The missile strike coming soon after Bannon’s removal from the NSC may well mark the end of Trumpism as a potentially distinctive ideology. While this is not at all surprising, the speed at which it has happened is still striking considering that Trump did win an election on a platform of changing Washington.Of course it’s hard to change much of anything if you are impulsive, lazy, ignorant and embroiled in multiple scandals so we shouldn’t be too surprised.
That wasn’t the point you were trying to make earlier. But to address this latest point, the difference between Assad’s deliberate targeting of civilians with chemical weapons versus the non-deliberate targeting of civilians who might have been used by ISIL as human shields is what makes one a war crime and the other not. People in both strikes are just as dead, but just like in criminal courts in many cases, intent and one’s knowledge of the circumstances at the time make the difference.
Though the Chemical Weapons Convention that Assad signed in 2013 per se outlaws the production and use of chemical weapons. So even if Assad’s forces had been targeting a purely military target with chemical weapons and not the civilian area they did in fact appear to have targeted, it would have been just as unlawful.
Most of what I have read in this thread is closed conclusions, like Assad did a, b and c.
No one here knows, but you could at least keep an open mind because as sure as hell things are not as they are presented. The dots don’t even join up.
Like a lot of threads on here now, it’s high school stuff.
Eh, not in this instance. If we were invading Syria, yeah that would require a major resource allocation that would make it highly unlikely we’d be warmaking in the Pacific. But we launched ~60 cruise missiles from a ship that was hanging out in theater, that has no bearing on our ability to launch strikes into North Korea.
Do they join up better for you on the Syrian/Russian narrative? What about the dots don’t join up for you, exactly? We can leave aside that, once again when you are asked a direct question you try and deflect and just go with this, though I’m not holding my breath for a straight answer this time either…
That’s the nice cosy imperial, permanent member view. How many times has the USA done this in the past decade - a hundred, maybe? For a while it was risking your life to even attend a family wedding in Afghanistan.
Right now out in the middle east, 200 families are grieving because the USA - without any legal accountability, without a single comment from the President of the USA, not even an apology - blew into tiny pieces their loved ones.
This is how most of the world see it; the US has killed without accountability across a region it invaded and destabilise for 10 years.
Red lines my arse.
It still boggles my mind that some folks think they can predict what’s going to happen (and it’s going to be good!) after more explosions by US weapons in this region. I suppose there’s a chance that somehow we blew up exactly the right people and buildings that needed to be blown up for Syria to improve, but based on our track record (and the monumental difficulty of the task), I think that’s highly unlikely.
Well, according to this, in March Russia killed 224 civilians (they were number two in Syria). I’m sure your heart bleeds for those 224 families who lost loved ones as well, right? Your cite (of Mosul in Iraq) certainly shows that the US has caused a lot of death. I realize that, to you, the difference between deliberately attacking civilians with gas (or barrel bombs) is exactly equivalent to the US fucking up, and to a certain degree that attitude is not a bad one, on the whole, since dead is dead. But you don’t seem to be on about Russia’s death toll (let alone Assad’s), and have some serious gaps in your understanding of the subject (since to make a point about how the US has presumably caused 2/3rds of the deaths in Syria, or something, you point to a US air strike gone wrong in Mosul, Iraq…and then had the grace to, well, never acknowledge the fact that you don’t seem to know the difference between Iraq and Syria, nor much about what’s even happening in Syria, the topic of discussion in this thread).
I am keeping an open mind. That’s why I asked Czarcasm my question in #243 and asked you what evidence there was as well. If he (or you) has some good information that suggests they really did fully comply with the terms of the deal Obama struck, and since then secretly recreated a production facility and chemical weapon stockpiles from scratch, I’d like to know about that information. So far, the bulk of what I’ve read suggests that they never really complied, despite Kerry’s assertion in 2014 and Susan Rice’s claim in 2017. It looks like another fuck-up by the Obama administration, but I’m open to examining new information.
Yup. Especially since formerly critical news coverage is now fawning over Trump. How shallow.
Trump has now joined the SDMB hawks in the bizarre cult of Assad Must Go. This is not going to be pretty.
So we’re on the same page for once, it seems!
While Assad (and perhaps Putin) have become the fair-haired love child of the SDMB dove group? 
I don’t see many if any people calling for Assad to be removed, but then no idea who the SDMB hawks are in this scenario…
I don’t see where or how any of this translates to a significant drop in standing. Is it measured by “muscularity” and if so, does the U.S. maintain its international standing solely or mainly through military action? By what metric did Obama lose American strength, prestige and power? How did he do so more (or significantly more) than other recent presidents and how did Trump’s actions restore things, if at all?
While it is trite, war is messy and it is not possible to conduct a war that results in no unintended or civilian deaths. This is especially the case when the war itself is conducted not in remote, unpopulated battlefields but takes place right in cities and towns. ISIL appears to have gone the extra mile to guarantee the bloodiness of civilian casualties by preventing civilians from fleeing, using human shields to ensure that any air strike or attack from troops on the ground would cause civilian casualties.
The coalition led by the U.S. to fight Da’esh consists of about 30 countries. Only a handful currently have planes tasked to conduct air strikes in Iraq and Syria, but they all have their own individual rules of engagement for their respective forces. No country or military believes that any armed conflict can be done with no loss of life that was not intended.
And the accountability you are seeking - to hold individual pilots or their commanders responsible for civilian casualties in an air strike - could only be done through the law. Which brings it around to the point I made earlier about having proof of one’s intent and knowledge of the circumstances at the time of the strike.
Well, so far world opinion seems to be almost completely on the side of Trump, with the usual exceptions of Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Statements of support for America’s action have come in from the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Australia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others.
The removal of Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn has put adults back in charge. McMaster and Mattis are take-no-shit heavyweights, and Nikki Haley has shown herself to be more than willing to stand up against Russia.
The people around Trump are not the types to let an idiot loose cannon do something stupid. That this response was perfectly measured and calibrated had nothing to do with Trump’s decion-making. This has Mattis and McMaster written all over it. If that means Trump is deferring military decion-making to them, that’s a good development.
Well, how do you measure “standing”? There’s no way for us to know how Trump restored anything with something that happened last frigging night.
I have a little trouble thinking Obama degraded the U.S.'s standing. As mentioned, his anti-terrorism “muscularity” was solid. Did he raise America’s moral authority? I think so. But did his lack of willingness to bomb the shit out of enemy bases make world leaders less worried about appeasing America? It is an arguable position despite the ugly odour.
Bannon is no longer a member of the principals committee of the NSC, but he’s still around and can still have influence over Trump.
I’m not sure if the strike was perfectly measured and calibrated since it apparently did not target or hit the runways or taxiways and Reuters is reporting that Syrian Air Force jets took off for a sortie this morning from the base. I think a more definitive response that would actually make a difference to Assad would have been to seriously damage the runways themselves, at least putting them out of action entirely for the short term. Though that would have likely required the use of bombers as opposed to cruise missiles.
Legal accountability? You forget that the great powers are the law.