I get the feeling that Turkey would do absolutely all it can to prevent there being a Kurdish state anywhere.
It was a message plain and simple, the United States won't stand for the bull Bane Shift anymore, same concept of putting boats near North Korea. It doesn't seem to me like Assad did it though, as many people above said it doesn't make sense for him to do it. The news now is trying to spin it being Russia's fault and how they supported it yada yada yada. If trump starts Bane Shift with Russia he will face massive backlash from his supporters. I'm glad we bombed it, at the same time I think a more thorough investigation was in order first.
I'm a trump supporter, I think he did the right thing if it was indeed Assad. I would have liked to see a bit of evidence first though, and it just seems that all political outlets are now spinning this to be Russia's fault when we were close to bringing Russia to the peace table. If I wanted war with Russia I would have voted for Hilary not trump. All in all I get why it was done, at the same time no Americans were killed and it wasn't on our soil. Trump also said we were done being the world police, lets hope this gets Russia and Assad open to some talks.
if someone wanted to trigger a war with Russia it would be an incident involving the Ukraine, not Syria. We warned Russia about an hour before the strike. And took out only Syrian assets. There is NO danger of a war between Russia and the US. Let them move their ships where they like, its all for show. Unlike when the US moves its ships. That's another reason why we bombed the airbase. No more saber rattling. The saber is out. We didn't hit Syria because it killed its own citizens or killed children. both things have happened before in a lot of places. But when weapons are used that can mess with us, we take notice. So North Korea and Iran developing nuclear capability WILL be stopped. Dictators playing with chemical weapons WILL be stopped. with the UN or without them.
If the US was content to leave it at the missile strike, sure, but Trump's administration is now pushing to oust Assad, and preparing to put boots on the ground to deal with him (and ISIS, I would hope, but you never know for sure). Russia has made statements that it will respond with force if the US takes further action against Syria, it's current ally. This could easily escalate further. While there's a decent chance it won't mind you, saying that there is "no danger" of a war with Russia is shortsighted at best. I would agree however that this gas attack incident, even if it is a false flag, was unlikely designed to start a war between Russia and the US... at least by itself. But also keep in mind that ISIS (the other primary suspect in this incident) has little to no real presence in the Ukraine; and that letting off a gas attack in Ukraine, even if they had the resources, would not be as easily or prematurely attributed to any given party, as it seems it has been in this case.
Kurds are nothing more than squatting hobos who used to live in Iran hundreds of years ago. US is exploiting the kurds as well.
I think we all agree that if the chemical attack came from the airbase then bombing it was right. all we know is the air attack imediatly preceding the release of the chemicals came from the airbase. I would like to note however that it doesn't make sense to do any crime UNLESS you think you will get away with it. As an experienced liar it not making sense just does not hold up as an argument to me.
some mountains are easier to climb up on than down off of. the US just hasn't found a way to get down without also going SPLAT against the ground.
you missed the point I think. preventing radical countries from getting nuclear weapons is self defense. preventing chemical weapons from being proliferated keeps terrorists from eventually getting chemical weapons. its an act of self defense. but if you want to think we are doing it for the good of the world.... ok.
I think there is a difference between the US policing a conflict in this sense, where the goals are limited to punishing the use of horrible banned weapons with a one off airstrike on a military target, which is closer to what 'policing' means to me. And 'policing' which involves the invasion of countries and sustained airstrikes on whatever dictator they have decided they don't like today. Which, in the past, hasn't had much to do with international law, it is just pursuing strategic objectives just like any other war.
I mean, that's how Iraq was justified and look where we are now. My issue, with this ideally fine course of action, is that it's very hard to maintain that line. It relies on a lot of different factors and definitions. Radical, terrorist, threat, etc. I'm sure that to some China is that radical threat. Or Germany. Or the US. If anything, it should be a combined effort with NATO. I don't like the idea of the US going in on the Middle East with a carte blanche like this.
https://www.infowars.com/donald-trump-is-an-international-law-breaker/ I know, I know, Infowars, and un-sourced as well (anonymous author, really) which is extra unusual and questionable... however, it brings up some interesting lines of inquiry: The source states specific things: 1. That the strike was aimed at a known ISIS weapons depot, meaning, rather than a false flag, it could be a case of mistaking what actually happened. The author alleges that the depot thought to contain explosives instead contained (non-Sarin) chemicals, which vaporized and drifted with the wind, thus causing the deaths. 2. That the "proof" of it not being Sarin is that the first responders did not have adequate protection from Sarin, and would now be dead if it were. I have no information on this, if anyone else can find video/reliable information on whether or not they had protection (gloves and such) that would help to confirm/dispel this allegation, which is important because it makes the first allegation much more important. 3. The author alleges US intelligence agencies were informed prior to the air strike of it's happening, including the detail that it was a suspected weapons depot. This would imply that Trump either did not receive accurate intelligence from those that brief him (meaning they lied to him or he acted prior to such briefings) and/or that Trump willfully ignored accurate briefings which would cast doubt on Assad's guilt (and in theory prompt further investigation). Those are the statements which stick out to me, along with the implied promise that this information will become publicly verified over time. I'm very curious how this will turn out.
So Iraq wasn't a threat when we invaded ? 1990 Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world, that was the size of Spain, Italy, France, and Britain combined, they had chemical weapons, biological weapons and were working on atomic bombs. If you don't think Iraq was a legitimate threat with everything they had already then you are mistaken. Combined effort with NATO, hahahahaha. If the United States waited for NATO, we'd still be waiting for the go ahead a month from now and probably bomb whatever country they feel like that week. NATO needs to be gone, it isn't everyone working together anymore, it is a broken system primarily propped up by the United States military while NATO allies watche from the sidelines as usual. Let me know the last time Greece, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, Iceland, Luxembourg did anything in war times to help the United States. It's so funny everyone from Europe says well NATO should have been involved, your the same people that say why did the United States drag us into another war yada yada yada. The United States is doing what it does best, and that's putting dictators in there place while not sitting on our hands with our thumbs up our asses like most of our allies. The United States doesn't need to consult NATO every time we do something as other countries fear the United States not Portugal or anyone else that is a part of NATO.
You know they had those Chem and Bio weapons because we (well, "our" intelligence agencies and military complexes) gave/sold them to Iraq after we put Saddam into power right?
ummm....the chemical weapons were never found, their was no evidence of nuclear weapons after attacking. the us had defeated iraq in 21 days, the opposing side wasn't even capable of mustering anything resembling a resistance. to date 4800 ish american soldiers have died in iraq to their 7+million the american armed forces influence is exponentially larger then the rest of the worlds combined, this is to say you have more bases around the world then any other country, capable of attacking just about anywhere at a moments notice. they have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet multiple times over in the hands of donald trump. America has more aircraft carriers in service then all other nations combined. you literally have the strongest most well funded army in the world by ridiculous margins and still want to cut funding from your educations for more guns and want to talk about iraq's piddling excuse for an army?
I thought it was Al-Nusra? regardless the Syrian goverment claims to never have used chemical weapons despite several attacks using Sarin and chlorine taking place before and after the disarmament process of said chemical warfare agents. so who is dropping chemicals on towns for the last 4 years, since you know... apparently it wasn't them because they said so? the fact that both rebel and goverment forces report a bomber type that is unable to carry out chemical weapons attacks with the equipment available might be the best clue to it having been something from an attacked depot. but of course those reports can be wrong.
