United States-Russia-Syria

63 hours. That is the time between the news of the chemical attack in Syria and the response from President Trump that launched 59 Tomahawk missiles into a Syrian airbase.

The 63 hour timeline.

No investigation.
No word of public support.
Essentially a knee jerk reaction.

Or was it?

John McCain:

McCain, the chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, applauded Trump and the military for sending "an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, aided and abetted by (Vladimir) Putin’s Russia, slaughters innocent Syrians with chemical weapons and barrel bombs."

www.azcentral.com...

The previous Tuesday, April 4.

"I'm sure they are encouraged to know the United States is withdrawing and seeking a new arrangement with the Russians," he added. "It is another disgraceful chapter in American history and it was predictable."

www.cnn.com...

Obviously not to happy with the initial administrations stance but excited over the eventual and expedient outcome.

Tillerson's stance has been fairly solid.

“There is no doubt in our minds that Syria and the regime under Bashar Assad were responsible for this attack,” Tillerson said Thursday. “It’s a serious matter; it requires a serious response,” he added when asked if military retaliation was being planned.

www.latimes.com...

So where is this evidence. Will it make it to the people?

This whole thing stinks at every turn!!

Also, just for reference, if you would care to see how long it takes to make decisions based upon war crime allegations, have a peek.
en.wikipedia.org...

Which one stinks worse?

Trump doing something against Putin's wishes and even against what he himself thought he may ever do; or Assad attacking those who oppose him in his own territory?

I'm not going to side with the Syrian government with the information offered to me thus far.

a reply to: JinMI

McCain, the chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, applauded Trump and the military for sending "an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, continues to defend his country against invasion.

(fixed in bold italics)

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JinMI

McCain, the chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, applauded Trump and the military for sending "an important message the United States will no longer stand idly by as Assad, continues to defend his country against invasion

.

(fixed in bold italics)

I'm a stickler for grammar.

What does it mean to have a comma before the bolded statement? Which source are you quoting?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Which one stinks worse?

Trump doing something against Putin's wishes and even against what he himself thought he may ever do; or Assad attacking those who oppose him in his own territory?

I'm not going to side with the Syrian government with the information offered to me thus far.

Russia's stance also is not as solid apparently.

President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview that “unconditional support is not possible in this current world.”

www.cbsnews.com...

I've not yet seen/heard/found enough evidence to side with any of it.

I just don't see the benefits of Assad using CM against his own people given everything that is in the works. I also find it curious that we gave Russia a heads up.

Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said in an official statement: "Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line. U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield."

www.cnbc.com...

a reply to: JinMI

It makes sense for Trump to warn Russia. He's making a stand but at the same time trying to let Putin know it's nothing against him.

As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

Good thing Washington outsiders and "anti-establishment," folks like McCain are applauding Trump and this decision.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Good thing Washington outsiders and "anti-establishment," folks like McCain are applauding Trump and this decision.

McCain is a warmonger; but even a dead clock is right twice a day.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: JinMI

It makes sense for Trump to warn Russia. He's making a stand but at the same time trying to let Putin know it's nothing against him.

As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

AGAIN, I ask -- WTF is the benefit to turning nearly 200 governments and billions of people against you on the damned eve of peace talks?

Not even the tinfoiliest of guesses can answer that one.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Hey Tarzan, I'm going to punch your buddy in the mouth. Take a step back so I can and I expect you not to retaliate!

Not a perfect analogy but you see my intention.

Assad would only draw condemnation from the international community. He would make Russia look like fools or cohorts in their supposed dismissal of chemical weapons. When I say it makes no sense, I mean he/they have zero to gain.

In return we have the fastest response to a perceived action with minimal evidence.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: JinMI

It makes sense for Trump to warn Russia. He's making a stand but at the same time trying to let Putin know it's nothing against him.

As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

AGAIN, I ask -- WTF is the benefit to turning nearly 200 hundred governments and billions of people against you on the damned eve of peace talks?

Not even the tinfoiliest of guesses can answer that one.

Hello!

That's not happening!

Everyone is doing the exact opposite!

You're basing your opinion on what should have happened; not on what is happening!

That's why the move is so brilliant! Everyone is thinking like you!

a reply to: JinMI

john mcain is the worst politician in american history. well... hes in the top 10 at least

a reply to: JinMI

I did not like what happened.

But I'm not going to cry and wish for a Hillary presidency or pray to the Great Bernie for deliverance.

I trust General Mattis. I may not like it, but I don't see him as a political player.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I "fixed" it, stickler...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Hey Tarzan, I'm going to punch your buddy in the mouth. Take a step back so I can and I expect you not to retaliate!

Not a perfect analogy but you see my intention.

Assad would only draw condemnation from the international community. He would make Russia look like fools or cohorts in their supposed dismissal of chemical weapons. When I say it makes no sense, I mean he/they have zero to gain.

In return we have the fastest response to a perceived action with minimal evidence.

You could be right, but see my response to Nyiah above.

Trump did the right thing.
By any standards, he did the right thing.

There is no issue here really. There is only a fear of repercussion. But what repercussion can there be when one has the truth on one's side?

Back to honest words: Would you prefer that chemical weapons were an everyday thing? Permitted through ignorance?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Yeah, no. It's not brilliant, especially when accusing Russia of being complicit alongside Assad's government. Why in sam hell would another country risk EVERYTHING to help "fool" people into doubting the accusations? Ain't enough money and goods on the planet to make risking permanently ruining your country to help a buddy worthwhile.

a reply to: JinMI

They Never Learn


The Era of the big lie has not ended


Where is the press conference with proof of Syrian and Russian involvement in the chemical attack?


Points:

The US has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO BOMB Syria.

If they wanted to involve themselves, they should have gone to the UN and had an investigation and then if it was proven their charges were accurate then they have could approve some kind of penalty.


What is the US the world wide policeman?

God on earth?

Remember Iraq, with all those lies. Have people forgotten that already.

Has the media forgotten their complicity in Iraq Already?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

I did not like what happened.

But I'm not going to cry and wish for a Hillary presidency or pray to the Great Bernie for deliverance.

I trust General Mattis. I may not like it, but I don't see him as a political player.

There is no timeline that I know of where a HRC presidency would be better.

My purpose of this thread is possibly to attempt to analyze the relationship and motive of these three countries and why it happened so fast under suspicious pretenses.

I don't believe we are being told the full or correct story and I'm starting to see that those in charge perhaps are not either.

a reply to: Jonjonj

The truth on their side? Sure just like they had the truth on their side in the Iraq war.

The only thing they have on their side is might...


So did Hitler for a while!