President Donald J. Trump

[Kidnostad3]

Well I'm glad you cleared that up. Some may have thought back in 2013 that Trump was simply tweeting shit on a topic he had neither interest nor expertise in, and spewed out his many tweets simply to try and make himself look some kind of statesman. Naturally, in 2013, the Russians were only just getting started and needed to get their stuff in place without any possible hinderance.

Now that Trump is POTUS, he still knows fuck all, has no interest but finds time to blame his predecessor because he didn't send troops etc into Syria, just like Trump said he shouldn't in 2013.

And the carnage back then was the same as now. Just that Putin (Trump's buddy) has had time to get his bombers to kill more civilians, with no end in sight.

If memory serves Obama was the President and declined to act after his red line was crossed.  Do you think Trump's tweets influenced Obama's decision to punt the ball instead of taking action?  Wow, even then Trump must have had some serious juice. 

[Yorkshire pud]

That is a possibility and we'll have to see how this plays out.  In either case it's just another crime against humanity in a war that has gone on far too  long.  If Obama had taken decisive action when the red line that he painted was first crossed in Aug 2013 instead of punting the ball to Congress,  many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't be having this conversation today. 

And congress wanted non of it. Nor did Trump at the time. But now Trump is saying Obama should have gone in. So which is it?

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

Now we have Russian troops on the ground in Syria at the same time U.S. troops are operating there which is inherently a high risk situation that could lead to a shooting war between the two major powers with a very real potential for escalation to a nuclear exchange.

Yep. Or with NK/China. Still the consumate statesman is in office, so nothing to worry about. He got a bigger crowd. Period.

[smccomas69]

That is a possibility and we'll have to see how this plays out.  In either case it's just another crime against humanity in a war that has gone on far too  long.  If Obama had taken decisive action when the red line that he painted was first crossed in Aug 2013 instead of punting the ball to Congress,  many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't be having this conversation today. 

Obama had all the authority he needed to initiate action under The Warpoowers Act but he did nothing and after a long delay submitted an Authorization to Use Force Bill to Congress that was sure to get bogged down in political wrangling and that is exactly what happened.  In the meantime the Russians had intervened by brokering a deal wherein Syria would surrender it's chemical weapons and associated manufacturing capabilities.  This eliminated the impetus for Congress to act on the Bill and let both Obama and Congress of the hook.  However, Russia involving itself in the conflict as an advocate for the Assad Regime drastically changed the calculus for U.S. intervention and the opportunity to bring the fighting to an end was lost. 

Now we have Russian troops on the ground in Syria at the same time U.S. troops are operating there which is inherently a high risk situation that could lead to a shooting war between the two major powers with a very real potential for escalation to a nuclear exchange.

Here is the deal with the "red line" it would appear, after the fact Assad was not responsible this was in 2013. Now the Obama admin wanted to go full on Libya and I am certain Syria would have turned on the same. Additional foot hold for ISIS and their ilk. As far as Syria is concerned I agree with the Russian's leave Assad alone, he may not be the nicest guy you do not see him screaming death to america. He is not a radical Islamist but I guarantee if he is toppled we will not like who replaces him.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/   

[Juan]

My Jordanian and Syrian friends say the best thing we can do is keep out of it.

[starrmtn001]

President Trump Holds Press Conference with Jordan's King Abdullah II.  4.5.17.


https://youtu.be/0S_il1acs2w

[starrmtn001]

Assessing the Iran Deal.  4.5.17.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6A1_GG6WpM

[Kidnostad3]

And congress wanted non of it. Nor did Trump at the time. But now Trump is saying Obama should have gone in. So which is it?

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

Yep. Or with NK/China. Still the consumate statesman is in office, so nothing to worry about. He got a bigger crowd. Period.

WHAT DO NK AND CHINA HAVE TO DO WITH SYRIA?  LET'S STICK TO THE SUBJECT AS DIFFICULT AS THAT MAY BE FOR YOU.

I REPEAT, OBAMA DREW A LINE IN THE SAND AND DID NOTHING WHEN IT WAS CROSSED.  SIX MONTHS LATER HE SUBMITTED THE AUMF BILL TO CONGRESS THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROP TO DEFLECT VALID CRITICISM OF HIS FAILURE TO KEEP HIS WORD VIS-A-VIS THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY COMBATANtS IN SYRIA. OBAMA'S FAILURE TO ACT DECISIVELY AND CONTINUED DITHERING ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICA ALONG WITH ANY WILLING ARAB ALLIES TO SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENE TO STOP THE CARNAGE IN SYRIA.  DONALD TRUMP WAS PLAYING GOLF AND BUILDING HOTELS WHEN ALL THIS WAS GOING ON.  YOUR BELIEF THAT TRUMP IS AN ASSHOLE AND THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS THAT SEEM TO GIVE YOU COMFORT DON'T CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS.  THIS IS A CLUSTER FUCK CREATED BY OBAMA NOT TRUMP. 

[Yorkshire pud]

WHAT DO NK AND CHINA HAVE TO DO WITH SYRIA?  LET'S STICK TO THE SUBJECT AS DIFFICULT AS THAT MAY BE FOR YOU.

Either/or scenario. Go into Syria and risk conflict with Russia. Be a dick with China over NK, and risk conflict with China. Or both?

I REPEAT, OBAMA DREW A LINE IN THE SAND AND DID NOTHING WHEN IT WAS CROSSED.  SIX MONTHS LATER HE SUBMITTED THE AUMF BILL TO CONGRESS THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROP TO DEFLECT VALID CRITICISM OF HIS FAILURE TO KEEP HIS WORD VIS-A-VIS THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY COMBATANtS IN SYRIA. OBAMA'S FAILURE TO ACT DECISIVELY AND CONTINUED DITHERING ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICA ALONG WITH ANY WILLING ARAB ALLIES TO SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENE TO STOP THE CARNAGE IN SYRIA.  DONALD TRUMP WAS PLAYING GOLF AND BUILDING HOTELS WHEN ALL THIS WAS GOING ON.  YOUR BELIEF THAT TRUMP IS AN ASSHOLE AND THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS THAT SEEM TO GIVE YOU COMFORT DON'T CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS.  THIS IS A CLUSTER FUCK CREATED BY OBAMA NOT TRUMP.

What should Obama have done? He had no support to go in from anyone. The red line bs was stupid I agree, but he walked into that without first knowing he'd be given the support.
The point is, Trump TODAY is sending US troops into Syria to undertake a mission he is basically against. And he's still Putin's bitch.

[Kidnostad3]

My Jordanian and Syrian friends say the best thing we can do is keep out of it.

Interesting.  I guess your friends can live with the continued gassing of civilians. That's very tolerant of them.

[Kidnostad3]

Either/or scenario. Go into Syria and risk conflict with Russia. Be a dick with China over NK, and risk conflict with China. Or both?

What should Obama have done? He had no support to go in from anyone. The red line bs was stupid I agree, but he walked into that without first knowing he'd be given the support.
The point is, Trump TODAY is sending US troops into Syria to undertake a mission he is basically against. And he's still Putin's bitch.

Good leader's are able to garner support for doing the right thing.  Obama made no effort whatsoever to do that.  He couldn't be bothered.

[Yorkshire pud]

Good leader's are able to garner support for doing the right thing.  Obama made no effort whatsoever to do that.  He couldn't be bothered.

Oh please! He recognised it was a hiding to nothing. Damned if he went in, damned if he didn't. Trump is in a worse state because he doesn't have the slightest grasp of foreign affairs; If he did, he wouldn't have made his son in law the head of (name the department). He's there because he's family, no more. Qualification is very secondary to loyalty in Trumpworld. He couldn't abide it if the most qualified told him bad news that he was responsible for, so he blames someone else.

But back to the question: should Obama have gone into Syria in 2013? 

[Dr. MD MD]

Interesting.  I guess your friends can live with the continued gassing of civilians. That's very tolerant of them.

The question is who's really gassing them because we've heard Assad before and it turned out to be not true. Listening to Trump mention all the little babies reminds me of this, which was also not true:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskB9-nAPKc

[Kidnostad3]

The question is who's really gassing them because we've heard Assad before and it turned out to be not true. Listening to Trump mention all the little babies reminds me of this, which was also not true:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YskB9-nAPKc

Point taken.  One would expect that any action contemplated would be preceeded by positive identification of the perpetrator of the chemical attack.  However, if no one is to be believed or trusted to make that determination, where does that leave us?

[mikuthing01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j5feF_S1gU

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j5feF_S1gU

Yep, couldn't agree more. I can't shake the feelz that we're being played, players. 

[Dr. MD MD]

McCain's spouting off on Fox right now about no-fly zones again.  :

GET OFF THE FUCKING STAGE, YOU CRAZY OLD STOOGE OF ISRAEL!!! 

And what's the difference between this UN ambassador and the last?! Hair color. That's it.  :

[Dr. MD MD]

I just watched Lou Dobbs try to bitch slap some common sense into O'Reilly. That was fun. O'Reilly's such a committed tool of the military industrial complex that he was like Come on! Let's bomb Syria! It's only a one day sortie.  :

Yeah, let's send him on that sortie! 

[Kidnostad3]

It seems that some of you have an opinion on the chemical attack in Syria but I have yet to hear how you think it should be responded to or not responded to.  Let's leave personalities and blame out of it  and deal with the situation at hand.  I'll kick it off:

Based on the what seems to be the case at the moment, the serín gas was delivered by a military aircraft.  Since the various factions fighting against Assad are not known to have an Air Force, the only ones flying in that area are the Government of Syria, Russians an maybe Americans.  Assuming that it was not some sort of CIA false flag operation and that the Russians have nothing to gain by gassing civilians, we are left with the high probability that the Syrian Government is responsible for the attack.  Assuming that this is ascertained with a high degree of certainty, as a first step I would impose a no-fly zone and make it clear that if they fly, they die.  I would ask certain Arab and European powers to participate in enforcement of the no-fly zone.  I would also make sure that the Russians understand  that they are safe to fly unless they decide to use chemical weapons.  Any thoughts?

[Dr. MD MD]

It seems that some of you have an opinion on the chemical attack in Syria but I have yet to hear how you think it should be responded to or not responded to.  Let's leave personalities and blame out of it  and deal with the situation at hand.  I'll kick it off:

Based on the what seems to be the case at the moment,  the serín gas was delivered by a military aircraft.  Since the various factions fighting against Assad are not known to have an Air Force, the only ones flying in that area are the Government of Syria, Russians an maybe Americans.  Assuming that it was not some sort of CIA false flag operation and that the Russians have nothing to gain by gassing civilians we are left with the high probability that the Syrian Government is responsible for the attack. 
Assuming that is ascertained with a high degree of certainty, as a first step I would impose a no-fly zone and make it clear that if they fly, they die.  I would make sure the Russians understand  that they are safe to fly unless they decide to use chemical weapons.  I would ask certain Arab and European powers to participate.  Any thoughts?

From Assad's perspective that makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he do that if he was dealing with a new US admin that wanted to deal with the Russians?! No, this is pretty transparent in spite of the attempted obfuscation. McCain et al and Israel want war and are pushing hard for it now. They'd kill any baby to get us into another war.  :

Also, we know they have drones now, so there's that to consider too.

[Kidnostad3]

From Assad's perspective that makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he do that if he was dealing with a new US admin that wanted to deal with the Russians?! No, this is pretty transparent in spite of the attempted obfuscation. McCain et al and Israel want war and are pushing hard for it now. They'd kill any baby to get us into another war.  :

Point taken.  What would it take to convince you that Assad was responsible?

[Dr. MD MD]

Point taken.  What would it take to convince you that Assad was responsible?

Some real evidence by credible people.

[Kidnostad3]

Some real evidence by credible people.

If it were found that the rebels were responsible what would you do?

[GravitySucks]

It seems that some of you have an opinion on the chemical attack in Syria but I have yet to hear how you think it should be responded to or not responded to.  Let's leave personalities and blame out of it  and deal with the situation at hand.  I'll kick it off:

Based on the what seems to be the case at the moment, the serín gas was delivered by a military aircraft.  Since the various factions fighting against Assad are not known to have an Air Force, the only ones flying in that area are the Government of Syria, Russians an maybe Americans.  Assuming that it was not some sort of CIA false flag operation and that the Russians have nothing to gain by gassing civilians, we are left with the high probability that the Syrian Government is responsible for the attack.  Assuming that this is ascertained with a high degree of certainty, as a first step I would impose a no-fly zone and make it clear that if they fly, they die.  I would ask certain Arab and European powers to participate in enforcement of the no-fly zone.  I would also make sure that the Russians understand  that they are safe to fly unless they decide to use chemical weapons.  Any thoughts?

I obviously don't know the details, but I postulate that there may have been some sarin gas artillery shells stored in a location that was hit by a Russian, Syrian or US coalition air strike. That makes more sense than any of the major powers delivering chemical weapons with a fighter bomber.

[Dr. MD MD]

Now former UN ambassador and old warhawk, John Bolton is on Fox crying for war with Syria. They really have no other act and if we all fall for this we deserve the world assholes like this will serve up to us.  :

[Dr. MD MD]

If it were found that the rebels were responsible what would you do?

Dobbs had the best suggestion I've heard: Trump needs to have a conference with China and Russia to truly sort this out. Anything else is just more of the same and how's that worked so far?

[Kidnostad3]

I obviously don't know the details, but I postulate that there may have been some sarin gas artillery shells stored in a location that was hit by a Russian, Syrian or US coalition air strike. That makes more sense than any of the moai or powers delivering chemical weapons with a fighter bomber.

If artilliary shells were hit causing the release of gas, wouldn't that mean that the rebels own them. I thought that they were a binary weapon that as a safety measure an electromechanical sequence must run before the shells are armed.  Beyond that, if the rebels had the gas on hand, why wouldn't they simply deploy it and cover the release with an explosion.  To me that is a more plausible scenario.

[GravitySucks]

If artilliary shells were hit causing the release of gas, wouldn't that mean that the rebels own them. I thought that they were a binary weapon that as a safety measure an electromechanical sequence must run before the shells are armed.  Beyond that, if the rebels had the gas on hand, why wouldn't they simply deploy it and cover the release with an explosion.  To me that is a more plausible scenario.

I only worked with nukes so I can't comment on how the artillery shells work but I seem to remember some leaks being caused by corrosion in shells that were poorly stored.

I just think it was more likely that it was released because of an air strike and not delivered by an air strike.

They are still finding shells buried in Iraq in spite of the claims that no WMDs were found there. I am sure the rebels have some stockpiles especially of mustard gas.

[Kidnostad3]

Dobbs had the best suggestion I've heard: Trump needs to have a conference with China and Russia to truly sort this out. Anything else is just more of the same and how's that worked so far?

Good idea.  Of course he's meeting with Xi this weekend. 

[Kidnostad3]

I only worked with nukes so I can't comment on how the artillery shells work but I seem to remember some leaks being caused by corrosion in shells that were poorly stored.

I just think it was more likely that it was released because of an air strike and not delivered by an air strike.

Fair enough, but that being the case, how do we deal with rebels being in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Wouldn't that in itself argue for some sort of action. 

[Up All Night]

What I think is likely:

Soros-Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack in Syria

https://www.infowars.com/report-soros-linked-group-behind-chemical-attack-in-syria/