President Trump will deliver a statement on Syria at 9 p.m. ET

a reply to: JinMI
Go on.

Until what?

a reply to: TheGoondockSaint

They have a relay of tankers at points along the track. They'll refuel prior to going over any area they're going to be doing assessment of, dash in, make their turn, and refuel after they clear the airspace again. Then they'll continue on their way to the next batch of tankers.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI
So, Putin made a bad investment. It didn't really cost him much.

What about the oil?

It's more about natural gas than oil.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't think he knew at the time what we were really doing over there.

You mean we weren't defeating fighting ISIS?

a reply to: Phage

There are still pockets of ISIS within Syria.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI
Go on.

Until what?

Until the use of chemical weapons. Which has not had an investigation to determine origin or intention.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Yes, especially since the Kurds have left the battle to look after their own concerns.

What did Trump think was going on in Syria. Before he was elected?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI
So, Putin made a bad investment. It didn't really cost him much.

What about the oil?

It's more about natural gas than oil.

Fair enough. Perhaps resources would be a more accurate term as it's wider than just the gas.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI
Go on.

Until what?

Until the use of chemical weapons. Which has not had an investigation to determine origin or intention.

The use of chemical weapons has been ongoing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Syria isnt an Open Skies member and I dont think you can just do a no notice flyover of a member state. Unless its flying under DRTA and not open skies then it could be inbound to get "photos".

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck


Yes, especially since the Kurds have left the battle to look after their own concerns.

What did Trump think was going on in Syria. Before he was elected?

He may not have even known exactly where Syria was; he doesn’t own any hotels or golf courses there so why would he bother knowing anything about the country?

a reply to: Phage

You need to slow down with the rapid-fire quips, Phage. Take time to form a full statement; this thread is moving too fast for me to reply to 20 posts just by you.

We have almost defeated ISIS. They still exist, but their strongholds are no longer their strongholds. As long as we don't leave a power vacuum, the locals can mop up what's left of them. If we leave the place destabilized, as we did Iraq, the result will either be a resurgence of ISIS or another group just as bad.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Has the multi country coalition missile attacks?

a reply to: Phage

I'm not a mind-reader.

TheRedneck

a reply to: theantediluvian

Here you go, what a real anti war liberal thinks is going on; and this is before gtonights strikes.

The exact danger Obama sought to avoid — military confrontation with Russia in Syria — is now upon us, being directly threatened by Trump. And Democrats — who spent years first scorning Obama for not becoming more militarily involved in Syria and then pushing Trump to be more hostile to Moscow — are, just as Clinton last year did, defending Trump’s military aggression.

This morning on CNN, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright — who spent 2012 mocking Mitt Romney as an archaic Cold Warrior for warning that Putin posed a grave threat to the U.S. — praised Trump’s tweets: “I agree with President Trump and his description of Putin,” she said, adding: “At least the President has recognized that Putin is not a friend.” She then demanded that a “strategy of some kind” is needed for this new bombing campaign, worrying that one has not yet been formulated:

It is a common refrain among Trump’s Democratic critics that he is Putin’s “puppet.” Because the Russian government preferred him in the 2016 presidential election and has compromising information to hold over his head, so the prevailing narrative goes, Trump is predisposed toward, perhaps even captive to, Moscow’s point of view — and thus, enacts policies demanded by the Kremlin to benefit the Russians at the expense of the U.S.

Yet far beyond Trump’s hostile posture toward Russia’s client state led by Assad, the reality is the exact opposite: The Trump administration has been more belligerent, and more confrontational, toward Moscow than the Obama administration was.

Two weeks ago, Trump responded to the alleged Russian-directed poisoning attack in the United Kingdom by personally signing off on expelling 60 Russian diplomats and shuttering the Russian consulate in Seattle — just another example negating the claim that the U.S. under Trump is serving the dictates of the Russian government. Indeed, Trump’s decision on the Russian diplomats was the largest such expulsion in U.S. history: higher than the number Obama expelled after being told that the Russians had interfered in the U.S. election.

theintercept.com...

Its goes on and on about how the msm narrative about trump acting as a russian stooge couldnt be further from the truth, and how the dems have cheered for this escalation with russia.

But who cares right?

Trump is evcil either way; attack russia = evil, not attack evil putin stooge.

a reply to: JinMI

No. They've been going on even though Trump waved his big hands around a year ago.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: underwerks

What's unreal is that the opposing 'team' to Trump can't seem to grasp that these actions today are exactly what you were by default for.

What's even more unreal is that you and others here believe that people who wanted Russian interference investigated want war with Russia by default.

Do I really have to spell out how big a fail in logic that is?

Since the obvious is not being caught firmly within grasp, please put something into perspective for me.

How can Putins puppet who colluded with him also turn a 180 from wanting to leave Syria to conducting a multi country airstrike against an ally of Russia?

I think that's just Trump testing the level of anti-war sentiment before going through with it. Seeing who supported what so he could plan accordingly, politically.

And that isn't any 4-D chess, just basic marketing principles. The same as you would do with a product. Testing the water first.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

I'm not a mind-reader.

TheRedneck

You'd have to be.
You sure as hell can't believe much of what comes out of Trump's mouth.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: TheGoondockSaint

They have a relay of tankers at points along the track. They'll refuel prior to going over any area they're going to be doing assessment of, dash in, make their turn, and refuel after they clear the airspace again. Then they'll continue on their way to the next batch of tankers.

Its been a while since i was in the region.......

Do we not have landing sites within their AO for them to home base after recon?

a reply to: JinMI

Actually, it's all about the dollar and it's peg to international oil prices via OPEC.

TheRedneck