Cold War II: The Donald warns Russia of missile strike in Syria
 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43727829

Lee Child writes the Jack Reacher novels. In one of them he describes his hero as somebody who does not like boxing as a sports. Because, translated from the German version of the book "Trouble", "padded gloves and a prohibition of deep hits had no place in Reacher's world".

Aiming the strikes such that they do not cause havoc on Russian troop accumulations should be enough. Explicitly warning the intended target area of an incoming strike has no place in my kind of thinking at least. Do it or don't. But dont make those many words. And do not help your target to escape your blows.

To me, such a strike is still just a reassuring about one's own bad conscience, but it does not mean to intervene in strength and bring a regime change to the place, and war criminals being held responsible, and risking a major war with Russia. America wants to reassure itself that it reacted to something its ethics label as evil. And more it probably does not plan to do.

This strike is sombolic policy once again, most likely. We should save the (American) tax money of "ours", stop supporting the "rebels" (which in no way are friends of the West, btw, but remain to be Islmaic fundamentalists), and by this help to cut the conflict time short. We should do this since we will continue to not wanting to get engaged in syria in all seriousness. So why this theatre act now? Why doing stupid acts that extend the war - and the misery of the civilian population?

"Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!"

The Donald forgot to tell the exact time and place though.


I still wonder.. if it is so obvious that one man like Assad is responsible for violating international law and using 'forbidden' weapons, why kill his people and ruin the country and infrastructure for decades to come, instead of him? If those weapons and spooks are that smart...

See: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=4541

:smug:

BTW, according to this BBC article from yesterday, Douma is controlled by a group calling themselves Jaysh al-Islam. Said group has been accused of using chemical weapons in 2016 in Aleppo.

And as Schroeder pointed out in the US politics thread, it doesn't make much sense for Russia/Assad to do it at this point.

https://i.imgur.com/8Carce5.jpg

Now, I'm not saying it was them, nor am I saying that it wasn't Russia/Assad, but perhaps it would be wise to investigate it a bit before hitting the 'launch' button. :hmmm:

As a humanitarian I don't like this eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth approach.

They say over five hundred innocent people were affected by this chemical attack ...

Why not help them with air drop aid and EMT's and air dropped vehicles and paratroopers
and Delta Force and Seal team troops and shoot down any helicopters or Syrian planes
that disagree with our presence in their country.

If the war escalated then bring in the heavy bombers and cruise missiles.

All we did last time is cause some holes in the runway and damaged one hanger that Russian planes use to be in, but took off after a warning.

I see on the news that the Syrian army is evacuating all suspected targets ... this a good thing and funny at the same time :yep:

3-4 days back I said this to a friend

He had written a post about USA threaten to strike Syria

I wrote

If Russia decide to intervene and try to take down the tomahawks or whatever USA have planned to send against Assad, it could be real nasty, ´cause if Russia does this, then they have chosen to take active part on Syrian side against USA and its allied.

Markus

I'm not on the inside looking out, but I think Russia has already promised to do this and that they will not back down.

The Russians see this as a real testing opportunity to see if they can do well in this conflict in order to protect the mother land in a full scale war.

as in other recent skirmishes the USA has allies that agree the use of chemical weapons on your own population is wrong :yep:

The only thing that bothers me is who did it and why ... could it be a move to keep American armed forces in Syria? Like others have said why Syria did this doesn't add up. Yet it was missile and it was WMD chemical attack.

I don't think the news tomorrow is going to be good :o

I say they shall investigate it fully before sending those missiles against Assad.

Some hours ago some political expert said on Danish TV
There is not much Russia can do to prevent USA and its allied to strike Syria
He doubted Putin really wanted to take on the entire USA and the west to protect Assad. He think it all have to do with these Russian bases in Syria. Russia is not interested in losing those.

Markus

They already do this since very long time, since their committment to Syria began. When was that? Several years back. Before the Russians intervened in strength, Assad was loosing, I recall I posted that I could not imagine that Assad would hold out much longer than just a couple of months now, and that the war is as good as over. That was before the Russians moved in. the Russians keep Assad going and so extend the war. Now the West helpsmout occaisonally the opposition, and by that also extend the war. Russia has clearly defined interests, the Wetsenr interest I only see in preventing Iran and Hezbollah establishing a bridgehead in Syria. strangely, that almost never gets considered in public debate over here. Iran is our friend, it seems. And Israel has no real friends in Europe.

Assad isn the most likela candidate, but I agree, he is not the only candidate out there. Could be Iran via Hezbollah. Could be any of the "pro-Western" "allied" LOL rebel factions (most of them being radical Islamists themselves). Could even be Turkey, though chances for that I consider to be extremely slim.

I rule out Israel, and Western states. A Kurdish faction I see as a very unlikely candidate, but theoretically possible.

Would the West care if those 500 gassed people would have been killed over the going of one or two weeks, in artillery explosions or more barrel bombs dropped from Syrian or Russian helicopters?

Yes they have chosen to help Assad in this civil war

But as far I know they didn't try to "kill" the tomahawks USA fired against Syria last year, even though USA warned Russia they where coming.

This is what I'm trying to tell/mention/explain

Russia hasn't take an active position on Assad side against USA and its allied

With active I mean use SAM's, AAA and Fighterjets to kill the tomahawks or American and allied fighterjets(If They decide to use fighterjets in the attack against Syria)

Edit:
According to the news here, Prime minister May have given order to English subs, they shall be prepared to launch Tomahawks against Syria

Markus

Russia says they will sink ships, sink subs, shoot down aircraft. That's war.

Democrats pushing us into a war. :03: lmao

Isn't it always the democrats, leftists, liberals, snowflakes, students, gays, lesbians, hippies being responsible for all the baaaaad in the world :haha:


But in the moment it looks that Trump just made a U-turn, with his military "reaction within 48 hours" proclaimed on monday.

Now it is like "Trump says U.S. could help Russian economy."
https://www.firstpost.com/world/trum...s-4427933.html

Alzheimer? I'm serious.

Your link doesn't show me anything.

But I guess it is referring to this tweet by Trump:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...32798821568513

The tweet before that (an hour earlier) had a different tone:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...22625440747520