Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

TRUMP ATTACKS SYRIA - 50+ Cruise Missiles

Reports that Trump has completed his dramatic U-turn on Syria and launched massive attacks on Government forces.

AFP are reporting:

US has launched strikes against Shayrat airfield in Syria: official

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/850156512387321856

AP reporting:

BREAKING: US officials: US attacks Syrian air base with about 60 missiles

https://twitter.com/AP/status/850156329671028736

Things to note:

1) Trump/the U.S. sought no authorisation for this from Congress.
2) Trump sought no authorisation for this (use of force) from the UNSC.
3) Trump criticised Hillary Clinton many times during the Presidential Election for her anti-Assad policies, which he warned could cause WW3 with Russia, and would be ill-advised due to Syria's fighting against the IS and other jihadist rebel groups.
4) This is in response to alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian Government against civilians in Idlib a few days ago, however, there has yet to be an objective and impartial study into this attack. Syria and Russia argue that the event was caused by the Syrian Air Force attacking CW depots of the rebels, and the SAA had been making major progress on many fronts when this occurred.
5) Some of Trump's previous Tweets on the issue of Syria:

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

I really could go on, but I think you get the point.

(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username2950448

I think this will silence those idiots saying Trump is a "Russian shill". It is far worse than that; he is a petulant and moronic neocon shill.

The irony with this is that most of Trump's base are not neocons, they are strongly opposed to this attack. Very strange move by Trump, it really does seem that no man can escape the clutches of the establishment.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 2

username2950448

Members of openly Jihadist Islamist groups in Syria, such as Ahrah al-Sham, have been celebrating this attack on Government forces by the US:

Reply 3

Joep95

First things first if trump is impeached for this it shows that both the democrats and the republicans are against trump Obama did exactly the same thing.

Secondly trump is now a :dolphin:

on foreign policy can someone point to a time where intervention in the Middle East has made things better?

Because of past presidents it is allowed but it isn't right.

This is actually a big risk in world politics hopefully putin doesn't respond like the trump administration has.

@Snufkin you supported this type of action are you happier with trump now?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 4

username2950448

One thing I find interesting is the Russia-phobes who always said, sort of in a reverse psychology way, Trump is a Russian shill therefore would never do anything that is anti-Russia.

It's paradoxical because the moment he does take action against Russia (/Russian interests), the Russia-phobes get what they wanted - but the reasoning no longer holds up!

Very clever.

Original post by joecphillips

First things first if trump is impeached for this it shows that both the democrats and the republicans are against trump Obama did exactly the same thing.
Obama did not attack a country without (i) SCR authorisation, or (ii) consent from the relevant Government in his 8-years in office.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5

Joep95

Original post by Palmyra

One thing I will find interesting is the Russia-phobes who always said, sort of in a reverse psychology way, Trump is a Russian shill therefore would never do anything that is anti-Russia.

It's paradoxical because the moment he does take action against Russia (/Russian interests) but the Russia-phobes get what they wanted - but the reasoning no longer holds up!

Very clever.

Obama did not attack a country without (i) SCR authorisation, or (ii) consent from the relevant Government in his 8-years in office.

Obama bombed multiple countries and some republicans complained about his action in Libya where they were enacting regime change not protecting civilians, this like that are both wrong and arguably unconstitutional

Reply 6

username2950448

Original post by joecphillips

Obama bombed multiple countries and some republicans complained about his action in Libya where they were enacting regime change not protecting civilians

NATO's intervention in Libya was authorised by SCR 1973 (but it is true that the intervention went beyond the scope of the authorisation).

Reply 7

Joep95

Original post by Palmyra

NATO's intervention in Libya was authorised by SCR 1973 (but it is true that the intervention went beyond the scope of the authorisation).

Some intervention was authorised but what they did was not, you are allowed go into a shop but you are not allowed to steal from it

Reply 8

username2950448

Original post by joecphillips

Some intervention was authorised but what they did was not, you are allowed go into a shop but you are not allowed to steal from it

How does this build on, or differ from, what I just said ("the intervention went beyond the scope of the authorisation" ) ?

Reply 9

Joep95

You would have thought after it kept going wrong America would realise not to arm rebels who are going to kill everyone and cause a civil war yet they keep doing it and getting outraged at the results

Reply 10

username2313507

Looks like Trump has failed to 'get smart'!

Reply 11

Carlylean

Wonderful news. Finally, a President with spine.

Reply 12

username2950448

Original post by joecphillips

It is truly astonishing to see Trump's shameless U-turn on Syria, especially considering the ferocity with which he criticised Hillary's plan to create no-fly zones and Obama's contemplation of strikes on Twitter (as in the OP).

Most pertinently:

@DonaldTrump

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

11 weeks in and he launches 50+ bombs on the Syrian Government. Without Congressional approval.

Reply 13

username2950448

Original post by TelAviv

Looks like Trump has failed to 'get smart'!

Trump's new allies:

Reply 14

Muwahid-

Original post by ideasforlife

@sinsnottragedies :frown:

sad, so sad.

Even the americans are targeting the shia now.

Reply 15

username2950448

Original post by Muwahid-

sad, so sad.

Even the americans are targeting the shia now.

The Syrian Army is 70%+ Sunni. Your sectarianism manifests in support of acts by the West/U.S. against Muslims from your own sect.

Incredible.

Reply 16

Joep95

Original post by Palmyra

I completely agree, one of the main reasons I supported him was his stance on Syria and he's completely did the opposite, now I'm not stupid enough to believe everything a politician says but this is more than a u turn

Reply 17

3121

Whilst many of you might be angry, this is a turning point in his presidency. This U turn can gain him huge support. Hes standing up against Assad and in turn, the Russians which is significant due to the allegations of Russian ties since entering office. He's shown a sympathetic side towards those who died in the chemical attack and will get positive media reporting on this. Whenever people mention him and Russia, this will be a significant 'however' point. Mark my words when i say his approval ratings will surge.

Also pretty amazed he done this while meeting the Chinese, a known ally of Syrian. Impressive, he's talked the talk for ages but today hes walked the walk and proved his character.