Breaking: US Attacks Syria

 

President Donald Trump announced military operations against Syria as a response to their use of chemical weapons last week. In a 9 pm ET national address Friday, Trump said that the US is working in conjunction with the United Kingdom and France to strike targets associated with the Assad regime.

From the Washington Post:

President Trump ordered a military attack against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Friday, joining allies Britain and France in launching missile strikes in retaliation for what Western nations said was the deliberate gassing of Syrian civilians.

The coordinated strike marked the second time in a year that Trump has used force against Assad, who U.S. officials believe has continued to test the West’s willingness to accept gruesome chemical attacks.

Trump announced the strikes in an address to the nation Friday evening. He said, “The purpose of our action tonight is to establish a strong deterrent” against the production and use of chemical weapons, describing the issue as vital to national security. Trump added that the U.S. is prepared “to sustain this response” until its aims are met.

Trump asked both Russia and Iran, both Assad backers, “what kind of nation wants to be associated” with mass murder and suggested that some day the U.S. might be able to g”et along” with both if they change their policies.

A Pentagon briefing has been scheduled for 10 pm ET Friday.

.

There are 92 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  1. Inactive

    About freakin’ time! What took so long?

    • #1
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:19 pm
    • 3 likes
  2. Member

    And on Friday the 13th, too.

    I see where the Russians moved some boats out of harm’s way, yesterday I think. I hope these nuked up guys are actually talking…. It is at times like this that a bit of “collusion” among the actors is a good thing.

    • #2
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:21 pm
    • 6 likes
  3. Podcaster

    “Wag the dog” comments in 3… 2… 1…

    • #3
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:39 pm
    • 6 likes
  4. Thatcher

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    About freakin’ time! What took so long?

    Gathering resources, putting together a coalition and making up a target list.

    • #4
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:40 pm
    • 3 likes
  5. Inactive

    Percival (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    About freakin’ time! What took so long?

    Gathering resource, putting together a coalition and making up a target list.

    All necessary activities.

    • #5
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:41 pm
    • 2 likes
  6. Inactive

    EJHill (View Comment):

    “Wag the dog” comments in 3… 2… 1…

    Such a bad movie.

    • #6
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:42 pm
    • Like
  7. Podcaster

    blood thirsty neocon: Such a bad movie.

    Even a worse attitude, that any American president would kill or put servicemen at risk for deflection of bad press. 

    • #7
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm
    • 4 likes
  8. Inactive

    What business is this of ours again?

    • #8
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:56 pm
    • 4 likes
  9. Member

    I’m conflicted on this. Gas attacks are obviously an atrocity, but is it enough of our business that we should engage militarily? I don’t know.

    But it occurs to me that Trump is enforcing the red line that Obama drew but didn’t have the guts to enforce. 80% of the people denouncing this in the coming days will be die hard Obama supporters.

    • #9
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:57 pm
    • 19 likes
  10. Member

    EJHill (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon: Such a bad movie.

    Even a worse attitude, that any American president would kill or put servicemen at risk for deflection of bad press.

    Yes. I used to ponder that if I had believed what was alleged about W (blood for corporate profits) I could not have carried on as blandly as his accusers did. They claimed to believe that they had an absolute traitor for President, and all it called for was talk, talk, joke, talk, sneer, talk…. 

    I couldn’t understand how they could STAND it.

     

    • #10
    • April 13, 2018 at 6:59 pm
    • 3 likes
  11. Inactive

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    • #11
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
    • 5 likes
  12. Thatcher

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    Putting the cost of using such weapons into the “way too expensive to mess with” category.

    • #12
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
    • 10 likes
  13. Inactive

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    • #13
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:01 pm
    • 4 likes
  14. Inactive

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    Again, do you have a better deterrence plan? 

    • #14
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:04 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Inactive

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    Again, do you have a better deterrence plan?

    Well if they are used against us: total destruction. 

    • #15
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:09 pm
    • 2 likes
  16. Thatcher

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    It has kept it pretty low for a century. That would include World War II. Both sides refrained from their use because of what they thought their opponents would do.

    • #16
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:09 pm
    • 5 likes
  17. Member

    It’s time to hear that we aren’t the “world’s policeman.”

    • #17
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:11 pm
    • 3 likes
  18. Thatcher

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    Again, do you have a better deterrence plan?

    Well if they are used against us: total destruction.

    If they are used at all, Uncle Sam and the Coalition of the Civilized might just totally lose their poop.

    • #18
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:16 pm
    • 4 likes
  19. Podcaster

    Libertarians: Trump is a nationalist and nationalism is bad.

    Also Libertarians: How is striking Syria in our national interest?

    • #19
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:54 pm
    • 6 likes
  20. Member

    Can we do enough damage against Syria for them to give up using chemical attacks?

    • #20
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:55 pm
    • 1 like
  21. Inactive

    I’ll say this: Jim Mattis makes me feel a lot better about it all. 

    • #21
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:55 pm
    • 8 likes
  22. Member

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    What business is this of ours again?

    There’s a 100 year international consensus against the use of chemical weapons. Do you have an alternative plan to prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future? I didn’t think so.

    Will this prevent future chemical attacks?

    Again, do you have a better deterrence plan?

    Well if they are used against us: total destruction.

    That’s not deterrence, that’s closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

    • #22
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:56 pm
    • 2 likes
  23. Inactive

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Libertarians: Trump is a nationalist and nationalism is bad.

    Also Libertarians: How is striking Syria in our national interest?

    I don’t see these as mutually exclusive questions. 

    • #23
    • April 13, 2018 at 7:56 pm
    • 3 likes
  24. Member

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Libertarians: Trump is a nationalist and nationalism is bad.

    Also Libertarians: How is striking Syria in our national interest?

    E.J., I think you’re over-simplifying things.

    Libertarians typically approach things like this: Individual > community > state > nation > “world community”. In that context, nationalism is less optimal than individualism, but is more optimal than internationalism. So the two statements you made are not mutually exclusive, depending on context.

    I’m not a Libertarian, but sympathize with enough if their ideals that I think I see where they’re coming from on some of this stuff, even when I ultimately disagree on an issue.

    • #24
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:03 pm
    • 4 likes
  25. Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Can we do enough damage against Syria for them to give up using chemical attacks?

    How much does it really matter? If the goal is to “prevent chemical weapons attacks in the future,” the target of the message being sent is all the tin-pot despots around the world that might be tempted to this, not just Assad. Remember that one of the results of us invading Iraq was that Gaddafi willingly, with great fanfare, gave up his WMD program, which apparently we didn’t even know he had at the time.

    • #25
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:10 pm
    • 11 likes
  26. Thatcher

    Doesn’t a president need a Congressional authorization to use force in this situation?

    • #26
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:18 pm
    • 3 likes
  27. Podcaster

    Gumby Mark: Doesn’t a president need a Congressional authorization to use force in this situation?

    That Congressional horse bolted the barn ages ago.

    • #27
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:32 pm
    • 5 likes
  28. Member

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Doesn’t a president need a Congressional authorization to use force in this situation?

    Mark, Mark, Mark.

    That horse is not only already out of the barn, but the barn has since been re-purposed as a bitchin’ loft apartment by an upwardly-mobile couple who are eager to partake of the locally-sourced, organic, grass-fed, free-range produce of the region.

    • #28
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:34 pm
    • 3 likes
  29. Member

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark: Doesn’t a president need a Congressional authorization to use force in this situation?

    That Congressional horse bolted the barn ages ago.

    Jinx, I owe you a Coke.

    • #29
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:37 pm
    • 2 likes
  30. Thatcher

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark: Doesn’t a president need a Congressional authorization to use force in this situation?

    That Congressional horse bolted the barn ages ago.

    Jinx, I owe you a Coke.

    Guess I’m just an old-fashioned guy.

    • #30
    • April 13, 2018 at 8:40 pm
    • 1 like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4