World reacts to new chemical weapon attack in Syria

[MomentsofSanity]

So far 58 people dead and hundreds injured in what is believed to be a Sarin gas attack in Syria. World leaders have been quick to condemn the attack.... except for one.

Since the attack occurred Trump has taken to Twitter to further the BS claims about Susan Rice and unmasking. Not a word about the attack that came days after the Trump admin made it publicly known that removing Assad is no longer a U.S. policy on the region.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...arin-gas-civilians-assad-rebels-a7665501.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That red line was crossed long ago without any recourse.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trump has a policy that like everything else he violates, that is to not announce US intentions in military situations. While we are not at war with Syria they certainly are not allies and are known to be focused on rebels at least as much as ISIS.

So Trump has apparently proved his point about not announcing policies regarding conflict which would result in adverse effects by violation his own principle with horrific results.

If people weren't dead this would be tragically comic.

 

[fskimospy]

That red line was crossed long ago without any recourse.

In your assessment why do you think that 'red line' hasn't been crossed much if at all in recent years until this time again?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In your assessment why do you think that 'red line' hasn't been crossed much if at all in recent years until this time again?

Because they were afraid to double-dog dare Obama?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because they were afraid to double-dog dare Obama?

Unless they missed out on Gaddafi, which I doubt, yes Obama would be a concern. It was Kerry and his gaffe that saved Assad from direct military action on the part of the US. Removing the pressure of possible strikes gave new freedom to Assad. Trump effectively gave him the green light by easing the very real fear Assad should have had based on actions of the Obama administration.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Unless they missed out on Gaddafi, which I doubt, yes Obama would be a concern. It was Kerry and his gaffe that saved Assad from direct military action on the part of the US. Removing the pressure of possible strikes gave new freedom to Assad. Trump effectively gave him the green light by easing the very real fear Assad should have had based on actions of the Obama administration.

So this is somehow Trump's fault. Got it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So this is somehow Trump's fault. Got it.

Yes it is and I'll go through it again.

Assad was concerned about being attacked by the Obama administration and was well merited as evidenced by what happened to Gaddafi. I am not in favor of regime change for several reasons, but they are immaterial. I also support the contention that it is generally unwise to say what one will or will not do in advance of strategic need. In this case don't tell Syria that we will or will not attack.

So Assad has concerns about US strikes but Trump announces to Assad that the pressure is off. Assad no longer has to worry about us and therefore does as he pleases, in this case gassing people. Yeah, that's Trumps failure to understand the dynamics of a situation. It should have been painfully obvious that if someone who cannot be trusted has limits you don't give them the all clear. Trump could have had a policy of reversing Obama's stated policy without blabbing it to a mass murderer.

"So this is somehow Trump's fault" is not sufficient rebuttal to the history of the parties involved and the results of actions which were then in place and the consequences of notifying an ally of Russia and known killer for political reasons.

Obama isn't in office, the Big Chair guy is responsible for what he does and undos and he is Trump.

 

[brycejones]

So this is somehow Trump's fault. Got it.

How long before you believe Trump owns US foreign policy?

 

[IronWing]

So this is somehow Trump's fault. Got it.

Assad and Trump are both Putin Pals so Assad probably figures a friend of a friend won't mess with him. Let's see if he's right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Assad and Trump are both Putin Pals so Assad probably figures a friend of a friend won't mess with him. Let's see if he's right.

Assad would be correct. Trump cannot announce that Assad is no longer under threat and then reverse his position as that would be an admission of error.

I see this as a great failing on the part of Trump's personality as a reasonably clever person or agency could manipulate him into a trap of Trump's own ego.

 

[VRAMdemon]

This is how Trump, will most likely handle foreign policy...

1. Suddenly notice that a long standing problem (which he doesn't really care about, and may be complicit in) has potential for political exploitation.

2. Start wildly exaggerating the concerns, while at the same time claiming with no factual support, that everyone who led before, has refused to act;

3. Propose an extreme and expensive "solution" which can't possible be carried out;

4. Posture and preen in the tumult of public and international outcry that follows, while actually doing nothing;

5. Wait and watch for any incidental action, or even just wait until someone more rational reassesses the "danger" and says it's not at bad as Trump previously said;

6. Declare that he has "solved" the problem through sheer force of personal will and cleverness.

7. "Discover" an NEW, long-standing concern that has political potential, and go back to step 1.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

For a strongman Trump is falling down hard when it comes to foreign leaders "respecting" him. They are testing him at every angle. Russia began new incursions in Eastern Ukraine right after inauguration. North Korea is speeding things up with missile tests and apparently any day nuke tests. Assad now has a green light, or it seems he believes he does. Iran doing more missile tests.

I remember him saying this wouldn't happen and that they would respect his authoritah!

 

[OutHouse]

so at least 5 gas attacks of which the UN Points the finger straight at Assad while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

 

[fskimospy]

so at least 5 gas attacks while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

I'm pretty sure that there was more than a peep on here and that plenty of liberals were criticizing Obama during that time.

So basically you're just making things up in your head and then calling other people crazy over them. Pretty ironic, wouldn't you agree?

 

[IronWing]

so at least 5 gas attacks of which the UN Points the finger straight at Assad while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

Meanwhile, Trump is President.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

so at least 5 gas attacks of which the UN Points the finger straight at Assad while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

Your thought on this is bu... bu... but Obama?

So Trump campaigned on maintaining Obama's foreign policy? Is that your argument? He's president now. He is the one driving the bus (ok clown car) now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

so at least 5 gas attacks of which the UN Points the finger straight at Assad while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

Actually I'm blaming Trump for giving tacit permission by his lack of forethought of consequences. Assad wasn't 100% contained, but now there's no "container" whatsoever.

 

[ivwshane]

so at least 5 gas attacks of which the UN Points the finger straight at Assad while Obama is in office and not a peep from you libs blaming Obama. lol you guys are bat shit crazy.

You mean like Obama asking for Congress to authorize the use of military force?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Funny how a military man has no fucking clue how that's supposed to work.

Even more ironic is that this piece of shit poster, outhouse, has the gall to complain about Obama when he was one of the biggest critics of Obama if Obama did anything in Syria.

as a vet of panama and kosovo i can tell you this. people die and those people had done nothing to the US to warrant a GBU-24, 15's dropped on their heads.

its nothing but posturing and if Obama attacks Syria not only is that a war crime but i will for the first time ever in my life stand on the street and protest.

im sick of our country being in a constant state of conflict. we are the most war mongering nation on this planet and its time for it to stop.

 

[Jaskalas]

You'd prefer these folks die by conventional bombs and bullets? Does the type of weapon really matter?

It's like you forgot there's a war where the death toll is nearly 500,000.
Just what are you expecting in Syria?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You mean like Obama asking for Congress to authorize the use of military force?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Funny how a military man has no fucking clue how that's supposed to work.

Even more ironic is that this piece of shit poster, outhouse, has the gall to complain about Obama when he was one of the biggest critics of Obama if Obama did anything in Syria.

That pretty funny and a key reason I objected to Hillary as a Dem candidate- no don't bring in Trump, I'm talking about Democrat options. Obama made gaffes, and he did have an itchy trigger finger before Kerry bumbled into a non-war option. But before anyone gets upset Obama was overall moderate compared to his peers in terms of aggression. When he left we didn't have any more major wars passed on than he got.

We could have done a lot worse. At least Obama only had one foolish line in the sand.

 

[woolfe9998]

You'd prefer these folks die by conventional bombs and bullets? Does the type of weapon really matter?

It's like you forgot there's a war where the death toll is nearly 500,000.
Just what are you expecting in Syria?

That's a fair point, but it makes me wonder why anyone would use such weapons. They have limited military value, and they create a lot of furor and international condemnation. Seems like a pretty foolish idea.

 

[brycejones]

You mean like Obama asking for Congress to authorize the use of military force?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Funny how a military man has no fucking clue how that's supposed to work.

Even more ironic is that this piece of shit poster, outhouse, has the gall to complain about Obama when he was one of the biggest critics of Obama if Obama did anything in Syria.

And shithouse takes another self imposed watermelon to the face.

 

[FIVR]

It was probably the Assad regime who did this. But, what can be done? The rebels have used the same tactics (poison gas) on the regime and the US either blamed Assad or had no comment when those things happen.


The Syrian regime has been subject to the worst terrorist attacks the world has ever seen for 10 years. It is not unexpected that they have resorted to gas either out of revenge or desperation. If 50 people blew up every week in D.C. like they do in Damascus you can bet our govt would be considering using VX or whatever means they could to fight back.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's a fair point, but it makes me wonder why anyone would use such weapons. They have limited military value, and they create a lot of furor and international condemnation. Seems like a pretty foolish idea.

It creates more fear than bullets. War is fought on many fronts and psychology has been one tool used for centuries. The message is "you won't just die you will suffer horrifically of you persist in your opposition". The fact that this attack dominates the news is proof that contention.