Do you support the missile strikes on Syria?

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

Yeah let's get ISIS and their Turkish Sultan partner in charge!

Honestly, I don't see a single use for Assad in "going chemical" against women and children. It's smelling like fake like a fish after 2 weeks in the sun...

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

[EnglishPete]

No, it is also of disgust and hypocrisy, that anyone on the left is supporting, resistance my ass, just wreck havoc and create a stupid proxy war against russia that will result in even more destruction and the death of the Syrian People.

[EnglishPete]

I agree with EnglishPete and Intell (strange coalitions are forming).

[EnglishPete]

Thought Americans would learn their lessions but they just love war too much.

Iraq proved that overly hawkish foreign policy is bad. However, the Syrian civil war, which saw no US intervention, proved that overly dovish foreign policy is not the solution and Obama shifted too far in the other direction. An invasion of Syria and regime change, especially if done badly, would be unwise, but allowing Assad to continue to use chemical weapons against civilians is also unwise.

Exactly. I don't understand what everyone wants the administration to do - allow the current situation to continue without a change? Basically a slaughterhouse managed by Putin and Assad?

I think it would have been better if the US and other western countries had supported Assad in his war against terrorist rebellion. That way the Syrian government could have won the war years ago, peace would have been restored to Syria. That would also have mean that there would have been no rebel forces to produce transparent, made for TV, false flag attacks to blame on Assad and hence no demand for missile strikes on Syria.

Supporting Assad is utterly unjustifiable. No, his acts of cruelty aren't made up, that's ridiculous.

You mean like Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators wasn't made up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Nothing like a bit of murdered babies atrocity propaganda to launch a good war eh?

[EnglishPete]

Nope. The United States is not the global sheriff.

it's either the US or russia and US allies are concerned.

This. Either we set the rules or Russia & China & radical Islamists in the Middle East will.

Excuse me? Which side is it that has been aiding radical Islamists? US government intervention in Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere has led to the strengthening and empowering of radical Islamists. And which country is it that has propped up the government of Saudi, the main promoter of radical Islamism. And who are these charming Syrian gentlemen with Mccain? Libertarians perhaps or maybe social democrats.



If Trump wants to stop radical Islamism then maybe he could get the US government to stop supporting it in Syria and find a peace deal in Syria that keeps it out of power. The Russian and Chinese would support that.

[EnglishPete]

I think an additional reason for the strikes was to send a message to China about North Korea (and indeed about China and Taiwan). Its a way of saying don't mess with me. As a demonstration of raw power it should also help his poll numbers.

[EnglishPete]

I think I'm shifting on this issue again. What's done is done, but there should be no more intervention in Syria. What good can weakening Assad do, now? The sooner he crushes the rebels, the sooner the war is over. That is the humane option at this point... to let evil win. Sad, but it is what it is. Anyway, I don't want Trump starting to see war as the solution to his political problems. That's not the right path.

Don't worry. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this was all done because there's a peace deal in the pipeline. Russia has expressed outrage at this action but I think that's all Kayfabe. The Russians were given plenty of warning of the attack and it did limited damage. I know the Syrians are saying some people were killed but its possible that even that is a lie designed to make Trump's attack seem genuine.

Trump wants a deal in Syria which involves the defeat of Isis, the end of the war and Assad out of power (thus enabling him to claim a win that eluded Obama). The Russian's want a deal that defeats Isis, brings an end to the war and, crucially, enables them to keep their naval base in Syria). There's a deal to be done but for political reasons Trump can't do this deal without first making some kayfabe 'beef' with Putin over Syria.

Many of the President's supporters (and many of his opponents) are unhappy with this action but by expressing their anger and disappointment they are paying an unwitting part in the kayfabe. Their reaction incourages the establishment Republicans and Democrats in their reaction oh "hurray let's support the President. He made big rockets go boom boom". Trump will need some support from the latter group for a Syrian peace deal. The former will eagerly support such a deal anyway. To get the support of the latter he needs to make them think he's been 'acting tough with Putin'

In the scenario expect more 'beef', maybe more rockets go boom boom, followed by a peace deal where Assad leaves Syria and Russia keeps its Naval base.

[EnglishPete]

I think I'm shifting on this issue again. What's done is done, but there should be no more intervention in Syria. What good can weakening Assad do, now? The sooner he crushes the rebels, the sooner the war is over. That is the humane option at this point... to let evil win. Sad, but it is what it is. Anyway, I don't want Trump starting to see war as the solution to his political problems. That's not the right path.

Don't worry. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that this was all done because there's a peace deal in the pipeline. Russia has expressed outrage at this action but I think that's all Kayfabe. The Russians were given plenty of warning of the attack and it did limited damage. I know the Syrians are saying some people were killed but its possible that even that is a lie designed to make Trump's attack seem genuine.

Trump wants a deal in Syria which involves the defeat of Isis, the end of the war and Assad out of power (thus enabling him to claim a win that eluded Obama). The Russian's want a deal that defeats Isis, brings an end to the war and, crucially, enables them to keep their naval base in Syria). There's a deal to be done but for political reasons Trump can't do this deal without first making some kayfabe 'beef' with Putin over Syria.

Many of the President's supporters (and many of his opponents) are unhappy with this action but by expressing their anger and disappointment they are paying an unwitting part in the kayfabe. Their reaction incourages the establishment Republicans and Democrats in their reaction oh "hurray let's support the President. He made big rockets go boom boom". Trump will need some support from the latter group for a Syrian peace deal. The former will eagerly support such a deal anyway. To get the support of the latter he needs to make them think he's been 'acting tough with Putin'

In the scenario expect more 'beef', maybe more rockets go boom boom, followed by a peace deal where Assad leaves Syria and Russia keeps its Naval base.

In other words for those, like myself, who suspect that the gas attack was a false flag event it looks like President Trump has responded in the most appropriate way. With a false retaliation, followed by false rising tension with Russia. He can be confident that the fake news media won't expose such falseness to a wide audience as exposing fakery means exposing themselves.

[EnglishPete]

Iran's President gave a less than total endorsement of Assad today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/iran-s-rouhani-wants-chemical-attack-in-syria-investigated/3662574.html

Whilst the Iraqi Shi'ite political/religious leader Moqtada al-Sadr has called on Assaad to step down today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2017/Apr-08/401179-iraqs-shiite-cleric-sadr-urges-assad-to-step-down.ashx

Looks like things are starting to move into place with Trump's plan for a Syria peace deal