U.S, UK and France Launch Missile Strikes in Syria

Originally Posted by Hugh

Rule 1 of suprise attacks - don't tell the enemy there's going to be one...

Not just me that thinks this...

This goes back to "frame of mind", he very pissed off with the Michael Cohen raid.... call it preoccupied.

He is no longer known as private citizen, Mr Trump, but President Trump with big key decisions that impact the rest of the World. Even his own base has pointed out they want the 2013 Trump back and not to attack Syria, but I think there needs to be action personally, we cannot keep sitting back watching an evil pig, gas his own citizens and a rogue country, aka Russia block every attempt to sort the issue out once and for all.

I would expect the US President, a man in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal In the world, and the wotld’s Biggest Armed Forces (by far) not to have temper tantrums on Twitter.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I would expect the US President, a man in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal In the world, and the wotld’s Biggest Armed Forces (by far) not to have temper tantrums on Twitter.

Expectations aside, it's better than President Obama drawing a red line and then not doing anything realistic when it's crossed.

It could be a move he is trying to make, similar to that of North Korea who now want to denuclearize, maybe he is trying the same tactic with Putin. Act the tough guy but deep down he really wants peace, the turnabout he did this morning suggests this could plausible...

Thankfully there is a bit more to a military strike then donald throwing a wobbler although I'd imagine the pentagon is willing to plan and execute a strike but would prefer to have some proof to legitimise it rather then suspicion no matter how credible the sources might be.

Originally Posted by Mick

This goes back to "frame of mind", he very pissed off with the Michael Cohen raid.... call it preoccupied.

He is no longer known as private citizen, Mr Trump, but President Trump with big key decisions that impact the rest of the World. Even his own base has pointed out they want the 2013 Trump back and not to attack Syria, but I think there needs to be action personally, we cannot keep sitting back watching an evil pig, gas his own citizens and a rogue country, aka Russia block every attempt to sort the issue out once and for all.

It's pretty worrying if that were the reason. Can't have military actions provoked because the President is upset.

I think action needs to be taken but I think Russia are too entrenched in Syria now. On Sky News a guest pointed out that the Russians have Russian-manned anti-aircraft guns. Would the US attack those? Would they risk ignoring them and, if so, would Russia attack the US to stop them attacking Syria?

Maybe the die was cast back when Parliament voted not to go with the US in supporting anti-Assad air-strikes - Labour voted against - which undermined the US ability to go in.

Further economic isolation of Russia might be an answer. The Russian economy did take a bad hit after they invaded Ukraine and how long can Putin maintain strong control if he loses support of powerful, rich, Russians?

I agree Damien economic sanctions are hitting Russia hard and as much as Putin trys to represent it as the old enemy attacking Russia it isn't working as well as it did in the past and those sanctions have caused a reduction in the military budget which of course weakens Russia. If a chemical attack is confirmed then a limited military strike becomes very likely but advertising in advance your likely targets gives the Russians time to move their forces to protect them. There's clearly an agenda here with Russia beyond just helping assad and until that becomes clear i think we are in for more trouble.

Originally Posted by Damien

It's pretty worrying if that were the reason. Can't have military actions provoked because the President is upset.

I think action needs to be taken but I think Russia are too entrenched in Syria now. On Sky News a guest pointed out that the Russians have Russian-manned anti-aircraft guns. Would the US attack those? Would they risk ignoring them and, if so, would Russia attack the US to stop them attacking Syria?

Maybe the die was cast back when Parliament voted not to go with the US in supporting anti-Assad air-strikes - Labour voted against - which undermined the US ability to go in.

Further economic isolation of Russia might be an answer. The Russian economy did take a bad hit after they invaded Ukraine and how long can Putin maintain strong control if he loses support of powerful, rich, Russians?

I said earlier when he posted it was wrong what he said in the tweet. I am just trying to convey the reasoning behind the tweets today. I am not going to jump on the 'Never Trumpers' bandwagon like others have.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Just in from Telegraph UK: PM May is said to move submarines within range of Syria.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Mrs May has ordered British submarines to move within missile range of Syria in readiness for strikes against the Assad regime that could begin as early as Thursday night.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...against-assad/

[pip08456]

What a difference a year makes. No-one was complaing last year about the Russians being warned in advance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7671736.html

It is worth remembering that an attack without warning resulting in Russian military casualties would give Putin the propaganda upper hand as well as cause for retalortary action.

You know there is stuff coming left right and centre, Sky News is now reporting that May is getting cabinet approval for military strikes in Syria.

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-calls-...syria-11326833

[Gavin78]

Originally Posted by Mick

You know there is stuff coming left right and centre, Sky News is now reporting that May is getting cabinet approval for military strikes in Syria.

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-calls-...syria-11326833

Although the SNP and Corbyn want a vote on it which we know how they would probably vote.

They may want a vote but the decision to take action is the Governments.

[denphone]

Latest poll in regards On "UK military action in response to the alleged chemical attack in Syria if it results in conflict with Russia".

https://interactive.news.sky.com/SYRIATABS110418.pdf

[Mr K]

Seems we're trying to rush in on dodgy evidence again, have we learnt nothing? The pictures of the 'attack' come from Islamic Militants. The former UK ambassador to Syria thinks it's faked.
Let the investigators do their stuff, and then take action if proved. We're being taken for mugs, and a shoot first think/tweet later President who sees it as opportunity to big himself up.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Seems we're trying to rush in on dodgy evidence again, have we learnt nothing? The pictures of the 'attack' come from Islamic Militants. The former UK ambassador to Syria thinks it's faked.
Let the investigators do their stuff, and then take action if proved. We're being taken for mugs, and a shoot first think/tweet later President who sees it as opportunity to big himself up.

There is a old saying Mr K and that is "Act in haste, repent at leisure" and one would be wise to heed it.