Syria

[Gaybutton]

(CNN) Hillary Clinton called on the United States to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's Air Force on Thursday, days after a chemical attack killed more than 70 people in the war-torn country.

"Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," Clinton said in a speech at the "Women in the World" summit in New York City. "And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/h ... index.html
______________________________________________________________________________

I have mixed feelings about this. While I think what is happening in Syria is one of the worst atrocities since the holocaust and I think Assad's air force should be destroyed and Assad himself toppled from power, I am opposed to the idea of the USA acting unilaterally to do it.

I agree with Hillary Clinton's outrage, but I don't like the idea of the USA once again putting itself in the position of trying to be the police of the world.

There is a whole world out there. Why is it always the USA trying to lead the way? If a coalition is formed, I would then have no objection. Where is the rest of the world? And when will China, for once, actually act to do something? China usually just sits on its ass and lets other countries drop the bombs, send in the soldiers, and spend all the money.

For example, I don't see even one South American country so much as expressing outrage, much less volunteering any of their own military to help put a stop to this.

Other than expressing condemnation once in a while, where is the UN when it comes to taking serious action?

Assad is not going to stop until he is forced to stop. This insane world has far too many Hitlers who manage to get themselves into power.

As much as I despise the Syrian atrocity and this kind of harm perpetrated on defenseless people, I don't see how or why it becomes the responsibility of the USA to take unilateral military action.

[Undaunted]

The timing of the missile attack by the U.S. is meant to send a message far beyond Syria.

[Gaybutton]

The timing of the missile attack by the U.S. is meant to send a message far beyond Syria.

Apparently so. I kind of like Trump not giving a damn whether Iran or Russia likes it or not, but I still am opposed to unilateral military action by the USA.
____________

U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government

The U.S. military launched approximately 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... 95ef45db39

[readerc54]

Think of it this way. You're driving down the road and you come across an accident. A truck ran into pedestrians waiting for a bus and many are injured. You can:

(a) drive on (aka; what every nation has been doing since the war started)
(b) ask bystanders if they'd be willing to join you in a joint effort to assist the victims (aka: ask the UN)
(c) inform the driver of the truck that hit them that you'll deal with him harshly if he does something this again (aka: Obama red line)
(d) go to the aid of the injured (aka: take action without further delay)

Yes, it sucks to know that you're out their on your own while everyone else stands down.

It sucks worse to know that you could have done something to avoid this crap from happening again and didn't.

[Gaybutton]

Think of it this way.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your analogy. As I said, I have mixed feelings about it, but I don't like the USA taking unilateral action while the rest of the world just sits by and watches.

[readerc54]

We disagree but I can appreciate your concerns. However, this is the kind of situation that begs for a leader and not a politician.

Yes, the rest of the world gets a pass...minus, of course, Assad.

[fountainhall]

I'll give the Trump team credit for acting and acting fast. From reports on CNN, not only were both parties and both houses of Congress consulted but all of America's allies, especially in the Middle East. Russian ground forces close to the air base were also notified in advance which inevitably could mean that the Syrian jets had plenty of time to scramble and fly elsewhere. But to have assembled a coalition would have taken days at best and probably weeks. Let's just hope that no Russians or Iranians were killed, for that would further complicate an already hellishly complicated situation. I agree with undaunted that the strike will have been intended to have consequences far away in Pyongyang.

However, what now happens about Isis? After all, for more than a year Isis has been Trump's main target and regime change was definitely way off the agenda. And this strike may actually help Isis, from what the commentators are saying. From Tillerson's statement this evening, it also seems that this is a one-off strike and diplomacy has to take over once again. Yet the Russians and Iranians are still there propping up Assad, and the various anti-Assad forces are still there. What a disastrous mess!

[Up2u]

Looks like Trump has come around and both he and Clinton are on the same page.

And let's remember......
Majority Of Republicans Voted ‘No’ When Obama Wanted To Launch A Strike On Syria
Donald Trump didn’t seek Congressional approval.
By Sebastian Murdock
Just 11 weeks into office, President Donald Trump has bombed Syria.

The president announced Thursday that he had launched a missile strike on a Syrian air base in retaliation for a deadly chemical weapon attack perpetrated by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime. The chemical attack, carried out earlier this week, left at least 70 dead.

In 2013, when a sarin nerve gas attack left more than 1,400 dead outside Damascus, President Barack Obama went to Congress to get approval to strike.

In a vote, 183 Republicans voted against bombing the country. Only 12 Republicans, including then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), voted with the president to launch a strike. Ultimately, Congress did not approve the strike, with 243 Congressional members voting against it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rep ... da355d?tjb&

[Gaybutton]

Syrian jets had plenty of time to scramble and fly elsewhere.

How many 'elsewheres' does Syria actually have? And if they do fly elsewhere, what's to stop Trump from launching another attack?

Of course, if Iran grants permission for the Syrian air force to use one of their bases and come and go at will, now there's a BIG problem.

What makes me sick just as much as the bombing itself is that the Syrian air force didn't refuse to bomb their own people.

It also makes me sick that the USA is the only country that took unilateral action. Why didn't any other countries do the same thing? As far as I can tell, it's let the USA do the dirty work and spend all the money while we sit idly by, and then - after the USA does it - now let's criticize the USA for having done it.

The most so many other countries ever do, if they do anything at all, is slap these evil dictators on the wrist and essentially do nothing more than say, "That's a no-no." The entire world should join in to stop these kinds of "leaders" whenever and wherever they arise. It will never happen.

[fountainhall]

How many 'elsewheres' does Syria actually have? And if they do fly elsewhere, what's to stop Trump from launching another attack?

Syria has lots of air bases dotted around the country - so there are plenty of "elsewheres"! At least one is in the suburbs of Damascus and any air strike on that will incur unacceptable civilian casualties. And in some of the others the Russians will be entrenched. The moment a Russian gets killed by an American attack, this conflict will take on a new dimension. But this does appear for the moment to be a one-off reaction to the gas attacks on civilians. If Trump is thinking of escalating the US involvement he'll soon have to go to Congress for official approval.