Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What I am about to say, I say not to defend Trump, but to illustrate politics at work.

My guess is, he's actually listening to the Joint Chiefs, McMaster, Mattis and that type of advisor for one thing.

That seems likely, and it's good news that he is.

It's also shows pretty clearly what is probably the silliest part of the debate around US presidents. Every election people will say they want one nominee because they won't send US troops in to overseas adventures. Then no matter who gets elected, you get operations overseas. This is because any president, no matter the party, no matter the promises on the campaign trail, when he comes to power he gets advice from long serving generals, and he listens to that advice... and that advice doesn't change whether they're Republican or Democrat.

There's an argument there about showing concern about US foreign policy being driven by unelected soldiers instead of elected officials, but to me, ultimately, the one time in recent history that politicians decided to make a drive for overseas operation by themselves was Iraq II, and given how that turned out give me the generals any day.

Another, yes, actual confirmed use of chemical weapons does change things for me.

For me it doesn't change anything. I just don't see the difference between dropping conventional bombs on civilians, and dropping chemical weapons on civilians. Both are crimes. Both murder civilians in painful ways.

But I guess I've been in favour of action in Syria since the truth about Assad's abductions and tortures first came to light years ago, so in that sense I'm glad that people are coming on board with intervention, even if I don't agree with the reason why.

Well since context matters I would say 'more worried', but really it depends on what you are worrying about.

 jasper76 wrote:
US official are apparently reporting that Russians were present on the airbase that our military struck. Hopefully no escalation with the Russians will ensue.

There's also reporting that the Russians were warned about the attack hours before it was delivered. Which meant Russia had time to evacuate their staff. It also meant they had time to warn the Syrians to get their staff and essential gear out.

I hope its true, and expect it would be. Trump may be stupid enough to blunder in to a major diplomatic incident when attempting what is basically a warning shot, but there's a whole professional military and diplomatic staff under Trump who are sensible professionals, who would have made sure this didn't end up accidentally killing Russians on the base. But this does make Trump's stupid claims from the campaign that he wouldn't tell anyone his plan about Syria because that'd be letting the enemy know what to expect even more transparently ridiculous.

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
US official are apparently reporting that Russians were present on the airbase that our military struck. Hopefully no escalation with the Russians will ensue.

There's also reporting that the Russians were warned about the attack hours before it was delivered. Which meant Russia had time to evacuate their staff. It also meant they had time to warn the Syrians to get their staff and essential gear out.

I hope its true

Well that makes me feel a bit better. I hope it's true, as well. But when it comes to this administration so far, "competency" is not a word that comes to mind.

I read that Russia was given fair warning before the attack. Cannot find the link that I read it from though. Anybody run across something similar?

Also, I guess there are a lot of very very upset Trump supporters right now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, I guess there are a lot of very very upset Trump supporters right now.

My guess is most Trump supporters will spin this that Trump had the balls to do something in response to Syrian atrocities where Obama did not.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, I guess there are a lot of very very upset Trump supporters right now.

My guess is most Trump supporters will spin this that Trump had the balls to do something in response to Syrian atrocities where Obama did not.

Already happened. I quickly reminded them about Obama's thousands of bombs dropped.

I managed to piss off all my liberal and conservative friends at once. Never done that before. Should I feel shame or honor?

This maybe its a bith harsh, but a country has to affront his own political problems.

The Franco dictatorship wasn't pleasant, but I'm pretty sure that if external countrys began a War or intervenein it, today Spain will be in a much worse state.

Syria its a giant mess... well. All the conflicts in middle east, since the War of the Gulf, were a giant mess. But international intervention isn't gonna fix it.

But as all, it comes down to the different interest that international countrys have in the zone. Of course people its dying and thats horrible. But... bleh. I'm not geopolitical expert, I just don't know how this mess its gonna end well to anyone.

So Devon Nunes had voluntarily stood down from chairing the House Intelligence committee. Nunes said this was in response to complaints and actions taken by ‘left wing activist groups’, but in a move that I’m sure will shock everyone, Nunes was lying. It’s actually due to the House Ethics committee beginning an investigation in to Nunes partially releasing classified information, misrepresenting the content of that intel, and misrepresenting his source for that intel, all in order to protect the Trump admin from the investigation Nunes was leading. In order for the House Ethics committee to begin that investigation, it needed both Republicans and Democrats to be on board.

And yeah, Nunes is only temporarily stepping aside while the Ethics committee does it’s thing, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that his temporary stepping aside will continue throughout this year and next, right up until the 2018 elections prompt new committee placings and Nunes just happens to not get a position on the new Investigative committee for totally unrelated reasons.

While this looks like the house committee might actually start functioning, that can’t be assumed. For starters, the guy coming in to replace Nunes is Mike Conaway, who has already made public statements that Russia’s interference was minor, comparing it to Democrats using Mexican celebrities to energise Latino voters*. And Trey Gowdy has been picked to support Conaway in picking up leadership, and he’s the turd who delivered Trump’s lines about Russia not hacking any voting machines, to allow Trump to misrepresent those statements in a series of tweets, in which Comey said Russia didn’t hack the election (which backfired when Comey was asked to fact check those claims and flatly rejected them). And of course, Gowdy is also the turd behind the Benghazi nonsense, who later bragged about how his work there and its effect on destroying Clinton’s reputation. So the chances of getting a genuine investigation in to this remain pretty slim.

But it is interesting to see Nunes added to the pile of Republicans who fallen on their swords over the Trump admin’s connections to Russia. Wonder if people in the party will start to second guess their commitment to the cause, as they keep getting burned while Trump skates through untouched.


*No I don’t understand how that could possibly make any sense either. No-one can. Forget it Jake, it’s Republicantown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
My guess is most Trump supporters will spin this that Trump had the balls to do something in response to Syrian atrocities where Obama did not.

They maintained that nonsense through the election. Trump simultaneously said that he would take a hard line against ISIS and other terror groups, and also that he wouldn't get dragged in to Syria. Somehow his supporters accepted this. Whether it was because they didn't know ISIS was largely based in Syria, or because they just didn't care, it's unlikely they'll suddenly get upset now that Trump's schroedinger foreign policy has finally been revealed as being as interventionist as other American presidents.

 Piston Honda wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, I guess there are a lot of very very upset Trump supporters right now.

My guess is most Trump supporters will spin this that Trump had the balls to do something in response to Syrian atrocities where Obama did not.

Already happened. I quickly reminded them about Obama's thousands of bombs dropped.

I managed to piss off all my liberal and conservative friends at once. Never done that before. Should I feel shame or honor?

I won't tell you how to feel. The truth is Obama made a blunder of epic proportions with his empty warnings to Syria, and severely degraded US credibility when it comes to the threat of force. And I think most liberals and certainly conservatives agree on this.

 Galas wrote:
This maybe its a bith harsh, but a country has to affront his own political problems.

The Franco dictatorship wasn't pleasant, but I'm pretty sure that if external countrys began a War or intervenein it, today Spain will be in a much worse state.

Syria its a giant mess... well. All the conflicts in middle east, since the War of the Gulf, were a giant mess. But international intervention isn't gonna fix it.

To be honest, I think your position is ignorant of both Syria, and the record of foreign intervention. Intervention in Syria wouldn't be out of the blue, there are already a large number of resistance forces who have been fighting Assad for years, western intervention would be supporting these native resistance groups, not trying to create resistance out of the blue. Also, it is impossible to argue that foreign support has no effect, when Assad has already received a massive boost from Russian assistance. As such the debate isn't about whether there should be foreign assistance or whether it works, but rather the debate is on whether we allow Russia to intervene in favour of a tyrant, or undertake our own intervention to over-ride the Russian intervention.

Second up, there's actually a decent list of successful interventions. Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans, Kuwait, South Korea, Malaysia, . Sure, there have been plenty that failed, and even some of the successful ones dragged out and cost plenty of lives. But without intervention, most conflicts drag on even longer, get many more people killed, and are frequently decided in favour of really nasty regimes. The only difference is that because there are no western troops deployed we feel more comfortable ignoring the violence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I won't tell you how to feel. The truth is Obama made a blunder of epic proportions with his empty warnings to Syria, and severely degraded US credibility when it comes to the threat of force. And I think most liberals and certainly conservatives agree on this.

I think that's fair. It's been clear from the capture and publication of Assad's torture jails that his regime was never going to become legitimate again, that the only way for Assad to regain a stable regime was through the absolute annihilation of all rebel forces. What's happening now has always been inevitable.

Avoiding real action and hoping that steps towards some kind of negotiated settlement might start happening was always nonsense. Given the advice Obama would have received it's impossible to think he ever believed in any kind of peaceful resolution, so reality is that intervention was dismissed as too difficult, politically.

 sebster wrote:


For me it doesn't change anything. I just don't see the difference between dropping conventional bombs on civilians, and dropping chemical weapons on civilians. Both are crimes. Both murder civilians in painful ways.

Chemical weapons are classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction, that's the difference.

Interesting to see Trump's sudden about face on Syria. Back in 2013 he was calling Obama on idiot for considering intervention in Syria, saying the US would get nothing out of it. Assad had already used chemical weapons. So exactly what has changed? Are chemical weapons and dead babies only shocking when Trump is in power?

Or is this a sign that Trump, like most of us, found it very easy to take hard line positions while holding no power, but once put in the presidency, he has suddenly found himself seeing things very differently, finding himself responsible for lots of events around the world?

Not so easy afterall, is it Mr Trump?

Crispy78 wrote:
Chemical weapons are classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction, that's the difference.

Chemical weapons started being seen as WMDs in the early 1990s, for entirely political reasons. Arguing for a wholly different response based just on a poltically driven classification doesn't make a great deal of sense.

 sebster wrote:

To be honest, I think your position is ignorant of both Syria, and the record of foreign intervention. Intervention in Syria wouldn't be out of the blue, there are already a large number of resistance forces who have been fighting Assad for years, western intervention would be supporting these native resistance groups, not trying to create resistance out of the blue. Also, it is impossible to argue that foreign support has no effect, when Assad has already received a massive boost from Russian assistance. As such the debate isn't about whether there should be foreign assistance or whether it works, but rather the debate is on whether we allow Russia to intervene in favour of a tyrant, or undertake our own intervention to over-ride the Russian intervention.

Second up, there's actually a decent list of successful interventions. Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans, Kuwait, South Korea, Malaysia, . Sure, there have been plenty that failed, and even some of the successful ones dragged out and cost plenty of lives. But without intervention, most conflicts drag on even longer, get many more people killed, and are frequently decided in favour of really nasty regimes. The only difference is that because there are no western troops deployed we feel more comfortable ignoring the violence.

You are right, I'm more ignorant in this that I like to be. Thanks for the lesson, I welcome it! I was still aware of the resistance groups against Assad regime. They always exist. The problem its how now in Syria the democratic opposition has been crushed both by Assad and ISIS, and other islamic fundamentalist rebels with names that I just don't remember. (Or thats its the information I have gathered, probably its wrong)

(This its not sarcasm! I'm being honest)

Incredibly, it turns out Paul Ryan is a liar who changes his position based on nothing but the president of the day. I know, I'm as amazed as all of you. Anyhow, here's Paul Ryan's statement in support of Trump's missile strike;



And here is Ryan in 2013, in response to Obama's suggestion for strikes in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons that time;
"I believe the president's proposed military strike in Syria cannot achieve its stated objectives. The president says a show of force will preserve our credibility. But a feckless show of force will only damage our credibility. The events of this week have reinforced our credibility gap, Obama's ill-conceived, half-hearted proposal will do little to help. It will make America look weak when we need to be strong."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
You are right, I'm more ignorant in this that I like to be. Thanks for the lesson, I welcome it!

(This its not sarcasm! I'm being honest)

That's an awesome response, full credit to you

 sebster wrote:

 Galas wrote:
This maybe its a bith harsh, but a country has to affront his own political problems.

The Franco dictatorship wasn't pleasant, but I'm pretty sure that if external countrys began a War or intervenein it, today Spain will be in a much worse state.

Syria its a giant mess... well. All the conflicts in middle east, since the War of the Gulf, were a giant mess. But international intervention isn't gonna fix it.

To be honest, I think your position is ignorant of both Syria, and the record of foreign intervention. Intervention in Syria wouldn't be out of the blue, there are already a large number of resistance forces who have been fighting Assad for years, western intervention would be supporting these native resistance groups, not trying to create resistance out of the blue. Also, it is impossible to argue that foreign support has no effect, when Assad has already received a massive boost from Russian assistance. As such the debate isn't about whether there should be foreign assistance or whether it works, but rather the debate is on whether we allow Russia to intervene in favour of a tyrant, or undertake our own intervention to over-ride the Russian intervention.

Second up, there's actually a decent list of successful interventions. Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Balkans, Kuwait, South Korea, Malaysia, . Sure, there have been plenty that failed, and even some of the successful ones dragged out and cost plenty of lives. But without intervention, most conflicts drag on even longer, get many more people killed, and are frequently decided in favour of really nasty regimes. The only difference is that because there are no western troops deployed we feel more comfortable ignoring the violence.

That intervention can (and has) worked does not mean it will work in the middle east right now. Our current level of intervention has been about as successful as the war on drugs, financial burden and all. Intervention could work, as you stated, but right now the US is in a place where it will not do what it takes to make it work. Should we still intervene? I don't know, but I trust/hope that the experts make the best decisions they can.

 sebster wrote:
Interesting to see Trump's sudden about face on Syria. Back in 2013 he was calling Obama on idiot for considering intervention in Syria, saying the US would get nothing out of it. Assad had already used chemical weapons. So exactly what has changed? Are chemical weapons and dead babies only shocking when Trump is in power?

Or is this a sign that Trump, like most of us, found it very easy to take hard line positions while holding no power, but once put in the presidency, he has suddenly found himself seeing things very differently, finding himself responsible for lots of events around the world?

Not so easy afterall, is it Mr Trump?

Crispy78 wrote:
Chemical weapons are classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction, that's the difference.

Chemical weapons started being seen as WMDs in the early 1990s, for entirely political reasons. Arguing for a wholly different response based just on a poltically driven classification doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Oh feth...

US just destroyed a Syrian airbase....
There's Russian stuff in some of those and thr fact is that Sryia is well a better option than Islamic state or likewise groups.

Lastly I'm unsure on the chemical attack, Assad is winning, he did not need to use these weapons against rebels.
Assad recently is gaining ground and such.

Makes no damn sense to use em now.

Well. Warhawk Trump got finally do what he has been itching to do and bomb stuff. Next sending in troops. That warhawk doesn't get satisfied easily

That air base was used specifically against ISIL forces, stationed to the east. And unconfirmed rumors says, IS tried to attack that air base right after bombing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That intervention can (and has) worked does not mean it will work in the middle east right now. Our current level of intervention has been about as successful as the war on drugs, financial burden and all. Intervention could work, as you stated, but right now the US is in a place where it will not do what it takes to make it work. Should we still intervene? I don't know, but I trust/hope that the experts make the best decisions they can.

Yeah, I'm not saying this course of action is certain for a quick and easy success. Out of the three recent interventions, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan they did a good job of ousting a really awful government, but haven't done much of a job at all of putting in place an alternative government that can end the fighting and stand on its own two feet.

But I do know, having seen what Assad did to people, that his regime was never going to be restored to any kind of legitimacy. That brutal fighting was going to last for years, ending in either Assad ruling by brute force alone, or a radicalised Islamic takeover (not ISIS, but something still very hardline).

While intervention was going to be messy and by no means certain to produce a quick or easy resolution, given the alternatives above intervention becomes the only real choice.

I´m not sure which brings me the most joy, the MAGA-crowds meltdown about daddies betrayal or the liberals squirming about supporting Trump for the regime change they wanted, while at the same time being dismayed that their "Trump is a Russian double-agent" narrative is pretty much dead now

 ulgurstasta wrote:
I´m not sure which brings me the most joy, the MAGA-crowds meltdown about daddies betrayal or the liberals squirming about supporting Trump for the regime change they wanted, while at the same time being dismayed that their "Trump is a Russian double-agent" narrative is pretty much dead now

Lol... Yeah no one can accuse him of working for Putin at this rate. They not bromancing right now.
Trump just put a sizable dent in Putins allies air force.

Though Russia and I think UK got advance warnings of the attack acordinf to some.

I think it only really proves that the Russians also hadn't worked out that Trump was going to Trump.

This is tough, and a really complicated matter. I do think at the end of the day, this was likely the right thing to do. My opinion is that this act helped bring a bit of credibility back to the US being spurred to some form of action. It is pretty sad that this is the first thing for Trump to get bi-partisan praise for though.

I am also of the opinion that this was also intended to send a message to China and North Korea. We will see if North Korea starts firing off missiles again in the next few days after this. If not, I think that may signal message received.

I do not like the thought of us going down the road to large troop deployments in Syria. I do not know if this is the moral thing, or the right thing to do for the U.S. At the very least I am confident in both McMasters and Mattis. If anyone can come up with a winning strategy, it will be those two.

We will have to see how this plays out, as this is a more complicated stage than Iraq or Afghanistan ever was.

Had Assad attacked a civilian target with conventional weapons there would be no where near the fuss made. Makes you wonder what the point of it was. Prior to this, western countries were content to sit back and let Assad get on with dealing with rebels/ISIS. Even the Russians would have suggested against Assad taking this course of action, it's like they're trying to cause the US and Russia to get into a scrap over the skies of Syria.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah, I see we've returned to the usual "USA BAD!" spiel again. I almost miss the weekly "Guns bad!" and "Religion Bad!" threads.

This may come as a shock to you, but have you considered that there may be a correlation, nay, a causation, between our country doing incredibly stupid thinks and being criticized?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wife sent a couple teams to fight Ebola in Africa at one point, and has done disaster relief in the SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM AORs as well.

Ebola was a very interesting response. I think the military build one of the hospitals where local healthcare staff was treated, with the staffing provided by the United States Public Health Service.

Built the hospital, brought in tons of supplies and gear (literally tons), set up safe zones, screened patients, helped with waste disposal, and so on. Army docs and medics also treated as well as screened. Also set up decon/holding/quarantine areas for civilians and military redeploying back to the states.

Tsunami response
Somalia
Bosnia
Serbia war
Haiti

Just a few major ones.


EDIT: not worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, I guess there are a lot of very very upset Trump supporters right now.

My guess is most Trump supporters will spin this that Trump had the balls to do something in response to Syrian atrocities where Obama did not.

Already happened. I quickly reminded them about Obama's thousands of bombs dropped.

I managed to piss off all my liberal and conservative friends at once. Never done that before. Should I feel shame or honor?

Honor sir! Your avatar can wear that tricolor hat with pride!

Wake up this morning to discover that another POTUS has decided to lob a few cruise missiles at the Middle East and blow up a few camels, with the American tax payer being billed for $100 million.

And the end result is the square root of horsegak!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Wake up this morning to discover that another POTUS has decided to lob a few cruise missiles at the Middle East and blow up a few camels, with the American tax payer being billed for $100 million.

And the end result is the square root of horsegak!

So far the BDA is a bit better than 'a few camels'.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Wake up this morning to discover that another POTUS has decided to lob a few cruise missiles at the Middle East and blow up a few camels, with the American tax payer being billed for $100 million.

And the end result is the square root of horsegak!

So far the BDA is a bit better than 'a few camels'.

You'll know better than me, but what has it achieved in the grand scheme of things? The strategic balance shifted in Assad's favour months ago. Ultimately, with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah backing him up, he'll still win in the end, and a few random cruise missile attacks will not change this.