Home » Red lines in Syria: if Russia really wanted Trump to win the election…

Comments

Red lines in Syria: if Russia really wanted Trump to win the election… — 20 Comments

  1. What Im wondering is what it is Russia plans to do in retaliation that they have threatened. Since France and the UK have joined us in this operation I think we have Putin fairly isolated. Anything this guy is liable to do risks for him, further isolation, then again this is a guy that clumsily goes after his enemies in foreign countries.

  2. 53 years since my last combat mission but I still get that old feeling of fearful anticipation whenever our pilots fly. The game is different now. They have much better tools of the trade – accurate bombs that can be dropped at a distance from the target, better navigation electronics, better electronic warfare defenses, and more reliable airplanes. Yet, there is still danger. Mechanical/electronic failure, a surprise by the Syrian air defenses, or an operational error such as a midair collision. Looks like all went as planned, thank God.

    The propaganda is now flowing hot and heavy. The bomb damage photos, if truthful, are impressive. The Syrians claim we didn’t touch them. Hmmm? The Russians are vowing reprisal of some sort. Will they assassinate a U.S. citizen with a nerve agent or hack one of our power grids? Cold War II is officially on.

  3. “The United States is locked and loaded. When our President draws a red line, our President enforces the red line.”
    ~ Nikki Haley at the UN Security Council

  4. I really, really can’t stand that guy.

    “To me, his legacy is so ‘stained’ it’s toxic.”

    It is difficult to argue with that.

    .

    I trust everyone appreciates my deep, intellectual addition to this discussion. *grin*

  5. Third world despots cannot be allowed to utilize Weapons of Mass Destruction without painful consequence that will escalate into disastrous consequence unless the use of WMDs is abandoned.

    Major nations have to be put on notice that a failure to dissuade proxy client nations from using WMDs will result in painful economic and political consequence for them.

    Deterrence depends upon the certainty of retaliatory consequence.

  6. What would President Hillary have done about Syria? Whatever she would have done or not done would have certainly be praised by the MSM.

  7. Had Trump not gotten the UK & France to join in, the criticism of Trump would be much more fierce. I suspect it was the WMD argument that persuaded them that they had to take part in the attack.

  8. Geoffrey: I contend that both France and England felt it was also in their best interests to curb Putin specifically.

  9. Great Trum and Deep State are starting another war with Russia just like HRC did with Ukraine and Sevastopol.

    When will people figure out that the Deep State is poking Putin into making a first strike?

    Just like Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, and the Lusitania.

    They need a first strike so that an outraged America will clean the board which provides cover for the Leftist alliance, islamic Jihad, and Deep State for his undercover operatives to get working.

    After making fun of the neo cons and Bush II people for waging war on WMDs, Trum is just going to play the puppet in District of Columbia after all?

    Talk about pretending to fight.

  10. The word I settled on early in the Obama presidency to describe him is feckless. I was called racist then. Now, as time passes, events unfold, and the truth becomes known, my early assessment is proved true.

  11. Questioning people’s Dear Leaders isn’t liable to get a positive response.

  12. I’ve read so many articles on the Syria bombing (both before and after) that the only thing I have concluded with any certainty is that no one knows if it was necessary or not, for any or no reason, or has any idea what will follow it, although speculations abound.

    One almost-consensus is that it is a signal from Trump to Russia (why? of what kind? with what purpose? and where’s all that kompromat when you need it?), kind of like his pardon of Libby is a signal to Mueller and his victims.

    Why not just a straightforward action as he stated: because chemical warfare is to be discouraged, and Libby’s prosecution and punishment were always wrong and unjust.

    I guess it’s in the timing.

    Syria (in some reports) has used chemwar many times since Obama’s long-vanished-red-line, and even since Trump’s first strike (which got the attention of China and North Korea at the time).

    Libby’s life seems to have gone well despite his conviction.

    As reports and analyses continue, remember the maxim usually quoted about economists, but equally pertinent to politics in general:
    If you question 5 experts on any event, you will get 7 opinions about it.

  13. Since Obama’s name came up, I just read this at National Review, and was amused that the author takes several digs at Trump for not being magnanimous — his hallmark of great presidents — and discusses several presidents of both parties in detail, pro and con — but only mentions Obama in passing, by denying him a place in the first-tier (as he does Trump).

    Because otherwise he would have to conclude that Obama was just as unmagnanimous as Trump by his standards, if not more so.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/30/does-character-matter-in-a-president-yes/

  14. Why the attack on Syria may be more significant than just a “signal” — it destroyed the source of Assad’s really nasty weapons.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/about-that-syrian-scientific-research-center.php

    “Rosett says the SSRC remained active and in the chemical weapons business during the period when Russia assured us that 100 percent of the chemical weapons were gone from Syria. The Russians and Syrians must have had a good laugh at Barack Obama.

    President Obama couldn’t attack the SSRC even if such a move had been in his playbook. Doing so would have amounted to a concession that Russia and Syria had played him (or, alternatively, that he and Russia had played the American people).

    If Rosett’s reporting is sound, and I have always found it to be, President Trump should have attacked the SSRC last April when he hit that Syrian air base. Even so, he deserves credit for doing it now.”

  15. Powerline Commenter answers a complaint about “partisan bias” in supporting or opposing military action depending on the President’s party.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/an-unbelievably-small-limited-strike.php

    Diggs Cleveland
    I plead guilty to being one of those who generally supports military actions taken under a Republican President while generally opposing military actions taken under a Democratic President. But the reason is one you fail to mention. The established track record for the two parties in supporting Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines before, during, and after military action. Democrats on the whole bear no loyalty to the military. While there were servicemen and women fighting on the battlefield under CinC Obama, his SecState claimed that intelligent people go to college,and stupid people go into the miltiary (BTW, I’ll pit my IQ against Kerry’s, spotting him Pelosi’s 50 points, and I’ll still win). Obama used “clinging to guns” as an insult of half the American public. He’ll never know just how much one clings to his gun during a firefight. On the battlefield defined by a Democratic President, a soldier still understands that his actions can, and will be, second-guessed by Democrats, and can lead to legal actions against him after the shooting stops. That level of non-support keeps me from giving my full support in return to any Democratic President who sends troops in harm’s way. The support for servicemen and women by the majority of Republicans tends to earn my support for a Republican President who sends troops in harm’s way. It’s not politics. It’s whether one has earned my support for their action through their historical support back; before, during and after an action. The Democratic Party fails that test at every level (CinC, Congress, Voters).

  16. Trum is attacking Syria for WMDs after Hussein and Democrats like Trum made fun of Bush lied, people died: waging war in Iraq for WMDs…

    Can’t make this stuff up humans.

    All the anti Bush people that jumped on the Trum Band wagon better talk about WMDs before their cognitive dissonance explodes their heads again.

  17. Aesop: if you want military dots and intel to gather for data mining, use strategy page. Powerline lawyers don’t have what it takes.

    https://www.strategypage.com/

    If the Left already took it over since 2008, don’t blame me. It was still good in 2001-2007.

  18. Trump telegraphs that we’re leaving Syria. Syria responds by gassing their own people.

    So Trump goes on twitter and tells the enemy what he’s going to do. In advance. Again. He does it. Missiles launch. NeoCons celebrate.

    But WaPo, owned by an actual self-made billionaire, warns us that this is happening despite Trump, not because of.

    But perhaps this is Fake News, as Putin and Trump like to say. After all, the US Ambassador to the UN then announces that new sanctions are coming.

    So Trump throws her under the bus.

    Is he compromised? Or just a Useful Idiot?

  19. Fake news was initially used by Leftist overcooked propagandist steam buns like Manju, to talk about how Fox News isn’t news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>