Syria

[thewayhelooks]

If, after the poison gas was used, you strike back hard, it sends a warning not to do it again.
If you want to get together a coalition of the willing, that would take weeks and Assad would strike again and again. I hope other nations join in, but to stop the gas attacks the US needs fast action now. We will see what they do next.

[Gaybutton]

Assad would strike again and again. I hope other nations join in, but to stop the gas attacks the US needs fast action now.

There is no way to know that Assad would strike again and again. But you're making my point for me. While I agree that Assad needs to be stopped, why does the US need fast action at all? Other than refugees wanting to get into the USA, I know of no direct effect the problems in Syria have on the USA. I don't see any other countries taking any military action in response to this atrocious incident. Why is stopping Assad the responsibility of the USA, and apparently only the USA?

I also disagree with the notion that Syria could have scrambled their air force and gotten their planes out of there prior to the attack or that there was a serious risk of killing Russian or Iranian soldiers. While Trump obviously ordered the attack, it was US military strategists who came up with how to attack, when to attack, where to attack, and with which and how many weapons. Unless anyone believes that the military strategists were unaware of the same possibilities that everyone else is, and their planning was on the order of Keystone Kops, I'd say the military knew exactly what they were doing and what effect the attack would have.

I think one additional effect of the attack was a warning to other aggressive countries that if any of them want a war with the USA, under Trump they'll get one.

I want to stress again that I have mixed feelings about it. I think Trump did the right thing. I also think he did the wrong thing. I have a real problem about the USA appointing itself the police of the world.

"You were both wrong! And you were both right."
- Yul Brynner (Taras), 'Taras Bulba'

[thewayhelooks]

Assad has a history of using chemical weapons - see Ghouta 2013 when sarin gas was used for example. But if you want to save more innocent lives, then you need to hit him hard now as a warning. Sometimes you need to do the right thing whether you're directly threatened or not.

[Gaybutton]

Sometimes you need to do the right thing whether you're directly threatened or not.

I agree, but I think you're missing my main objection. My objection is the USA taking responsibility as some sort of police agency for the world. And Syria is certainly not the only place in the world where atrocities are being committed against innocent people.

If I had the opportunity to ask the right people, my question would be: As long as we're launching an attack, why didn't you also target Assad himself and take out that piece of shit too?

[Undaunted]

If I had the opportunity to ask the right people, my question would be: As long as we're launching an attack, why didn't you also target Assad himself and take out that piece of shit too?

The problem with that is that you create a political vacuum such as was created with Saddam. He could be killed as a result of an "Act of War" but none has been declared........The C.I.A. can't do it as a result on an executive order put forth by Gerald Ford and later expanded on by Jimmy Carter ending political assassinations.

[Gaybutton]

The C.I.A. can't do it as a result on an executive order put forth by Gerald Ford and later expanded on by Jimmy Carter ending political assassinations.

For some strange reason, I get the impression Trump doesn't give a damn about any of those. As for an act of war, intentionally destroying a foreign power's air force seems to me to fit the bill, whether declared or not. In one respect, war actually has been declared. George Bush declared war on terrorism. Other than Assad's supporters, I doubt many others would see him as anything other than a terrorist.

[readerc54]

why didn't you also target Assad himself and take out that piece of shit too?

"Good things come to those who wait"
- English phrase extolling the virtue of patience

[Gaybutton]

"Good things come to those who wait"

I'm sure that's true. And good things also come to those who don't wait. I don't know if good things come to those who don't give a damn in the first place . . .

[readerc54]

Less than a day into the attack, it remains a wholly fluid situation. There's no way to predict what follows. And that's exactly how Trump wants it. Consider this excerpt from an editorial in The Global Times, an organ of the Communist Party of China:

The US' decision to attack the Assad government is a show of force from the US president. He wants to prove that he dares to do what Obama dared not. He wants to prove to the world that he is no "businessman president" and that he will use US military force without hesitation when he considers it necessary.

A departure on a grand scale from the deliberative, kick-the-can Obama years, it's destined to give a moment of pause to those who might be contemplating going Mano-a-mano with the new sheriff. High stakes diplomacy? By all means. And I wouldn't take Tillerson's "one off" description to the bank.

We've lived for years in fear of North Korean crazies, isis lunatics and a Russian dictator. But we've been there before. Japan was attacking us in the Pacific and Germany was sinking our vessels in the Atlantic. We learned to manage our fears and go on the offensive. That didn't turn out too badly for us--or Japan or Germany for that matter.

[Gaybutton]

That didn't turn out to badly for us--or Japan or Germany for that matter.

I don't foresee history repeating itself in that respect when current history is being made by a man who said, "We should have kept the oil."

If Trump gets us into a war, assuming the USA wins it, why do I not see a Marshall Plan emerging in the aftermath from the current administration?

Once again my finger points toward China. As far as I can tell, China does absolutely nothing unless it's something that directly affects them. Maybe there's something going on behind the scenes, but China has done nothing with regard to Syria. China has done nothing to stop North Korea's nuclear weapon program. If Trump launches a preemptive attack against North Korea, since North Korea's threats do directly affect the USA, then I can see justification to take out their ability to threaten anyone - whether China likes it or not. China has not said one word, much less has done anything, about atrocities occurring throughout the world. They just sit silently, let other countries spend their money on righting wrongs, and usually complain about it later.

When you get right down to it, why should China involve itself with Syria? What would China have to gain? How much did 59 cruise missiles cost the USA? From what I'm reading, one cruise missile costs approximately 1.5 million dollars. That means the USA just spent close to 90 million dollars. And I'm wondering what good it actually did. Meanwhile China hasn't spent 5 cents doing anything about Syria.

I don't know what the USA had to gain from it either.