Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The irony is that some on the far right (and Slobodan?) are turning against him for betraying a(nother) key campaign promise, to stay out of the quagmire of the Middle East. Wanting to stay out of the Middle East is at least a principled strategy, even if American isolationism isn't what the world needs right now...

I've been, in principle, against aggressive regime change policies long before Trump. Especially by Americans who usually have no clue how the world works, yet try to model it in our own image. However, there is some distance between regime change and isolationism.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It is scary to think that it took years and numerous teams, resources, and sources, trying to determine if Iraq had WMD, and yet America got it wrong (deliberately or not). And here we have action taken within days?

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, eloquent criticism of the Trump's attack on Syria:

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35093130/prior-to-air-us-attack-hawaii-dems-hoped-to-avoid-military-action-in-syria

Or Bolivia's ambassador to the U.N.:

https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/

“I believe that we must absolutely remember these pictures and that we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was the motivation for an invasion,” he said. “After this invasion, there was 1 million deaths, and it launched a series of atrocities in that region. Could we talk about ISIS if that invasion had not taken place? Could we be talking about the series of horrendous attacks in various parts in the world had that invasion, this illegal invasion not taken place?”

[Alan Klein]

Just think about all the stuff he could do with more!

You raise some interesting points above, and there is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is appalling. But Trump has no strategy and these things tend to escalate...and does nothing for the ongoing misery of the Syrian people. If Trump was so appalled by the dead babies, why doesn't he let them emigrate to the US? Aren't all Syrians radical muslim terrorists?

I'd love for a Trump supporter to enumerate how America or American interests were threatened by Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's quite a different question vs. enumerating the benefits of a retaliation.

The irony is that some on the far right (and Slobodan?) are turning against him for betraying a(nother) key campaign promise, to stay out of the quagmire of the Middle East. Wanting to stay out of the Middle East is at least a principled strategy, even if American isolationism isn't what the world needs right now.

The sad reality is that this retaliation gives the Trump administration a break from the myriad other self-inflicted shit-storms buffeting them from all other directions...so for a die-hard Trump supporter this was a great week! But that's the problem with lemmings, they'll march right behind Trump as he leads them over a cliff.

Hopefully, Trump will stop with the missile attack.  He'll take advantage of all the other benefits I mentioned in my earlier post that are unrelated to Syria.  The missiles sent a great message to our allies and adversaries in the rest of the world  He shouldn't try to do more such as overthrowing Assad.  We learned our lesson when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

I agree there are some other terrible things that are happening.  There are I believe 7 million Syrian refugees.  How many should we take in?  What about refugees from other areas in the world?  America has always taken in refugees.  The question is how many?  Also, how many really want to come to America?  I would think most Syrians wish to stay in Syria or go back.  It's their country.  Also, while barrel bombs are almost as bad overall as chemical, any further interference from the US will mean we're getting involved with regime change with no objective in mind.  That will be a disaster just like in Iraq. 

Your point how America is not threatened by Assad's chemical bombs seems to put you on the America First side.  After all, are we really threatened by those militarized islands in the South China Sea or Russian adventures in the Ukraine and Crimea?  Can't rich Europe deal with Russia on their own?  Can't Vietnam, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc deal with China and North Korea.  Does anyone really expect Iran to come marching into Philadelphia anytime soon? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Believe everything, CNN BBC News and others tell you about Syria? Careful, you could be playing tricks on me. The Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett unmasks the massive disinformation with certain media to cover the events

https://www.facebook.com/esRTmedia/videos/1838370076445955/

More on the same here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-media-exposed-for-reporting-syria-misinformation-canadian-journalist-eva-bartlett/5580001

As I said, it is scary how easily people fall for Reichstag fires over and over again.

[Rob C]

Has anyone noticed that the V fingers after Paul's name, viewed from the side, are pretty much the Playboy Rabbit sign?

Perhaps old Heff's behind all of this, somehow. That would be neat! Playmates to battle! It would be one good excuse for being a war photographer - bringing Catch 22 straight back to mind.

Rob

[Alan Goldhammer]

For example? Give me an example of a terrorist act that was not connected by at least some logic with what the country was doing at that time?

I don't think I said that and it wasn't the point of the post.  Terrorist attacks arise out of dis-affectation on a number of levels.  The Columbine high school murders were not linked to what the US was doing at the time, nor were the Sandy Hook elementary school killings.  One might not consider these "terrorist" events, but they did evoke a great amount of terror.  The Oklahoma City federal building bombing was only tangential linked to what the US was doing at the time. 

[pegelli]

As I said, it is scary how easily people fall for Reichstag fires over and over again.

I'm totally with you Slobodan. I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack. Don't get me wrong, chemical weapons should not be used and whoever used them should be brought to justice. However in a hectic/chaotic scenario as Syria it's absolutely impossible to collect such evidence in a few days. So I think the US attack was premature and unjustified and am appalled by all the European leaders backing the attack.

[LesPalenik]

+1
If Assad used indeed chemical weapons to kill 80 civilians, he deserves a heavy punishment.
But we don't know if that can determined with any certainty. What we do know is that the Tomahawks added to the carnage -  so far the toll stands at 15 more dead civilians and 17 with heavy injuries.

[Farmer]

First off, we don't just have two destroyers. We have ships posted around the world.  Second, we would reposition forces including land and air as well as sea, as required.  Thirdly, we'll be able to count on Australia to fight with us.  Won't we?

So you agree with me - it will be more dangerous and more difficult because you will need a more substantial repositioning of forces which extends lines of supply and removes them from their current strategic positions.  Furthermore, your commentary appears to recognise that it would require more military assets because of the greater threat posed, and that would be a correct analysis.  As such, the strike on Syria does little to send a message to NK let alone China (and it wasn't designed to do that, so no negative connotations toward the administration from me in that regard).

Yes, I would expect that you would continue to receive support from Australia as an ally (as you did, diplomatically, with the Syrian strike).

So, you agree with me - that's good.

[Schewe]

https://www.facebook.com/esRTmedia/videos/1838370076445955/

More on the same here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-media-exposed-for-reporting-syria-misinformation-canadian-journalist-eva-bartlett/5580001

And be very careful to research your sources...you know the video is from RT Play en Español which is the Spanish Facebook version of RT Media which is Russian Television?

As for the Centre for Research on Globalization well, that might rank right up there either on the Truthfulness Factor. Journalistic Ethics and Norms: How legitimate is The Centre for Global Research? on Quora...

It is by no means an objectively reliable media source.  The articles, videos, and other media it puts forth are highly skewed and often factually inaccurate.

Some people have been quoting it as a legitimate source, but it has very strong ties to an organization known for churning out blatant propaganda.

The Centre for Research on Globalization, also known as the Centre for Global Research and Mondialisation.ca is a fascist/Kremlin-funded propaganda outlet that defames and slanders their targeted groups such as Jews, Ukrainians, the United States, and other western countries. 

So, what were you trying to point out with your post Slobodan?

Were you linking to RT Play en Español and an article on the web site of the Centre for Research on Globalization as being reliable information or fake news?

[Schewe]

I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that main-stream media has asked and been told "it's classified".

I'm pretty sure the US Air Force has Boeing E-3A 'Sentry' Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) aircraft in the air and can track take offs, bombing runs and landings with a great deal of accuracy. So it doesn't surprise me that the offending Syrian airport could be known and targeted with a high degree of confidence.

That's not to say I have a strong opinion about the missile attacks on the airport and the resulting casualties which are, of course, regrettable unless those killed were directly responsible for the Sarin attack.

I'm still in the wait and see frame of mind regarding any more involvement because  American-led intervention in Syria in the past have been pretty ineffective and may has caused more harm than good.

Anyway you look at it, the situation in Syria sucks and unless the USA could stomach another ground war, I doubt there's anything we can do militarily to solve the problem. I think the only solution is a diplomatic one that gets rid of the Assad administration but that has to be done in a manner that won't give ISIL a wedge into any subsequent government. And the politics in the country are so polarized and violent that peaceful governing seems years and years away.

But I don't see the rookie Trump diplomatic effort up to any such diplomacy. Trump has eviscerated the US State Department. Tillers still doesn't have a deputy and the brain drain of long time diplomats means that foreign policy is being decided by the likes of Trump, Tillerson, Kushner, Bannon, Miller and Mnuchin and Ross? Really? Mnuchin and Ross and Cohn are there to offer financial advice? I meant Trump did spend $59 million bucks in cruise missiles but did they need to be in the room?



All of this while China's Xi Jinping is cooling his heels but maybe that was a deft move by Trump and His Minions to teach China a lesson about what Trump might do to North Korea...

U.S. Strikes on Syria Put Xi in Tough Position for Trump Meeting


President Trump met with President Xi Jinping of China at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Friday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

BEIJING — The missiles were being prepared even before the two men finished dinner, disrupting the carefully choreographed proceedings.

The American attack on Syria on Thursday unraveled China’s well laid plans for a summit meeting that would present President Xi Jinping as a global leader on par with President Trump, at once stealing the spotlight from Mr. Xi and putting him in a difficult position: choosing between condoning the kind of unilateral military action that China has long opposed, or rebuking his host.

Mr. Xi’s dilemma was also acute because China has generally sided with Russia in defending Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and because it worries that Mr. Trump might be prepared to order a similar strike on North Korea, Chinese and Western analysts said.

So, who here thinks Trump is that smart?

[Alan Klein]

So you agree with me - it will be more dangerous and more difficult because you will need a more substantial repositioning of forces which extends lines of supply and removes them from their current strategic positions.  Furthermore, your commentary appears to recognise that it would require more military assets because of the greater threat posed, and that would be a correct analysis.  As such, the strike on Syria does little to send a message to NK let alone China (and it wasn't designed to do that, so no negative connotations toward the administration from me in that regard).

Yes, I would expect that you would continue to receive support from Australia as an ally (as you did, diplomatically, with the Syrian strike).

So, you agree with me - that's good.

No, I didn't agree with you.  I said the strike on Syria let's Chairman Xi know Trump is serious about taking things into his own hands if China doesn't control North Korea.

I also said in my post that the US would reposition its forces as required. A US defense official just announced an hour ago that a US aircraft carrier-led strike group is headed toward the Western Pacific Ocean near the Korean Peninsula.  Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, directed the USS Carl Vinson strike group to sail north to the Western Pacific after departing Singapore on Saturday, Pacific Command announced. 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politics/navy-korean-peninsula/

I assume by "support from Australia", you mean to include military support.  Is that correct?

[Alan Klein]

I'm totally with you Slobodan. I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack. Don't get me wrong, chemical weapons should not be used and whoever used them should be brought to justice. However in a hectic/chaotic scenario as Syria it's absolutely impossible to collect such evidence in a few days. So I think the US attack was premature and unjustified and am appalled by all the European leaders backing the attack.

The US showed jet tracked on radar to the bomb site "proving" Syria's complicity.  Of course they've said they only bombed the place and chemicals stored by their enemy blew up.  It really doesn't matter what the truth is. 

The bombing had nothing to do with Syria.  It was to send a message to Zi, North Korea, the Russians, Iran, NATO, our Middle East allies,  and all our enemies and friends in the world that the days of a weak American president are over.  The world will have to contend with a strong America willing to act to defend its interests. 

[Alan Klein]

So, who here thinks Trump is that smart?

Yes, he's that smart.

[Farmer]

I imagine Australia would continue to provide military support for the US, yes.

Your original point (slightly modified just now) is that this somehow sends a signal to NK and/or China.  It doesn't.  There is no increased threat of action regarding either NK or China's expanding maritime presence because both NK and China know that military action against them is a hugely different proposition.  Indeed, NK has used the strike as justification for their nuclear weapons program (of course, they're unhinged depots running that country, but still, that's how they spin it).

The current movements that you have mentioned is posturing.  Unless Trump intends to entirely wipe NK from the face of the planet, any attack would result in massive SK casualties resulting from artillery fire.  Even if only 10% of NKs artillery works and fires, it will be devastating.  They also possess the ability to strike Seoul and have a massive standing army and, again, even if only a fraction are effective and even if for only a relatively short period of time (they definitely lack supplies) they would cause huge SK casualties.  On top of that, they undoubtedly possess nuclear weapons and they are insane enough to use them.

China, of course, is a major nuclear and conventional military power and whilst they lack the force projection of the US, the US is in no position to start a protracted engagement with them in their backyard, quite apart from the nuclear risk.  Mattis is orders of magnitude smarter than Trump and most of his other advisors, and for that we can all be thankful.  He's never going to let Trump do anything stupid regarding NK or China, so we are all safe on that front.  Of course, if Trump ever dumps him, then there could be issues, but I expect you would then see Congress block any insanity.

The Syrian strike was measured and, as such things go, reasonable.  It does nothing in terms of setting expectations for other matters, no matter how much you want it to show that Trump is "strong" or "tough".  That strike has Mattis' hand all over it.  He is a student of history and military philosophy combined with extensive practical experience.  He's thoughtful and understand the true nature of strategy.

[LesPalenik]

Yes, he's that smart.

The attack has apparently not paralyzed the Syrian army: the bombarded air defense base Schairat is again in operation according to the Governor of Homs. The airplanes are taking off from there. According to Trump: "The runways were not bombed because they can be repaired quickly and inexpensively" - but we hit an Internet cafe in the nearby village.

[Alan Klein]

I imagine Australia would continue to provide military support for the US, yes.

Your original point (slightly modified just now) is that this somehow sends a signal to NK and/or China.  It doesn't.  There is no increased threat of action regarding either NK or China's expanding maritime presence because both NK and China know that military action against them is a hugely different proposition.  Indeed, NK has used the strike as justification for their nuclear weapons program (of course, they're unhinged depots running that country, but still, that's how they spin it).

The current movements that you have mentioned is posturing.  Unless Trump intends to entirely wipe NK from the face of the planet, any attack would result in massive SK casualties resulting from artillery fire.  Even if only 10% of NKs artillery works and fires, it will be devastating.  They also possess the ability to strike Seoul and have a massive standing army and, again, even if only a fraction are effective and even if for only a relatively short period of time (they definitely lack supplies) they would cause huge SK casualties.  On top of that, they undoubtedly possess nuclear weapons and they are insane enough to use them.

China, of course, is a major nuclear and conventional military power and whilst they lack the force projection of the US, the US is in no position to start a protracted engagement with them in their backyard, quite apart from the nuclear risk.  Mattis is orders of magnitude smarter than Trump and most of his other advisors, and for that we can all be thankful.  He's never going to let Trump do anything stupid regarding NK or China, so we are all safe on that front.  Of course, if Trump ever dumps him, then there could be issues, but I expect you would then see Congress block any insanity.

The Syrian strike was measured and, as such things go, reasonable.  It does nothing in terms of setting expectations for other matters, no matter how much you want it to show that Trump is "strong" or "tough".  That strike has Mattis' hand all over it.  He is a student of history and military philosophy combined with extensive practical experience.  He's thoughtful and understand the true nature of strategy.

I didn't "slightly modify" my point.  I said a couple of days ago regarding the Syrian bombing:
"5.   Shows Chairman Xi that if he doesn’t help with N. Korean nukes, America will solve the issue on its own as he said he would. That's going to push Xi.
6.   No. Korea has to think that America might act on its own.
7.   Tells Chairman Xi that if China uses the militarized South China Sea islands against our friends, we just might sink the islands.
8.   Encourages our Pacific allies that America will be there for them.  That will stop their current drift to China."

=================================

Of course the current movement of naval forces is posturing.  But that can change into real action.  The Chinese have to take this into consideration.  Trump is a "loose cannon".  Isn't that what all the liberals say?  Well, what if they're right and you're Xi.  You don't want a war.  You'll get dragged in.  Your major trading partner might become your enemy.  I doubt if the Chinese people want to go to war for those Korean morons up there.   What will happen to your 5 year economic plan?  Hmmm.  Maybe those damn North Koreans really are a pain in the ass.  Who needs to risk a war with America because of that looney tune up there anyway?  Well, now that I'm home from Mar-a-lago, I think it's time I had a talk with that nut job up there and pulled the plug on him if he doesn't cooperate and stop the nuke bullshit.  Heck, we don't want them to have them either.



At least, that's what Trump is hoping he'll do. 

[Alan Klein]

The attack has apparently not paralyzed the Syrian army: the bombarded air defense base Schairat is again in operation according to the Governor of Homs. The airplanes are taking off from there. According to Trump: "The runways were not bombed because they can be repaired quickly and inexpensively" - but we hit an Internet cafe in the nearby village.

Les, you really should read my other posts.  The missile attack on the airfield has nothing to do with Syria. 

[LesPalenik]

Les, you really should read my other posts.  The missile attack on the airfield has nothing to do with Syria.

Exactly! And that's why it is so offensive. (I read your posts and agree with some).

[Alan Klein]

Exactly! And that's why it is so offensive. (I read your posts and agree with some).

Well, it could have also had the effect of hopefully stopping Assad from using chemical weapons.  But also, to warm others as well.  The bombing message has a different meaning depending who's looking at it.  It seems that the anti-Trump echo chamber of the liberal press is stuck on Syria.  They're playing checkers while Trump is operating three chess moves ahead of them.