Trump Syria Bombing Megathread

[Crumpets]

I'm a bit conflicted here. I'm not at all one for conspiracies, but I do find it a bit suspicious that this chemical attack comes only days after Trump speaks of removing all US forces in Syria. Why would Assad suddenly engage in a chemical attack again if the last time that it happened, it caused the US to retaliate/get more involved in Syria? It seems the rebels, that are now being beaten back by Assad, have every reason to want the US to stay involved, giving them a motive for staging this attack.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this ^^^, I just think we should completely verify the details of the attack before putting more American lives at risk in Syria. As far as I understand, and I could be wrong (someone let me know), the attack has not been confirmed by international sources as having come from the Assad regime.  We shouldn't let our basic human decency (wanting to see brutal leaders punished) blind us to the facts. If it is (or already has been) confirmed, then yes, Trump should respond strongly and show that the use of these weapons will not be tolerated.

This attack wasn't really about the US at all. Negotiations had been ongoing in Douma to evacuate rebel fighters from the enclave which would have been a YUGE victory for Assad in establishing full control over Eastern Damascus for the first time since 2011. Negotiations stalled (apparently because the opposition faction that controls the area assassinated their own negotiator), and Assad gave them the warning to evacuate or be killed. The rebels gave him the one-finger salute, so he gassed them. It only took a few hours after that for the rebels to come back to the negotiating table and evacuations resumed over the weekend. If some cruise missiles hit an Assad base, that's a pretty small price to pay for consolidating control of Eastern Ghouta, especially if the US tips off Russia where we're planning to hit (and even if we don't tip them off, there's really only a couple of bases that seem like probable targets) and the pro-regime forces can just evacuate all their personnel from the area.

Another dynamic that likely played a part is that Russia's appetite for urban warfare has likely waned since 2015. Trying to capture Douma block by block would have been tremendously costly to everyone involved, and a gas attack is a quick way to turn the tables in favor of the regime. Russia knew this, and was probably okay with turning a blind eye to one humanitarian disaster, so long as it was over quickly and they didn't have to risk any troops.

[TPIG]

I'm a bit conflicted here. I'm not at all one for conspiracies, but I do find it a bit suspicious that this chemical attack comes only days after Trump speaks of removing all US forces in Syria. Why would Assad suddenly engage in a chemical attack again if the last time that it happened, it caused the US to retaliate/get more involved in Syria? It seems the rebels, that are now being beaten back by Assad, have every reason to want the US to stay involved, giving them a motive for staging this attack.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this ^^^, I just think we should completely verify the details of the attack before putting more American lives at risk in Syria. As far as I understand, and I could be wrong (someone let me know), the attack has not been confirmed by international sources as having come from the Assad regime.  We shouldn't let our basic human decency (wanting to see brutal leaders punished) blind us to the facts. If it is (or already has been) confirmed, then yes, Trump should respond strongly and show that the use of these weapons will not be tolerated.

This attack wasn't really about the US at all. Negotiations had been ongoing in Douma to evacuate rebel fighters from the enclave which would have been a YUGE victory for Assad in establishing full control over Eastern Damascus for the first time since 2011. Negotiations stalled (apparently because the opposition faciton that controls the area assassinated their own negotiator), and Assad gave them the warning to evacuate or be killed. The rebels gave him the one-finger salute, so he gassed them. It only took a few hours after that for the rebels to come back to the negotiating table and evacuations resumed over the weekend. If some cruise missiles hit an Assad base, that's a pretty small price to pay for consolidating control of Eastern Ghouta, especially if the US tips off Russia where we're planning to hit (and even if we don't tip them off, there's really only a couple of bases that seem like probable targets) and the pro-regime forced can just evacuate all their personnel from the area.

Another dynamic that likely played a part is that Russia's appetite for urban warfare has likely waned since 2015. Trying to capture Douma block by block would have been tremendously costly to everyone involved, and a gas attack is a quick way to turn the tables in favor of the regime. Russia knew this, and was probably okay with turning a blind eye to one humanitarian disaster, so long as it was over quickly and they didn't have to risk any troops.

Thanks for this info! The angle you're presenting makes perfect sense, and I agree that Trump's relatively light response to last year's chemical attack likely emboldened Assad to continue using these weapons.

For the record, I obviously have far more trust in our intelligence community and the governments of Western nations than the Russian government or the Assad regime; I was just simply unaware of the facts of the situation when I made my first post.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is nothing more than an attempt to boost his poll numbers and to also deflect from the Russia investigation.

To fair to Trump, I doubt it's all about the investigation. He's probably just looking forward to killing some people, too.

[JA]

I love how that news headline uses the word “retaliate” since retaliation implies we’d be responding to an attack upon us, which never happened in this situation.

[HillGoose]

I love how that news headline uses the word “retaliate” since retaliation implies we’d be responding to an attack upon us, which never happened in this situation.

yeah we would. "we will make no disctinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I love how that news headline uses the word “retaliate” since retaliation implies we’d be responding to an attack upon us, which never happened in this situation.

yeah we would. "we will make no disctinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them"

That would be pretty awful since then we'd have to attack ourselves.

[HillGoose]

I love how that news headline uses the word “retaliate” since retaliation implies we’d be responding to an attack upon us, which never happened in this situation.

yeah we would. "we will make no disctinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them"

That would be pretty awful since then we'd have to attack ourselves.

maybe move to Iran, if they're so great?

[swf541]

If Trump attacks Syria with our allies in the coming days and actually tries to accomplish something ill actually approve of an action he did during his presidency

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Im a little more hawkish than most liberals, I think intervention is only necessary if one or more of these three things are true
1. We are threatened (no explanation needed if someone is attacking us then we will respond with any means necessary)
2. Our allies are threatened (Allies are important and allowing our friends to go down is wrong)
3. International Peace is threatened (I.E A country invading all of its neighbors doing power grabs committing genocides etc)
Okay so while three is debatable right now I am undecided on weather or not assad's actions warrant intervention they are terrible but toppling assad will likely cause more damage than good. The other alternatives in the region (rebels) are now following radical terrorist belief systems. The only way I would be in favor of intervention is if it was Un-led coalition that would topple assad and create a new government and rebuild syria. We also need to find a way to stop Putin and Tehran from supporting Assad as that will make any action much more complicated.

That's not how international law technically works though. According to the UN Charter, a nation is only justified in using military force against another nation if is attacked, or if authorized by the Security Council. Anything else is a crime against peace, and a violation of our own laws.

Both Obama and Trump should be put on trial and jailed (or executed, per us military code) for their crimes against peace. (Bush actually gets a pass on this. For all his other screw-ups, we were responding to an attack when we invaded Afghanistan AND we were acting with Security Council Approval. Iraq is a lot less clear, but at least he had a case. Intervening in Syria is just flat-out a violation of the UN Charter.)

[FairBol]

I'm a bit conflicted here. I'm not at all one for conspiracies, but I do find it a bit suspicious that this chemical attack comes only days after Trump speaks of removing all US forces in Syria. Why would Assad suddenly engage in a chemical attack again if the last time that it happened, it caused the US to retaliate/get more involved in Syria? It seems the rebels, that are now being beaten back by Assad, have every reason to want the US to stay involved, giving them a motive for staging this attack.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this ^^^, I just think we should completely verify the details of the attack before putting more American lives at risk in Syria. As far as I understand, and I could be wrong (someone let me know), the attack has not been confirmed by international sources as having come from the Assad regime.  We shouldn't let our basic human decency (wanting to see brutal leaders punished) blind us to the facts. If it is (or already has been) confirmed, then yes, Trump should respond strongly and show that the use of these weapons will not be tolerated.

I’m impressed that your using your common sense in assessing this situation, unlike most others on this website that have accepted the Western media narrative hook, line, and sinker, without looking at the common sense fact of why would Assad gas his own people when Trump was considering withdrawing from Syria?

I'm questioning this as well.  Yeah, Trump says that Assad gassed his own people; that's unquestionably terrible.  Even so, I fail to see the justification for a US military response.  There's a civil war going on in Syria right now.  Unless Americans have been killed in the chemical attack, I don't think we should get involved in that....it's not our fight.  

Now, if American blood has been shed, the situation changes a bit.  In that case, I wholeheartedly support military action.  A wise man once noted that we have the right to respond to any such attack (as is consistent with language in the UN charter).  However, I haven't yet seen any evidence that American lives were lost, or that we were attacked in any way.  Am I missing something?

[FairBol]

If Trump attacks Syria with our allies in the coming days and actually tries to accomplish something ill actually approve of an action he did during his presidency

It's unclear to me what the reasons behind a response would be....at this time, I would disapprove.  Syria's not our fight. 

[Dr. MB]

Get all the troops out of the Middle East. No more strikes. Let the problem sort itself out.

[Dr. MB]

Get all the troops out of the Middle East. No more strikes. Let the problem sort itself out.

We shouldn't have started this problem but withdrawing from the middle east would be a fatal mistake imagine Rwanda but on a larger scale We created this mess we should fix it

Except “fixing” it will just make the problem worse.

[Biden Stans Are Cringelords]

This is going to be just like last year, except with a few more missiles. If it was anything more, Trump wouldn't be blabbing about it. It's just going to be a show of force so he can say he did something.

[YE]

Get all the troops out of the Middle East. No more strikes. Let the problem sort itself out.

We shouldn't have started this problem but withdrawing from the middle east would be a fatal mistake imagine Rwanda but on a larger scale We created this mess we should fix it

Except “fixing” it will just make the problem worse.

We can rebuild the region it will take tons of money and international cooperation but its necessary at this point Leaving the region will cause far more problems than it will fix look at what happened as soon as we pulled out of Iraq we need to get the job done even though I agree we never should have been there in the first place

Given the overall instability in the world, and lack of democracy in the entire Middle East (Israel aside since that's a whole different ballgame), it's a stretch to think a stable Syria will happen anytime soon.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'll go ahead and just assume the attack happened and that the Syrian government is responsible.

Less than 100 people died. If they had been killed by a missile, would it have warranted the same outrage? I'm sure thousands of times as many people have been killed by missiles and by bullets in the conflict and they have not necessitated a US attack. Why is people getting shot or crushed by rubble fine but if they suffocate on gas, we have to go to war? It makes no sense.

[Joey1996]

Who cares? They used chemical weapons on their people. Let's light them up.

Why aren't we lighting up Burma right now as a genocide of Rohingya people is underway? Why aren't we lighting up Saudia Arabia as they bomb hospitals and schools in Yemen?

[Torie]

I'll go ahead and just assume the attack happened and that the Syrian government is responsible.

Less than 100 people died. If they had been killed by a missile, would it have warranted the same outrage? I'm sure thousands of times as many people have been killed by missiles and by bullets in the conflict and they have not necessitated a US attack. Why is people getting shot or crushed by rubble fine but if they suffocate on gas, we have to go to war? It makes no sense.

If the use of the tactic of just gassing people to take territory were not punished, the risk to me is that it would become a lot more common tactic. You can minimize your own casualties, preserve the physical infrastructure, yet take territory just by killing the inhabitants without other collateral damage - sort of like the neutron bomb.

That I suspect is why there is a consensus to try to keep this genie in the bottle as much as possible.

[Storebought]

Tangentially related to this thread, but still significant:

Russia is successfully jamming American drones

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KingSweden]

This is going to be just like last year, except with a few more missiles. If it was anything more, Trump wouldn't be blabbing about it. It's just going to be a show of force so he can say he did something.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Can mods stop showing favoritism towards King lear? He keeps insulting us Trump supporters as illiterate, racist, hateful etc. He shouldn't be allowed to insult us and get away with it.

[KingSweden]

Trump should absolutely bomb Syria, if he has a long term plan to deal with Assad. Otherwise, no dice. It makes no sense to strike and not remove the Assad regime and institute a long term plan for stability. A lot of displacement has already occurred.

I agree, using chemical weapons should be considered a red line but on the gripping hand, whenever we go into a nation and then leave without adequate planning, it becomes something like Libya, a hell hole.

Or stay without planning, like Iraq

[Torie]

Can mods stop showing favoritism towards King lear? He keeps insulting us Trump supporters as illiterate, racist, hateful etc. He shouldn't be allowed to insult us and get away with it.

I don't see a post by Lear on this thread. Mirror, mirror on the wall, just who is the most favorite "bad boy" poster in the Cave of them all? There just seem to be so many candidates!

In other news, on this board I am pretty ruthless in culling out posts that contain personal insults. All one need to do is report them. My "favorite" posters are those who at once insult others, and report posts where they are insulted, but I digress. I guess the idea is to come up with an algorithm where one can assess just which personal insults are worthy, and which ones are not.

[Joey1996]

America is allies with 75% of the world's dictators, stop the world police cop out.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Is there any certain timetable by which this decision will be made?