It appears the US has fired upon Syrian air bases in response to a gas attack on civilians which was issued by Assad.

Russia has foretold that these actions will have consequences.

And Trump has said that the future of Syria will be without Assad.


http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-39521332

well we have finally done something about the gas attacks they used them three times under the Obama administration and we did nothing.The Trump administration is actually doing something about them using chemical weapons.It also explains why the airforce base nearby has been the busiest that I've seen/ heard since I moved here and its not a small base it used to be the sac base.

Hate to play devils advocate. But could have we done the gas attack in order to achieve a casus belli?

DoS wrote:Hate to play devils advocate. But could have we done the gas attack in order to achieve a casus belli?

I really dont care Assad needs to die plus this will probably cause more US intervention in the war against isis.

Targeted strikes at a single target of origin. This was a message being sent that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. al-Assad had said he turned over all chemical weapons under a US - Russian joint operation and destroyed. Obviously he lied.

I do not condone acts of war on a sovereign nation but the use of chemical weapons against your own people must have repercussions.

Plato wrote:Targeted strikes at a single target of origin. This was a message being sent that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. al-Assad had said he turned over all chemical weapons under a US - Russian joint operation and destroyed. Obviously he lied.

I do not condone acts of war on a sovereign nation but the use of chemical weapons against your own people must have repercussions.

I honestly think we need to just completely nuke the middle east and leave it that way. (in some ways we should although there's plenty of reasons for why you shouldn't do that.

What are we to achieve? Say we do overthrow Assad. Then what replaces him? We haven't done exactly the best at replacing rulers.

Hell, we even partly caused a genocide in Cambodia.


If we are to overthrow here because it is "moral." Why don't we intervene into South Sudan then? The Dinkas are still slaughtering the Nuers.

You can not get into regime change. But a response was a must.

No regime change action has ever had a positive result.e

DoS wrote:What are we to achieve? Say we do overthrow Assad. Then what replaces him? We haven't done exactly the best at replacing rulers.

Hell, we even partly caused a genocide in Cambodia.


If we are to overthrow here because it is "moral." Why don't we intervene into South Sudan then? The Dinkas are still slaughtering the Nuers.

you do realize that the usa is working with a group of "rebels" to overthrow the Assad government and put in place a western government. The rebel group was on its own for a number of years before the usa came and supplied it weapons (the weapons were not sent for free same with aid for the military) the rebel group approached the US government wanting to buy arms and other weapons to fight the assad government and isis.

Plato wrote:You can not get into regime change. But a response was a must.

No regime change action has ever had a positive result.e

I don't think bombing an airbase was an appropriate response.

Bmw wrote:you do realize that the usa is working with a group of "rebels" to overthrow the Assad government and put in place a western government. The rebel group was on its own for a number of years before the usa came and supplied it weapons (the weapons were not sent for free same with aid for the military) the rebel group approached the US government wanting to buy arms and other weapons to fight the assad government and isis.

Thanks for telling me? Got any more random facts? Did you know a banana is actually a berry and a strawberry is not?