So it begins.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...rWC?li=BBnb7Kz

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/72/55/57/.../3/920x920.jpg

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/polit...a-12833367.php


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on U.S.-led missile strikes on Syria (all times local):

9:50 p.m.

December 2004, King Abdullah of Jordan was the first Sunni Arab leader to publicly warn the West about “a Shiite crescent’ emerging after the Iraq War, which Iran would exploit to spread its influence across the Arab world.

Just a thought on this subject really and i do think a lot of people miss the point.

Way back when this began the Assad regime invited Russia to operate from Tartarus and also asked them to assist in the defense of the (like it or not) Legitimate regime and help defend it against ISIS.

The the USA UK and France rocked up uninvited and started hitting ISIS targets in the country under the prelude "war on terror" now in reality that is a violation of Syrian Sovereignty i have looked back at all different sources and not once did i find an open invite for the west to start bombing targets (maybe some one can assist here) but at that time it suited both sides, but technically the West has declared war on Syria.

The Syrian government and Russia have a joint defense agreement (like the UK USA) Assad is able to use (like the UK can) its allies assets in time of war provided they are based on their own territory, the USA has directly stated it is targeting Syrian targets thus it in terms of legality declared war on Syria.

The United Nations never sanctioned the current strike using Article VII there fore the Syrian government and her allies have the right to strike back in defense.

Just seem's to me that the steps that are there are being ignored by both sides.

One off or will this carry on? Russia/Syria we wait to see there response.

Trump, Macron and May, trying to divert the medial focus from their home problems?
No UN mandate, and the West is not the good guy.
I am at a loss for words.
Kapitan said it best.

Those are all excellent and cogent points that merit re-reading.

That may well be a part of the reason :hmmm:

The West, namely the US, did start to confront IS all over the place, not just Syria, since IS was conquering territories in severla different countries. Syria was just one of them.

IS is just a strawman aregument for the Russians to stay in Syria. If IS would not be there, then another strawman argument would have been found to justify Russian engagement. Becasue what they want there is a geostratgeical stronghold of theirs. The russians are as much guests in syria as the Sovjets were guests in the Warsaw Pact states. And we know that they did not accept to get invited out again, but used tanks to express their denial. The Assads do not represent all of Syria's population, not before the war, an d much less so since this war and their atrocoties committed. It is just an ethical faction of the population where the assad'S score strong. its an ethnic conflict more than most other things. Many in the west do not see this.

If international law would in effect start to reward terror, mass murderring and war crimes, then something os wrong with this law and the way it gets implemented. To let according perpetrators off the hook over formalities, is inhumane, cyncial, and insane. Thats why these days I just laugh about the SC at the UN. Everybody cna see that such an idea could only work with a minimumm of objectivity being used by all its members. And that is not the case.

I think these strikes now are a waste of tax money, I oppose them, but not for those sentimental reasons mentioned in the posts above. In the end, nobody really cares for those civilians, if they would have been killed not by gas, but by starvation in another years-long siege, nothign would have bene done about it.I also question the geostrageical value of the military objections (of reducing Assad'S chemical weapon stockpiles).

Thbe Russians promised one year ago to make sure Assad's chems get destroyed and not used anymore. They broke their promise. And probably had never the intention to make sure to keep it anyway.

Its cheap to always call out the West if it does something somebody does not lie, and shootiung with the internationa law. I hear no complaints if the terrorists of IS, if the Assad in damascus, if the Russian cooperation with barrel-bombing civilians and and if the Iranisn equip and maintain Herzbollah strongholds in syria. Where is your care for justice and freedom and peace there?

The UK, France and the US now do some firweworks. Okay. If their tax payers let their leaders get away with this, it is not too juch of a concern to me. I just think this is a waste, and i wonder that they are doing it. A big mess like the geostrategical defeats after Vietnam or Iraq 03 will not follow this. Its only a waste of tax money.

Next is Russia's moves.

P.S. And while I think of it, no confrontation with Russian troops took place. But we can take it as granted that all really valuable, decisive targets in syria are being protected by either Russian weapon defences, or just Russian presence, or both. And that means that no really important targets can have been hit last night. Which puts the whole operation into doubt again: symbolical theatre thunder. - Looks like a display not of Western resolve, but the explicit lack of it. And this sends defintely a message of weakness, not strength or determination.

Yea. We've seen this movie before. I'd bet the Russians were given a heads up. I am reminded of Dylans' Masters Of War. War is good for business.

Trump campaigned against this very thing. I am also amazed at how the American media, both left and right, and the talking heads experts almost unanimously demanded action.

A German commentator adds to my thoughts above that Assad probnaly explciitly wnated to dmeonstrate to the Arab world the indifference and lacking reliability of the West and its weak military actions, whereas the Russian appear to stay unmived, resolute, reliable. The West already has silently accepted Iranian and Russian dominance over Syria, and its selfrestraint and self-limiting to just fight IS has left Assad free to focus all his wrath on killing the opposition.

Weakness never give sbirth to strength. The west in syria has demostrated htis truth once again. The monsterous acts by Assad have been made possible bo the West'S stipid appelaing, followed by completely undetermined , weak action. The west shoud bag estayed out from all beginning on, and should have limited itself to just bomb IS all over the region - without remorse. The caring, cautuous acting instead, already started under Obama, has helped tremedously to massively damage the reputation of the West in the whole region.

If you do war, do it in full, and go all the way. Ther eis no such thing as " a little bit of war, but not too much". That is infantile Quatsch.

This isn't over, it's just getting started.

Have you noticed that right especially secretary Mattis, former USMC general himself, has chosen to be far more sober and cautious in his wordings of the past nights events than May or Trump? ;)


Maybe there will be more theatre thunder, yes. But that it will be more than relatively harmless stage thunder I do not believe before it happens. The Russians' mere presence protects the real important assets and high value targets, and then there is the Russian. Your president will not touch the Russians. He will lambast and roar and shout and of course tweet and try to give the impression to be insane and unpredictable and too dangerous not to leave him his will. And thats it. The Russians simply will sit it out, and your forces will not strike targets where Russians are present.

That a struck target has had no Russian presence, is almost evidence that it was relatively unimportant. And I wonder to what degree the presence of Iranians has the same effect of protecting a potential target.

I think the Israelis understand this better than the UK, France or the US. They struck, did not ask, did not care for Russians present or not, they did it and did not make any words about it. Period.

Russia also causes a deep rift amongst the EU again. Military EU corps? Germany stays out, many others as well. If anything this operation shows what a paper tiger the EU is, despite all its high-flying plans and the Euroicorps and whatever there is or shall be.

Fireworks show in the night club it all is, that simple. Get your drinks fresh and cold, enjoy the show, and have a good time. The guilty-feeling conscience has been soothed with fatastic alibi action.

Merkel says Germany will not join any military action. She also says that Germany fully supports the military intervention. So einen Spagat muß man erst mal hinkriegen! LOL

This comment probably nails it.

https://translate.google.com/transla...tml&edit-text=