Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Onkel Neal]

Well, it's chemical weapons again, but this time we have a very different president.

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.

First reports has the Tomahawks coming from two Navy destroyers.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Well, it's chemical weapons again, but this time we have a very different president.

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



First reports has the Tomahawks coming from two Navy destroyers.

This attack will do little to hurt the Syrian Govt. As far as the attack on the civilian population including innocent children, it seems human life has little value anymore.

[Catfish]

So the USA has declared war to Syriah now.. what about the US troops stationed in Syriah?
59 Tomahawks ?! What kind of "airfield" was this?

[ikalugin]

Well that went to **** quickly. I guess we would have to tun in our bets if US intervenes on the ground and just keep the bases (and maybe a small puppet state in the coastal area?).

But I guess we atleast would be able to enjoy another show with a bucket of popcorn, seeing US getting stuck in Syria for a decade.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Well that went to **** quickly.

Sure did.

[Commander Wallace]

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their heads handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?


Edit. heads.

[Skybird]

As long as no Russians get killed in scores and no Western ground troops get in, I'm fine with the going.

But if ever a bunker gets hit with sleeping Russian troops in it and dozens dead, then it is time to ring red alert.

And such stuff can happen in war.

If Iranians get hit, they will retaliate not in Syria, but by other means, somewhere, sometime... But then, they sell global terrorism anyway, so who cares.

The target airbase looks impressive now. Kleinholz in Streichholzlänge.

Quite ironic.
First Trump sheds some badly acted crocodile tears about the children killed in the chem attack, then he orders a strike that gets a handful of children killed as well.

I wonder how these collateral casualties were possible when the targets where ammunition and aircraft shelters?
(if the claims about the civilian casualties are true)

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

Just like the poor showing of Russia in Afghanistan where they got their hands handed to them from 1979 to 1989 ?

I guess you could try to compare Iraq to Afghanistan but then:
- there was no interference by major powers in Iraq.
- Pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan worked after Soviets left as long as it was supplied. Compare and contrast with what happened in Iraq with ISIS.

[Skybird]

Trump's quick decision to strike Assad's forces came nearly three-and-a-half years after President Barack Obama threatened military action after hundreds were killed in a chemical attack in a Damascus suburb.


Obama declared a "red line" and was posed to strike Assad's forces before reversing course, opening him to criticism that he did not enforce his red lines and emboldened US opponents.

http://www.dw.com/en/us-launches-cru...ria/a-38332229

[Skybird]

What remains to be seen, however, is whether this was just a singular event, a PR missile, so to speak, or indicates a lasting change in Trumpian policies. Because in principle he is not interested in the region and Syria.

[Onkel Neal]

My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

My question is: I thought there was a deal where the Russians ensured this would not happen again.

You mean chemical weapons wise?

We promised that Assad would be disarmed under UN control, and we delivered. Either UN screwed up or it wasnt Assad.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

You mean chemical weapons wise?

We promised that Assad would be disarmed under UN control, and we delivered. Either UN screwed up or it wasnt Assad.

And of course Assad has never used chemical weapons on his own people before ? Typical, use chemical weapons and then blame someone else.

Where did Assad get his chemical munitions ?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

And of course Assad has never used chemical weapons on his own people before ? Typical, use chemical weapons and then blame someone else.

Where did Assad get his chemical munitions ?

You didnt read my post, did you?

As I have said either UN screwed up and did not get Assad to comply with the chemical weapons ban treaty for example during their inspections, or it wasn't Assad. Now both are possible and it is too early to tell which one was the case. What we can tell is that the US response was rash.

But yes, if it wasn't Assad it would be typical of the 3rd party (say the desperate rebels) to use the weapons and then blame the demonised Assad.