SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 11:53:40 GMT -5
I hope we don't have to bomb them all at the same time... I'm glad no one's pretending the strike has anything to do with a commitment to protecting human rights. I'm glad that no one has suggested that this is a "wag the dog" scenario, although I'm waiting for that to surface.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 12:51:44 GMT -5
A Pentagon spokesman, Capt. Jeff Davis, said in a statement that a pre-exiting “deconfliction” channel, set up to keep American and Russian jets from crossing paths in the skies over Syria, was used to disclose the planned attack to Russia. “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” Davis said. Couple questions: 1) I understand Russia probably would do this anyways but but why would WE warn "Syrian personnel?" 2) Trump previously talked flippantly about Saddam gassing ""Saddam throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'" If it's true he was moved to strike because of the images of the children, are we know planing on helping those same children by accepting refugees? Otherwise what's the point? A million people have died in this conflict and 99% have been through other methods. We (USA) just killed civilians the week prior when we bombed a mosque. For those who have been killed, or have loved ones killed does it matter how that event occurred, probably not. So are we now planning on actually helping those people in a real way, not a symbolic one?... 3) What happens now? WH is claiming it was a one off... Off the top of my head: 1. My bet is that the Pentagon spokesman's statement was vetted through DOD or JAG lawyers. There is a legitimate question about the legality of the strike if it had specifically targeted Syrian military personnel. Syrian military personnel are not enemy combatants with respect to the United States. The US military actions against ISIS in Syria have been justified under the 15-year old AUMF and some quarrel even with that. (I once had a robust discussion about this with a former military officer who was a staffer on Obama's National Security Council where all such discussions take place -- the back bar at the Old Ebbitt Grill The old AUMF would not be legal justification in the US to target Syrian military personnel. (Query whether targeting Syrian military equipment makes any difference?) I think I saw Tim Kaine talking about the AUMF this morning as he had been one pushing for a new one back in 2013-14. If the US engages in a more active robust military campaign against Syria, I think Congress needs to pass a new AUMF. The irony of this is that Trump is relying upon Obama's legal justification in order to take action against Syria because it did cross the red line and Obama did nothing: www.lawfareblog.com/constitutionality-syria-strike-through-eyes-olc-and-obama-administration2. Trump, being a creature of TV, I actually think that the visual images did affect him and that his decision to strike was partly an emotional response -- not necessarily a bad thing in a man who heretofore has shown high levels of narcissism and lack of sincere empathy for almost everyone else. There is an inherent conflict in his refugee policy but since when has this President been consistent? Will it alter his refugee policy? I think not but it is still tied up in the courts for awhile. (As an aside, I think Trump may ultimately be successful at the Supreme Court and not only because of Gorsuch's confirmation -- the President's powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act are fairly sweeping when taken in conjunction with his Article II powers as President. And remember, this country had no problem discriminating based upon religion when it gave preferential treatment in immigration to the Soviet Jews). 3. As I mentioned in previous comments, I hope this is not a one off but Mattis/McMaster/Tillerson have to come up with a broad strategic plan that makes sense with clear policy goals. Remember, we currently have approximately 1,000 US military on the ground in Syria and this strike changes the whole context of our presence. A strategy includes not eviscerating the Department of State per Trump's budget because there is no military solution to either Syria or N. Korea, for that matter. If nothing else, hopefully we have learned that from Iraq/Afghanistan. 1) Wow, that's an interesting fact on why Syria would have to be warned. Very informative, thank you. 2) While I hope you're right here imo the "not necessarily a bad thing" is kind of generous considering this feeds into his narcissism as well. He's received nothing but adulation for this and all he had to do was throw some bombs to get it. For a person who is narcissistic and wanting of adulation isn't that also a reason for concern? Without a change in strategy or refugee policy it seems the attack would be mostly symbolic. If he truly cares about those kids being in harms, and he has truly been impacted, I think a person of his power should/would move to help those people. Otherwise this basically sends the message: Don't use gas to kill your civilians, use other methods. In a conflict where 50k+ kids have died that's not going to move me much. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I would be more in favor if there was a comprehensive strategy behind it. Color me skeptical on that 3) Agree, I guess only time will tell.. Great point on the troops on the ground and what it means for them. They haven't been discussed much at all....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 12:53:43 GMT -5
What happens if Russia was involved in the chemical attack?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 13:13:01 GMT -5
What happens if Russia was involved in the chemical attack? I think this is highly unlikely because Russia wants to prop up Assad because it enables it to have its warm water port/naval facility in Tartus. Moreover, Syria has been an historic client state of the Soviet Union/Russia. The further use of chemical weapons by Assad does not actually serve Russian interests since it brokered the agreement with Kerry regarding the removal of the chemical weapons back in 2014. As Haley said today, if it didn't ensure compliance with that agreement, Russia was either complicit or incompetent, or both. I wouldn't think Putin would want to be seen as either of those. I also think Russia would have preferred the status quo with the US assenting to Assad's continued control as was indicated by Tillerson, Haley and Spicer as recently as last week. But by "involved" you mean it was an attempt to coverup a chemical attack, it would make sense for reasons I state here. As long as Assad is a useful dictator for Russia, it'll prop him up. As soon as Russia perceives that it no longer needs him in control of Syria to serve Russia's purpose, it'll cut him loose. Some speculate that Trump may cut a deal with Putin to remove Assad but allow Russia to maintain Tartus. Which would be very interesting indeed.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 7, 2017 13:30:20 GMT -5
What happens if Russia was involved in the chemical attack? I think this is highly unlikely because Russia wants to prop up Assad because it enables it to have its warm water port/naval facility in Tartus. Moreover, Syria has been an historic client state of the Soviet Union/Russia. The further use of chemical weapons by Assad does not actually serve Russian interests since it brokered the agreement with Kerry regarding the removal of the chemical weapons back in 2014. As Haley said today, if it didn't ensure compliance with that agreement, Russia was either complicit or incompetent, or both. I wouldn't think Putin would want to be seen as either of those. I also think Russia would have preferred the status quo with the US assenting to Assad's continued control as was indicated by Tillerson, Haley and Spicer as recently as last week. But by "involved" you mean it was an attempt to coverup a chemical attack, it would make sense for reasons I state here. As long as Assad is a useful dictator for Russia, it'll prop him up. As soon as Russia perceives that it no longer needs him in control of Syria to serve Russia's purpose, it'll cut him loose. Some speculate that Trump may cut a deal with Putin to remove Assad but allow Russia to maintain Tartus. Which would be very interesting indeed. Didn't the Russians have personnel at that base? I'd guess that at least they knew what was going on.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 14:47:33 GMT -5
I think this is highly unlikely because Russia wants to prop up Assad because it enables it to have its warm water port/naval facility in Tartus. Moreover, Syria has been an historic client state of the Soviet Union/Russia. The further use of chemical weapons by Assad does not actually serve Russian interests since it brokered the agreement with Kerry regarding the removal of the chemical weapons back in 2014. As Haley said today, if it didn't ensure compliance with that agreement, Russia was either complicit or incompetent, or both. I wouldn't think Putin would want to be seen as either of those. I also think Russia would have preferred the status quo with the US assenting to Assad's continued control as was indicated by Tillerson, Haley and Spicer as recently as last week. But by "involved" you mean it was an attempt to coverup a chemical attack, it would make sense for reasons I state here. As long as Assad is a useful dictator for Russia, it'll prop him up. As soon as Russia perceives that it no longer needs him in control of Syria to serve Russia's purpose, it'll cut him loose. Some speculate that Trump may cut a deal with Putin to remove Assad but allow Russia to maintain Tartus. Which would be very interesting indeed. Didn't the Rus Russians have personnel at that base? I'd guess that at least they knew what was going on. Yes, Russians are at the Al Shayrat airbase but reportedly it only has helicopters deployed there (at least as of one year ago). Russian aircraft do use the base as a forward refueling/rearming point in support of the Syrian Army and it is also used as a logistical hub so there are Russian personnel present. Whether the Russians at Al Shayrat could have been aware of the presence of chemical weapons is hard to say. Reportedly, it doesn't take a large volume of stockpiled sarin to weaponize for use (a truckload?) it and could have been concealed from the Russians by the Syrians. But this is pure speculation. I still can't think of why the Russians would want the Syrians to use CW when the killing of its own citizens with barrel bombs and conventional weapons do not draw the same response from the US. www.janes.com/article/59389/russia-forward-deploys-new-attack-helicopters-in-syria
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 11:32:01 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/world/warplanes-return-to-syrian-town-devastated-by-chemical-attack/2017/04/08/38a5d8cc-1bdc-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html?utm_term=.c4f295877fdbBEIRUT — Residents of the Syrian town devastated by a chemical-weapons attack earlier this week said that warplanes had returned to bomb them Saturday as Turkey described a retaliatory U.S. assault as “cosmetic” unless President Bashar al-Assad is removed from power. At least 86 people died in Tuesday’s attack on the northwestern town of Khan Sheikhoun, which left hundreds choking, fidgeting or foaming at the mouth. Eyewitnesses said Saturday that fresh airstrikes on the area — now a virtual ghost town — had killed one woman and wounded several others. Photographs from the site showed a pair of green slippers, abandoned by a blood-spattered doorway. The U.S. military launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield early Friday in the first direct American assault on Assad’s government since that country’s six-year civil war began. Although American officials have predicted that the strikes would result in a major shift of Assad’s calculus, they appear to be symbolic in practice. Within 24 hours of the American strikes, monitoring groups reported that jets were once again taking off from the bombed Shayrat air base. _______________________ Looks like things are already back to normal... If we're not going to do anything to help the children that the President was so moved by, and are still telling them no vacancy while pushing for massive cuts in foreign assistance, what's the point? Otherwise this strike stoked a ton of positive media hype but has done very little to change their futures. Maybe he won't use Sarin again, but he'll continue to use the less deadly chlorine gas, bombs and other weapons. OT a bit Pro Trump super pac (Great America Pac) is already out Fundraising off the strikes. If they're not in favor of this action might be a good time to disavow
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 8, 2017 12:13:38 GMT -5
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Apr 8, 2017 13:39:03 GMT -5
As poorly as Obama handled the "red line" threat, ultimately he had the sense to stay the hell out of a Syrian war. And while Ann Coulter is a complete jackass, she's right on this one.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 8, 2017 13:47:52 GMT -5
As poorly as Obama handled the "red line" threat, ultimately he had the sense to stay the hell out of a Syrian war. And while Ann Coulter is a complete jackass, she's right on this one. The foolish "red line comment" proves how words spoken as President do matter. We will never know whether comments (we're not the world's policemen, Syria is up to the Syrian people, not seeking regime change, etc) made by the Trump administration as recently as a week before the CW attack "greenlighted" Assad to do the attack. Perhaps Assad was testing Trump early in his administration given those statements. I don't know how Mattis/McMaster/Dunford/Tillerson choose between bad and worse policy choices re: Syria. I believe Mattis testified before Congress a couple of years ago that if you want to cut the State Department budget, you'd better order me more bullets so Trump's budget proposal is a nonstarter. IMO, the Congress should really discuss a new AUMF in order to have an open and transparent debate about US policy in Syria, but I won't hold my breath on that given the dysfunction that plagues the Hill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 18:20:33 GMT -5
 Tillerson: 'No change' to Syria policy after strike By NICKI ROSSOLL Apr 8, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: 'No change' to US military position on Syria after strike Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the U.S. position on Syria hasn't changed after American warships launched a military strike on an air base in Syria Thursday in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that killed at least 70 civilians earlier in the week. "We are asking Russia to fulfill its commitment and we're asking and calling on Bashar al-Assad to cease the use of these weapons. Other than that, there is no change to our military posture," Tillerson told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week."....... abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretary-state-rex-tillerson-change-us-military-position/story?id=46674777Confusing....On the day of the strike he said Assad had to go and steps were being made to ensure this. Nikki Haley said the same thing today. Now I guess Assad is back to being safe and we're right back to where we were 2 weeks ago....
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 9, 2017 8:49:34 GMT -5
 Tillerson: 'No change' to Syria policy after strike By NICKI ROSSOLL Apr 8, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: 'No change' to US military position on Syria after strike Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the U.S. position on Syria hasn't changed after American warships launched a military strike on an air base in Syria Thursday in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that killed at least 70 civilians earlier in the week. "We are asking Russia to fulfill its commitment and we're asking and calling on Bashar al-Assad to cease the use of these weapons. Other than that, there is no change to our military posture," Tillerson told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week."....... abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretary-state-rex-tillerson-change-us-military-position/story?id=46674777Confusing....On the day of the strike he said Assad had to go and steps were being made to ensure this. Nikki Haley said the same thing today. Now I guess Assad is back to being safe and we're right back to where we were 2 weeks ago.... I said during the debates that Trump was dangerously incoherent with respect to foreign policy. This incoherence continues given his erratic management style and his acceptance of competing power centers within his own WH and govenment. The interventionists (Mattis/McMaster, i.e., the generals who Trump knows more than as he so bluntly stated) v. the "America Firsters" (Bannon, Miller et al). Trump has no core beliefs with respect to anything except perhaps preserving his ability to make money whenever possible.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 9, 2017 9:20:07 GMT -5
Sounds about like his opponent. Devoid of core beliefs save that which enriches her, Bill or the "Foundation"...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Apr 9, 2017 11:02:25 GMT -5
Sounds about like his opponent. Devoid of core beliefs save that which enriches her, Bill or the "Foundation"... "Last time I checked, W was no longer President. Barry O ran and told us he could do everything including lowering the seas. He has not quite measured up. Stop blaming, start fixing." hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/410529Last time I checked, Hillary was never President. Trump ran and told us he could do everything including draining the swamp. He has not quite measured up. Stop blaming, start fixing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 11:16:11 GMT -5
 Tillerson: 'No change' to Syria policy after strike By NICKI ROSSOLL Apr 8, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: 'No change' to US military position on Syria after strike Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says the U.S. position on Syria hasn't changed after American warships launched a military strike on an air base in Syria Thursday in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that killed at least 70 civilians earlier in the week. "We are asking Russia to fulfill its commitment and we're asking and calling on Bashar al-Assad to cease the use of these weapons. Other than that, there is no change to our military posture," Tillerson told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week."....... abcnews.go.com/Politics/secretary-state-rex-tillerson-change-us-military-position/story?id=46674777Confusing....On the day of the strike he said Assad had to go and steps were being made to ensure this. Nikki Haley said the same thing today. Now I guess Assad is back to being safe and we're right back to where we were 2 weeks ago.... I said during the debates that Trump was dangerously incoherent with respect to foreign policy. This incoherence continues given his erratic management style and his acceptance of competing power centers within his own WH and govenment. The interventionists (Mattis/McMaster, i.e., the generals who Trump knows more than as he so bluntly stated) v. the "America Firsters" (Bannon, Miller et al). Trump has no core beliefs with respect to anything except perhaps preserving his ability to make money whenever possible. Tillerson: no change in policy on Assad Halley: Assad must go for there to be peace Looks like McMaster has Trump's ear right now but it appears that In the Trump administration everybody gets their own Foreign policy... Not so reliable NY Post says Ivanka was the person who convinced Trump to strike Assad which is pretty crazy imo. Btw just in case you weren't confused enough...
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 9, 2017 12:34:54 GMT -5
Sounds about like his opponent. Devoid of core beliefs save that which enriches her, Bill or the "Foundation"... "Last time I checked, W was no longer President. Barry O ran and told us he could do everything including lowering the seas. He has not quite measured up. Stop blaming, start fixing." hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/410529Last time I checked, Hillary was never President. Trump ran and told us he could do everything including draining the swamp. He has not quite measured up. Stop blaming, start fixing. New day; new tune. Nice adaptation.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 9, 2017 13:05:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 17:39:33 GMT -5
Today Spicer said barrel bombs could elicit a response from the WH. Would have been huge news considering its Assad's prefferred method if you thought the WH Press Secretary had basic knowledge and any clue as to what he's talking about. Besides in the Trump WH everybody gets their own foreign policy anyways..
He also called Russia our ally which is really confusing because a couple minutes later he said the Russians stand with Assad, Iran and North Korea. In other news.....
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 10, 2017 21:28:07 GMT -5
Does anybody know what really is going on in Syria, except that so many people are being killed or have been killed?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,395
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 11, 2017 18:58:51 GMT -5
|
|