Trump launches military strike against Syria

[phil_at_dayboro]

Nor is he mine,what alternative solution do you have to these leaders that have no problem slaughtering there own citizens for their own ends ?
Should we not get involved ?

 

[josh987654321]

we need leaders that can make tough decisions on the run,

Yes we do, the Syrian strike was not a tough decision though (It’s exactly what Obama and Clinton wanted). Look at what it accomplished, it further damaged the relationship between the US and Russia which is absolutely vital for a solution to the Syrian conflict, and not only that, but if this was a warning against Assad, Russia is now ready to intercept any further USA air strikes, so what’s next?

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Nor is he mine,what alternative solution do you have to these leaders that have no problem slaughtering there own citizens for their own ends ?

Dialogue with Russia, if Russia is unwilling to help curb the use of Chemical weapons, especially on civilians, than set up safe zones in Iraq for them to flee to and focus on rebuilding the US Military, economy, and Country (It’s already ideologically weakened as much of the west is, which is the greatest weakness).

Should we not get involved?

Yes, but it must be in conjunction with Russia, if Russia is backing Assad in Syria, than the USA should not get involved in that, they should dialogue with Russia and work on that relationship. If they have evidence that Assad was responsible, give it to Russia and work with Russia to curb their use. If Russia is unwilling, set up safe zone in Iraq for them to flee to.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Seamus_L]

It is simply mindboggling to see how many people refuse to see any direct correlation between the ties to Russia investigations and Trump suddenly attacking Syria and demolishing good relations with Russia. Trump is like the guy who turns States Evidence against his friends, not because he believes he did something wrong, but because he’s a coward only interested in saving his own backside. I guess now he can say “I don’t love Putin, I hate Putin, he’s a dictator”. Hopefully hackers have some good intel on Trump that can be released over this.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Dialogue with Russia, if Russia is unwilling to help curb the use of Chemical weapons, especially on civilians, than set up safe zones in Iraq for them to flee to and focus on rebuilding the US Military, economy, and Country (It’s already ideologically weakened as much of the west is, which is the greatest weakness).

Yes, but it must be in conjunction with Russia, if Russia is backing Assad in Syria, than the USA should not get involved in that, they should dialogue with Russia and work on that relationship. If they have evidence that Assad was responsible, give it to Russia and work with Russia to curb their use. If Russia is unwilling, set up safe zone in Iraq for them to flee to.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

Thank you Josh for you informed reply ,
I really can’t see Russia working in a constructive way,

Setting up safe Zones is a great idea,but that’s a short term solution ,

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Agreed,,,:)

The U S has Blood on its hands ,caused by rushing in like a Bull at a Gate,
Unfortunately humans are on the path to self destruction,

At least the U S at times tries to do the right thing,they just make blunders along the way

 

[josh987654321]

Thank you Josh for you informed reply ,

Thanks for reading.

I really can’t see Russia working in a constructive way,

I can, I couldn’t with Obama’s administration or Clinton taking over, because they just didn’t get a lot of things, but with Trump I thought it possible. I don’t believe Russia is a communist Country anymore and Putin himself is Russian Orthodox, so we should be able to get along with them.

Setting up safe Zones is a great idea,but that’s a short term solution ,

If they focused on sorting out Iraq, I think it would be a great opportunity for a good safe zone in the middle east, I think it could last.

Not only that, but Trumps campaign stressed these points, about safe zones in the Middle East and about less involvement in the Middle East (e.g. Syria) to focus on rebuilding America and being an example for others to follow, it’s always been Obama and Clinton who wanted to go down this path and bomb and go into Syria to remove Assad, who backed half the rebels now doing abominable things in the first place.

As some other comment read, ‘when Clinton applauds you for this, you know you fked up’

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I also still think, that with Trumps election, and Russia’s backing of Assad, the rebel groups fighting Assad forces (incl. ISIS) know that their time is coming to an end unless they can get the US involved somehow. How little motive there is for Assad to do it, how great a motive there is for one of these rebel groups to frame Assad for it trying to instigate more support from the US.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, without Russian cooperation, anything the USA does in Syria will only make matters worse for all involved. That’s a given.

While in theory this is true, it nevertheless presents a very simplistic view of international relation, especially between the superpowers. There was never any real cooperation in the Middle East (ME) between the US and Russia. The line is clearly drawn – the US is on the side of Israel and other Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, while Russia is on the other group.

These relations are more complicated than you like to simplify. Thus cooperation is not so much on the goody-goody relationship but rather what represents their interest respectively. Russia will only be forced to cooperate if it is in their interest.

Assad is their client; there is no way the Russians would agree to any settlement without Assad and the US just made their statement in the UN that there is no hope of settlement with Assad still in the picture.

There is no give and take and no cooperation unless and until one is satisfied, and they would not be because of the big difference in perspective. Any student of international relation would recognize this.

Sometimes, gunboat diplomacy is necessary, sometimes there is sabre rattling but more importantly in such situation, one can only enter into any understanding with a position of strength. Both superpowers have occasionally employed this tactic which was like a game of chess.

Thus you seem only to speak theoretically. Respecting the Russians too much would be construed as a weakness with only unfortunate consequence. Kennedy was seen as weak and inexperience thus set the stage for Khrushchev to bully him. And how dangerous the world then because the US certainly would not want to be bullied.

Don’t know, in any case, if it was, he should have shared that information with Russia, so that together they could curb their use. While also focusing on safe zones in the middle east such as Iraq where people can flee Syria to.

Again quite simplistic. The chemical weapon in Syria was under Russian responsibility in the 2013 agreement with Obama. I tend to agree with the word of the present US SoS that either the Russians were complicit or incompetent indeed not knowing the presence of the chemical weapon in Syria.

There is no point in going in that direction when you know the other party is dishonest. Besides, time would be lost that can only lead to no action taken. In other word, Obama 2013 relived, which is a stupid thing to do, giving a message to Assad that the US is too weak and afraid to do anything about it. The only result is he will do it again someday.

While such diplomacy is good in theory, the lives of the children being killed in the gas attack were too precious for the nilly-dally action of the President.

The USA is not the world, if it gets bogged down in the Middle East as the Obama administration did, then they only further weaken themselves at a time when they are already weakened and in massive debt, and what happens if China or Russia end up engaging the USA? Several years of weakening themselves in the Middle East, the USA will be ripe for the taking.

I would readily agree with you here that the US is not the world. Trump’s inaugural speech outlined his policy as much when he said the US being first.

However the rest of your assumption is wishful thinking because we cannot see the future to make that kind of prediction.

His priority is the defeat of the ISIS.

He strikes at Syria airfield because that was where Assad’s jets were launched which carried out the chemical weapon attack. So it was punitive and the strike surgical – accurate strike at military target, probably more of sending a message that, ‘hey, playing with chemical weapon on the people is hitting under the belt which need a bit of spanking. And it is just a warning for now.’

Deteriorating situation in Syria due to chemical weapon attack would affect refugees because it can cause panic and people being afraid would be fleeing Syria. They would likely spill to Europe and the US - thus creating a problem for Trump. So perhaps, his action is very much related to his policy on immigration as well.

 

[Reuben_J]

If they think they are the world police and go head strong into Syrian and Russian affairs, they may very well.

I don’t think they think so. You are thinking too far in your disagreement with all this.

… yet, but it’s the only logical outcome of such a strategy. It’s a strategy that Obama and Clinton were headed down and it’s a doomed strategy.

You mean, the US and Russia will go to war? Aw, come on. Nobody wants that and Russia is not that strong to take on the US. Pleaseeee.

Doesn’t matter how surgical it was, now Russia has moved their chess pieces in place to stop a strike if the USA tries it again.

It matters.

Did you read about how laid back was Putin’s reaction to this? You should read between the lines. In diplomatic term, nothing actually comes out of it. Putin is giving space for discussion and the Secretary of State will be meeting him shortly to discuss thing out.

Putin certainly appreciated the fact that he was informed of the strike and understood that it was not against the Russians personally.

It should be punished, but Russia is involved, it must be a joint effort between the US and Russia. If Russia is unwilling to try and curb the use of Chemical weapons, Trump should be focusing on Safe Zones in Iraq for those people and rebuilding his own military, and economy.

I don’t think anybody is really optimistic about the so-called safe zone. It was merely a suggestion and not being worked out. It still can be done if it serves each and everyone’s interest. Otherwise, supporting neighbour countries like Jordan and Turkey to take in the refugees temporarily would be more effective way to go about it. Already Trump was giving aid to Jordan for this purpose.

No, I’m not okay with that, but I am also not okay with the USA ignoring countries like Russia and thinking they can do whatever they want, especially given their current weakened state, they are weakened militarily, economically and ideologically which all spells disaster and defeat, and to risk a major conflict with Russia and then possibly even China (China would not lean toward the USA if they had to choose) etc is just sheer folly.

This is the crux of the whole thing. If you are not ok with the gassing of civilians then your thought seems to contradict this. You cannot handle this kind of thing with kid’s gloves, the stake is just too high. We are talking about lives – innocent lives. About something that should not happen and the players in the ME should at least observe this.

When it is being done, people lose a sense of taboo – that chemical weapon is alright. And where would it end? Nuclear weapon?

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

God bless you too.

 

[unafraid]

I have been by no means the biggest defender of Israel, but the idea that Israeli policy of merely trying to exist versus the massive expansion of the Axis and the genocidal tendencies of the Nazis is absurd, which naturally means its the perfect model for a First World liberal virtue-signal.

If the Palestinians are being terrorized by anyone, it’s by fellow Palestinian. Suicide bombings and other haphazard attacks aren’t the best at checking nationality or religious affiliation.

And just ask any of the Arabs in Israel who they really want running the place. It isn’t Hamas or Hezbollah.

The very calculated, methodical, and gradual anihilation of the Palestinian people is most definitely a genocide. What is real is evident; what is evident is real. Truth stands on its own, even when it is being obscured. Undeniable.

 

[commenter]

Nor is he mine,what alternative solution do you have to these leaders that have no problem ****slaughtering ****there **own **citizens for their own ends ?
Should we not get involved ?

I wonder how bad Syria is, if you add their public atrocities and (probably) some abortions, compared with the massive abortion culture in Western Europe and English speaking countries? Is Syria worse than Denmark or Holland, where almost all babies with Down Syndrome are being destroyed?

I don’t object to the rare use of force. Just suspicious if the only one on the receiving end happens to be the most unpopular among the many villains in reach of the missiles.

 

[Michael68]

I wonder how bad Syria is, if you add their public atrocities and (probably) some abortions, compared with the massive abortion culture in Western Europe and English speaking countries? Is Syria worse than Denmark or Holland, where almost all babies with Down Syndrome are being destroyed?

I don’t object to the rare use of force. Just suspicious if the only one on the receiving end happens to be the most unpopular among the many villains in reach of the missiles.

Killing your own people with gas isn’t bad?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The very calculated, methodical, and gradual anihilation of the Palestinian people is most definitely a genocide. What is real is evident; what is evident is real. Truth stands on its own, even when it is being obscured. Undeniable.

1. So that excuses the attempts by the PLO with the support of the Palestinian people to constantly attack and annihilate Israel? Are all the bombings and killings and murders of civilians simply “self-defense?”
2. What do you think will happen when the Palestinian people achieve statehood? They will live side-by-side with the Israelis and everybody will sing Kumbaya by the fireplace at the end of night?
3. Two peoples commit atrocities—one in the name of self-defense, one in the name of driving the Jews out of Palestine and eliminating them whenever possible. Both are wrong, but do you really think Palestine can really claim moral superiority over this?

Sheesh.

Double sheesh.

 

[exnihilo]

I have been by no means the biggest defender of Israel, but the idea that Israeli policy of merely trying to exist versus the massive expansion of the Axis and the genocidal tendencies of the Nazis is absurd, which naturally means its the perfect model for a First World liberal virtue-signal.

If the Palestinians are being terrorized by anyone, it’s by fellow Palestinian. Suicide bombings and other haphazard attacks aren’t the best at checking nationality or religious affiliation.

And just ask any of the Arabs in Israel who they really want running the place. It isn’t Hamas or Hezbollah.

The modern state of Israel was born out of terrorism. Zionists killed innocent civilizans in addition to British troops. The goal was to to create a racial or religious homeland for a group of people. As a result I don’t find the Palestinian acts of terror particularly meaningful about the nature of the Palestinians since in living memory that is exactly how Israel came to be. After all couldn’t the Palestinians abandon local terror once they obtain power the same as the Israelis did?

Also how can we support a nation whose sole purpose is to benefit one race or religion? We are supposed to be multiculturalists. In fact apparently it is a grave sin not to be. So how can any Christian support Israel when its very existence is to benefit one race or religion? Anyone who supported a European or Christian homeland would be a vile bigot.

 

[Vouthon]

This thread has taken a really ugly, xenophobic turn indeed.

Truly a sewer as an earlier poster opined.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The modern state of Israel was born out of terrorism. Zionists killed innocent civilizans in addition to British troops. The goal was to to create a racial or religious homeland for a group of people. As a result I don’t find the Palestinian acts of terror particularly meaningful about the nature of the Palestinians since in living memory that is exactly how Israel came to be. After all couldn’t the Palestinians abandon local terror once they obtain power the same as the Israelis did?

Also how can we support a nation whose sole purpose is to benefit one race or religion? We are supposed to be multiculturalists. In fact apparently it is a grave sin not to be. So how can any Christian support Israel when its very existence is to benefit one race or religion? Anyone who supported a European or Christian homeland would be a vile bigot.

By whom are we obliged to be “multiculturalists”?

It would be difficult to name a single country, other than in the Americas, that is not ultimately based on race, religion or language. Some are even based on tribe. Belgium is named after the Belgae. France after the Franks. There is no good reason, other than animus peculiar to them, to say Jews, who are identifiable as a people, cannot have a country when plenty of others do.

And which Islamic majority state has abandoned oppression of those of other religions?
Israel, of course, tolerates other religions, which is unique for the region.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The very calculated, methodical, and gradual anihilation of the Palestinian people is most definitely a genocide. What is real is evident; what is evident is real. Truth stands on its own, even when it is being obscured. Undeniable.

There’s no “genocide” of “Palestinians” going on. Their numbers have greatly increased in the last few decades, including in Israel. The largest single Palestinian state is Jordan, and it will remain the largest Palestinian state no matter what happens in the West Bank or Gaza.

And there’s no such thing as a “Palestinian” in the same sort of way there is a “Scot”. Palestinian is a term of origin, and there are Palestinians all over the Middle East, and have been for centuries, just as there are “Bedouin” and “Syrians” all over it. One Arab from one country does not know a “Palestinian” from any other Arab unless he is told.

Perhaps the most prominent of all “Palestinians” is Munib al Masri. Below is an article on that poor oppressed fellow, and a photo of the hovel in which he lives. And the al Masri tribe is one of the largest in the West Bank. “Masri” in Arabic means “Egyptian”, designating the likely fact that the tribe moved to the Levant years ago from Egypt.

Here’s poor genocide victim Munib al Masri:

ft.com/content/d208790e-b636-11e1-8ad0-00144feabdc0

 

[meltzerboy]

**Big mistake. **

Why so? I think Trump did the right thing, something Obama did not do with regard to Assad. Of course there are always risks of escalation as well as civilians being killed. Besides this, if Assad is forced to leave (or killed), what will the next regime be like?

 

[meltzerboy]

‘Corrupted Talmudism’? I’m glad I skipped over that part.