Huh?
WTF are you talking about?
I stated an opinion and pointed out there is a thread that existed that was created to discuss and debate that issue. I make no judgement on the quality of that discussion but my initial read of it did not draw me in as a conversation of much value. It was not a cite dude. Not sure what evidence you’d be looking for either, a recording of Assad stating what his intentions were and why? But whatever.
Just saw news breaker saying Putin is suspending our “avoid conflict” agreement so…never mind.
There’s a difference between accuracy issues vs what Syria/Russia will say which will almost certainly be a fabrication.
Going on from that, If the description you have forwarded is accurate would this attack be enough to act as any sort of deterrent to future gassings? I know that we can only speculate, but given what we know about previous governmental attacks on civilians in Syria, will this attack:
I didn’t say anything about “opinion”, if I had, I’d say at least in terms of “polling”, the U.S. did better under Obama. Obama sent a message of restrained disengagement in many areas of global conflict, and it’s quite obvious Russia and other powers have exploited that. It’s a major departure from the norm dating back to WWII; even Carter had a more muscular foreign policy, and another Dem President (Clinton) had a more muscular one still.
Note that I’m talking about our dealings with other states. The counter point most people who have a pro-Obama partisan bent bring up is our war on terror, which in many aspects Obama was very successful at prosecuting. Unlike Bush he appears to have spent most of his time on that actually focused on terrorist groups instead of nation building or fighting insurgencies against U.S. occupations. But that isn’t really international relations, in traditional IR interactions between America and other states, we largely lost significant strength, prestige, and power (soft power not used erodes, and sets new norms in which American action is calculated as being less.)
Not to question the veracity of the Prez and those that surround him, but…
If Assad is crazy enough, or desperate enough, then there are no reasonable deterrents. Trouble with being a ruthless dictator, the retirement options are limited.
You don’t have to trust the word of the Prez (in fact, you’d be wise not to)…there are plenty of other sources out there, some of which you’ve been shown. Martin doesn’t seem to be saying to trust the Prez either there, so it’s kind of a puzzling response by you to what you are quoting there.
Czarcasm just wants it to be absolutely understood that he no like Trump.
I’m totally on board with that sentiment.
It seems unlikely. Military force is a finite resource. The more you use in one region, the less you have available for another region. Deploying our military in Syria makes it less likely we will deploy it in North Korea. Xi has the military background to know this.
What makes you think Assad is crazy? Ftr, in the past week he’s killed about 1/3 the civilians in Syria the USA has …
From the USA at least 6 hours. The top speed of a stealth bomber is about 630 miles per hour.
From a base abroad, less time. But this bombers are very expensive, and best suited for heavy work, which hopefully never happens. The cruise missile was the better option by far.
So much for the media filed theory that Trump sand Putin are bro’s
One can not allow for chemical or bio attacks. Well maybe Obama allowed it, but Trump will not.
There are too many variables and actions still in the future that may influence this. I think Martin Hyde was spot on when he called it “a reasonable gambit.” Can we know for certain that it’ll be 100% effective? No, but it was a reasonable first step with little risk to Americans. Think of it like a parent telling a misbehaving child “I’m going to count to 3”. Well, this was “1”. If the bad behavior stops at “1”, we don’t need to get to 2 or 3.
If the fortunes of war turn on Assad again and he starts losing the war badly, I imagine he’d gas anyone and everyone he had to to avoid ending up with a stick shoved up his ass like Gadaffi. If the war continues to go in his favor, there’s a good chance he’ll stick to barrel bombs and mortars that don’t provoke the Americans to blow up his air bases.
The sights and sounds of the drums of war being played on cable news bring me back to the early 2000s.
Just to echo this, the missile strikes occurred around 3:45 AM local time. I haven’t seen any indication that the Syrian Air Force regularly conducts night ops, which would greatly reduce the chances of a significant number of Syrian military personnel being killed or wounded as a result of the strike, since it is unlikely that any barracks are directly adjacent to the runway/taxiway or are immediately in the vicinity of any fuel or ammunition depots. Here is the website that the particular Tweet is using as its source for damage estimates and target descriptions.
It is significant that the runways and taxiways do not appear to have been hit.
What’s the point of having a big cock if you don’t use it.
BTW: Susan Rice, in an interview with NPR in Jan, 2017:
“Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
Just like right now, Putin led the US President right up the garden path.
Trump wondering why he can’t use nuclear weapons: ‘Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?’ (March 30, 2016)