, this stike on Syria did more damage to Trump's support base than it did to Syria. What's happening is that Trump's support base is changing and I'll use TooConservative here as an example, without his permission and in accordance with my own recollection. TC hated trump with an absolute passion. He didn't vote for him. He could not say enough things here on this very forum about how disgusting he was. After Trump won, TC did a flip on these negative sentiments, and I gather from his posts that he approves of the strike on Syria and is probably now a dedicated fan. I think TC represents more of the traditional Republican Bush-supporter type base, as perhaps you do as well, and I represented the base that was opposed to the Deep State, the swamp and all it represents. But it was my base that put Trump in office, not TC's. And now Trump has traded his original support base that won him the presidency for the Bush-era base that failed against Obama. As I see it, you two are cheering for the Deep State swamp, Bush era war mongering, and I by contrast, have virtually transferred all sympathy I once had for US interests to Russia. How many more are like me? That's a good question, but I know I'm not alone. Putin still has his naysayers here on this very forum who simply write off Putin as a former KGB agent who will perpetually be up to Soviet era domination for as long as he lives. I would speculate that there's not 1 American in 100 who hates Putin who has ever heard a single word the man has had to say. But that's changing. I do believe Putin is, in spite of his history, a reasonably good guy, that based on what I have taken the time to actually hear him say (translated of course). He does not want world war. He does not want confrontation with the west. He is doing the best he can against a juggernaut of fake news and an American Deep State beast that has conscripted even the defiant Trump into it's array of swamp minions. So when one tallies up the strengths & weaknesses of Russia vs the USA, do take public sentiment into consideration along with all that goes with it, and not just military capability. So I'll have a toast to Putin and Assad. May they prevail.
Comments (61 - 82) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLicking the boots of your former Soviet masters should not be on display like this.
#21. To: A Pole, tooconservative (#13)
I have no clue what you are taking about.
#22. To: buckeroo (#14)
Why is the USA involved in Syria?
#23. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Trump Launches Missile Strikes on Syria After Comey Book launch and 20/20 interview........
#24. To: Jameson (#23)
Trump Launches Missile Strikes on Syria After Comey Book launch and 20/20 interview........
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#25. To: sneakypete, buckeroo (#22)
Why is the USA involved in Syria?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#26. To: Jameson (#23)
Because we CAN?
#27. To: A Pole (#26)
Can you tell me why me why men die earlier than women?
#28. To: Deckard (#24)
Nah...that's never been done by a President before. Certainly not Clinton, Obama and Bush. < / sarcasm >
#29. To: A Pole (#26)
Can you tell me why me why men die earlier than women?
#30. To: Jameson (#27)
but the answer is: Because they WANT to........
#31. To: Deckard (#25)
Because we "can" is not a good enough reason.
#32. To: paraclete (#1)
I sure hope he has the evidence to back it up. He has nothing but rumor. Trump is a blasted, damned fool!
#33. To: rlk (#32)
all you need is supposition and bull shit to do what you want, including get us into WW111.
#34. To: paraclete (#33)
He has made a restrained response which will be taken as weakness by Assad and Putin.
#35. To: A Pole (#34)
Assad and Putin are very, very smart
#36. To: paraclete (#35)
Assad didn't get the job by being smart, like Kim he took over from his daddy and has succeeded in pissing off his people, not smart, devastating his country, not smart
#37. To: buckeroo (#14)
Why is the USA involved in Syria? We are not dealing with ISIS now.
#38. To: paraclete (#35)
Assad didn't get the job by being smart
#39. To: paraclete, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete, Pinguinite (#35)
Assad didn't get the job by being smart, like Kim he took over from his daddy and has succeeded in pissing off his people, not smart, devastating his country, not smart
#40. To: paraclete (#35)
Putin might be smart or just cunning,
#41. To: buckeroo (#36)
He is exceptionally intelligent and educated and holds ample political power to offset the BULLSHIT you believe in.
#42. To: buckeroo (#36)
He is exceptionally intelligent and educated and holds ample political power to offset the BULLSHIT you believe in.
#43. To: Operation 40, paraclete (#38)
Assad didn't get the job by being smart
#44. To: A Pole, paraclete, Vicomte13, sneakypete, Pinguinite (#39)
(Edited)
Assad didn't get the job by being smart, like Kim he took over from his daddy and has succeeded in pissing off his people, not smart, devastating his country, not smart
#45. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Assad was not expected to take over the regime, his brother who got killed was groomed for the role, much as Joe Kennedy Junior was the son that old Joe wanted to run for prez. When he got killed in the remote-controlled bomber over England, JFK was his father's pick to run for prez.
#46. To: buckeroo (#45)
#47. To: Tooconservative (#46)
It's...complicated.
#48. To: buckeroo (#47)
How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there?
#49. To: Tooconservative (#48)
#50. To: buckeroo (#47)
How does American involvement in Syrian internal affairs ensure a defensive posture for Americans? Did they bomb the USA or were the USA invited by Syria to be there?
#51. To: buckeroo (#47)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
Also, if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American, the Russian base there can be closed - and that is the only Russian naval anchorage in the Mediterranean. Poor Russians.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
if the government is overthrown and replaced with something more pro-American
#54. To: Pinguinite (#52)
The poor Russians have enough nukes to virtually destroy the entire USA and probably Europe too, so they are not that "poor".
#55. To: A Pole (#53)
Like in Libya?
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
inside of NATO ally Turkey.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
But over Syria? Nah. The Russians will not commit suicide over Syria
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Bottom line: Russia needs that base in Syria.
#60. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#54)
As I said: their military option is to blow up the world, including themselves. Sure, they can commit suicide (and wake up in Hell after doing it), but they don't have any option.
The loss of Syria would be a massive blow to their strategic position. They need to negotiate.
Poor Russia has nuclear weapons - and that's all they've got.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]