Every occasion.
2 Likes
Turnbull, May, and Trudeau have all issued statements so supportive of the bombing that they might as well be brandishing pompoms and doing suggestive dances. Some things always remain the same.
Someone or other on twitter today was saying that the last three US presidents have all positioned themselves as the candidate less in favour of military intervention during the election campaign, but have all ended up bombing middle eastern countries in their first term in office. And every other english speaking country seems to fall in behind them every time no matter which party is in power
Fkg depressing.
1 Like
I moreso got the impression this time that UK and France were gearing up to do it, and the US came in late (desperately needing a distraction in the press).
Mind you, May needed a distraction from the Brexit shemozzle (and a wedge against Corbyn who is very very feeble when it comes to Putin) damn near as much as Trump needed a distraction from whatever stupidity he’s gotten up to recently…
So you would prefer they do nothing and allow chemical weapons attacks?
Or perhaps don’t make promises you can’t keep.
BTW Obama started this shyte, he should have had the balls to see it through BEFORE Iran and Russia started backing Assad.
False dichotomy.
I have heard no credible explanation as to how a few scattered air raids will prevent further chemical weapons use.
I might as well ask ‘so you’re ok with killing a bunch of people for no meaningful purpose whatsoever?’ Tell me, if Assad uses chemical weapons again after this bombing, is the correct conclusion to draw from that ‘well, bombing didn’t work, let’s try something else’ or is it ‘let’s BOMB HARDER’ and follow up with ground forces if necessary. Cos option 2 is sounding very likely and *coughVietnam* very *coughIraq* familiar.
Some problems are insoluble. Trying to solve them is folly, trying to solve them with violence is murderous folly. America (and the UK and Australia) need to focus on internal matters for a bit and stop getting involved in other people’s ruinously expensive wars on the other side of the world. ESPECIALLY when we refuse to accept the tidal wave of refugees that such wars cause.
3 Likes
They bombed the airfields where they flew the planes from, the bombed the area where the chem weapons were being stored (or where they at least believe they are based on information given to them by another player).
Seems a reasonable response to me.
An airbase is just a strip of concrete and a weapon storage warehouse is just a warehouse. Trump has been shrieking all week about military action, and if this is anything like last time he warned the russians in advance of what the targets were so they could keep their people clear. If the Russians knew, they’d have warned the Syrians (even if the syrians needed warning in the first place, I reckon they’re probably smart enough to have SOMEONE monitoring trump’s twitter feed and put 2 and 2 together). The valuable targets would have been long gone.
If these raids put a meaningful dent in Syria’s chemical weapons capability I’d be staggered.
Bush started it via the Iraq invasion. A catastrophe of massive propositions.
Yes i agree that taking a week was too long and being loud about it wasn’t really helpful. However from what I have been reading Trump wanted action immediately but the the Dems and Repubs spent a week arguing and the military establishment couldn’t make up their minds. They ended up only reacting because France had said, either you bomb or we go in alone and do it our way (which involved far more than two regions).
I much prefer the Israeli way, be prepared well before hand so that if it is required you go in silently and quickly and no one knows what the hell is going on until a few days later. (and I am talking striking military places not general war)
And I agree it won’t have stopped chemical weapons but again, that Obama’s fault not trumps.
The Arab spring is where this all came from not the Iraq wars. The US stoked the Arab spring by arming every opposition it could find. That was all Obama.
ISIL would never had gained traction had it not been for 3 things - invasion, disbanding the Iraqi military and de-baathification. Bush decisions.
2 Likes
This is not a case of one or the other. Both Bush and Obama (and Bush I) contributed to making this mess, but it goes all the way back to Sykes-Piquot after WWI and that goes all the way back Churchill’s seizure of the dreadnought that would become the HMS Agincourt in 1914 and that goes all the way back to centuries of inept Ottoman rulership and that goes back to …
Yeah, you get the idea. History is a synthesis of all that has gone before. Historical movements on the scale of the syrian war never have a SINGLE cause or a single person at fault, no matter how politically convenient it would be if they did.
1 Like
They are both at fault.
Lots of blame to go around. Centuries worth.
So why blame Trump for his current actions? He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
because every US president in my entire adult life, when confronted with a choice in the middle east between choosing a bad option that involves expensive military action that will kill a bunch of people, and choosing a bad option that does NOT involve expensive military action that will kill a bunch of people, has chosen the former. At least giving option B a try just once might be in order, don’t you think?
Edit: I do give credit to Obama for NOT bombing iran when there was actually a fair bit of pressure for him to so, and instead pursuing what seems to have been a pretty successful diplomatic strategy, so maybe he eventually learned from the Libya fiasco too.
Option B is why we are here today. Option B was Obama’s decision to arm rebels there to fight against Assad rather than going directly in, probably not a bad idea and the lesser of two bad options. It might have worked except…Iran and Russia.