Well I expect the Doomsday clock will be getting an update soon.<p>I'm still not convinced that the Chemical Weapons where from Assad or the Russians attack and the probability of them actually being in a weapons store the rebels held, to me seems if not equally probable. Mostly from the aspect that Chemical Weapons in the form of landmine dispersol have been used by ISIS in Iraq. Now the aspect that such types of weapons as a Chemical Weapon dispersal is not one we know that well. So an airstrike upon a weapons depot that had such landmines, could most likely cause the mines to release the chemical weapon. Many experts have said that an airstrike upon a chemical weapon store would destroy the chemical weapons. But we are talking about mines as storage. A factor that may well be overlooked or a large unknown in how they react to airstrikes.<p>What we will know eventually is if they fingerprint the chemical weapon in this Syrian event and compare to that used by ISIS in Iraq then if they are the same.<p>So given how Russia and indeed Assad reacts will prove most telling. I also believe Assad would be totally foolish to use Chemical Weapons, more so with Russian support and no need to use them. This and already gave them up, via Russia and again. There was no need for them and they would know the response if they did, and I don't believe even Russia or Assad would be that silly.<p>So from that perspective, Trump just updated the Doomsday clock.
Beware of war propaganda. A quick reminder about the first Iraq war and how they lied about Saddam killing babies and used a PR firm in Congressional hearing [0] to build public outrage.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos#1991_Gulf_War</a>
I'm confused how this is so much more controversial or scary than the drone strikes that have occurred over the last number of years by the US that violated the sovereignty of other countries and resulted in unfortunate death of civilians. For the record, I'm not trying to compare Obama to Trump but rather the fact that the US has a long history of exerting its will in a methodical way, so I'm unclear why this is more... serious? Is it because of potential ramifications from Russia? I can't quite imagine that they really want to be involved in a hot war with the US and it's allies.
Does the all run on autopilot? It's like this stuff was on the timeline no matter who got elected. They've been deploying all over the South China Sea and Eastern Europe and it all went along smoothly on autopilot right through the election and transition.
Hypothesis: this is a message to Xi and North Korea. Syria is a consequence-free zone. Unless we depose Assad and commit to nation building, this has limited non-humanitarian consequence. Bonus: decisive action right after McMasters consolidated Bannon's NSC influence.
And yet just today Rand Paul told Trump not to take unilateral military action, that he needed to clear it with Congress first. (Maybe Trump briefed them. Maybe that's good enough, but I think the idea was that Congress needed to have a chance to vote.)
These situations are always unfortunate.<p>The U.S. does nothing: Innocent people continue to die<p>The U.S. does something: Innocent people die (It is war, after all)<p>Whats worse, is what'll happen when one of the strikes inadvertently hits some of Russia's troops?<p>Whats the solution to all this?
"THE US has launched a massive cruise missile strike against Syria – despite a warning from Russia not to get involved."<p><a href="http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syria-strike-russia-military-action-chemical-weapons-gas-attack-putin-assad-WW3" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/603497/trump-syr...</a>
As a Syrian-American who voted for Clinton, I am incredibly happy that Trump has shown resolve where Obama failed to.
This may not directly cause the downfall of the abominable Assad regime, but at least it will make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons again. Hopefully, it will be followed by safe zones and arming the Free Syrian Army.
<comment deleted since people are apparently going to down vote without reading and I'm not interested in ill thought out flame wars based on superficial party affiliation>
Wonderful news! Finally, someone standing up to Assad and Putin! Who would have thought it would be the US president who Putin "absolutely didn't" put into office?
Fifty missiles, in an area where US aircraft can operate unfettered if they so choose, seems like a statement that one side doesn't want to risk its own people.<p>Even the US has limits. There are only so many Tomahawks ready to go. 59+ is a significant reduction in that number. They won't do this again as I doubt they could mount a third such salvo. They need to keep a substantial number of missiles in reserve for taking out air defences in support of a broader air war or special forces operation. The next "message" will therefore come via manned aircraft. That's where things between the Russians and the US get tricky. There is only so much airspace over syria.
The ugly truth is that if you want to change a culture you must permeate it. This requires a multi-generational commitment. You can not assault an opposition into compliance. You must defeat its leaders and its men and then squat upon its culture until its children know nothing other than your own culture. This is what our grandfathers understood when they placed multi-generational bases in Germany and Japan. Today's metro-sexual culture does not have the understanding nor the resolve for such a commitment.<p>A civilized culture must abhor violence. But it must also be ready to use it when the alternative is to ignore the suffering of others.