Donald Trump

rjsterry

Well aside from having a dig at Obama, he does seem to have changed tack on Syria. Let's see if it results in something of substance.

bendertherobot

Ironically Trump may be well placed to blitz Assad without Russian upset...

pinno

bendertherobot wrote:

Ironically Trump may be well placed to blitz Assad without Russian upset...

We just don't know how strong Trump's relationship with Putin is.
Also, by getting rid of Assad, do we plunge Syria into total civil war? Could you make that decision?

bendertherobot

It's unwinnable. I don't know the answer other than there is no perfect one.

pinno

Isn't the answer the division of Syria along Ethnic lines?

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Ironically Trump may be well placed to blitz Assad without Russian upset...

We just don't know how strong Trump's relationship with Putin is.
Also, by getting rid of Assad, do we plunge Syria into total civil war? Could you make that decision?

Into civil war? Is that not where they are already?

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Ironically Trump may be well placed to blitz Assad without Russian upset...

We just don't know how strong Trump's relationship with Putin is.
Also, by getting rid of Assad, do we plunge Syria into total civil war? Could you make that decision?

Into civil war? Is that not where they are already?

I was making the assertion (either correctly or incorrectly) that all the factions are fighting Assad, although not in unison. Without Assad, they would all be fighting each other.

rjsterry

I see. Probably fair point.

bendertherobot

There goes Nunes. LOL

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

There goes Nunes. LOL

He was helping make the whole thing look ridiculous.

What I don't get is why Trump thinks that the fact Susan Rice might just conceivably have done something that he doesn't approve of makes any difference to what he/his campaign did? It seems like the playground "well, they're just as bad" or "they started it" is a valid defence.

dinyull

KingstonGraham wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There goes Nunes. LOL

It seems like the playground "well, they're just as bad" or "they started it" is a valid defence.

Isn't that Trump to a T?

kingstongraham

Dinyull wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There goes Nunes. LOL

It seems like the playground "well, they're just as bad" or "they started it" is a valid defence.

Isn't that Trump to a T?

But other grown ups seem to accept it. Just because they are on "the same side" as him.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

There goes Nunes. LOL

It seems like the playground "well, they're just as bad" or "they started it" is a valid defence.

Isn't that Trump to a T?

But other grown ups seem to accept it. Just because they are on "the same side" as him.

Fairly standard retort in politics.

Especially the 'they're just as bad'.

bendertherobot

I've no idea what's ethical, legal or possible in terms of US law but, from quite a few very knowledgeable US twitter news people it seems very very possible that, if Trump wants info on WHO did WHAT then he can just ask. He is CiC.

briantrumpet

bendertherobot wrote:

There goes Nunes. LOL

Sadly I think it'll make little difference, as Trey Gowdy, Nunes' replacement, is a Tea Party loon. I can't see the Republicans retreating from the partisanship that Nunes initiated.

pblakeney

Mixed feelings on todays news.
1. At least he is doing something. 2. He has been played.

FocusZing

Shows his strength while in talks with China. No doubt North Korea will be raised.

mr_goo

Here we go again. Lets shoot some Tomahawks and see what happens. No matter what Assad has allegedly done, US and west should not get involved. Have they not learnt from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

Pross

Watching his announcement of the strikes now, he looks and sounds like a kid showing off how they beat up another kid. He also managed to make it about stopping immigration and protecting the US. To be fair the Russians put him in a difficult position - support their mates in undertaking a chemical attack and either force the Yanks into this course of action or leave them looking weak by doing nothing after previously agreeing to the destruction of the chemical weapons. All the illegal contact with Russian officials and ar$e licking of Putin by Trump is looking even more misplaced now!

bbrap

I'm still not convinced that the gas attack was by the Assad regime. What if the the missile attack was using conventional munitions which just happened to hit a stockpile of chemicals. From what I've seen it appears that the "independent" verification that it was Assads forces which dropped the chemicals are based on reports from Turkish forces in the area, and they will have reasons for trying to get other nations dragged in. Whilst it is probable who did it, it is by no means conclusive and getting involved seems a bit premature by the Americans.

mr_goo

bbrap wrote:

I'm still not convinced that the gas attack was by the Assad regime. What if the the missile attack was using conventional munitions which just happened to hit a stockpile of chemicals. From what I've seen it appears that the "independent" verification that it was Assads forces which dropped the chemicals are based on reports from Turkish forces in the area, and they will have reasons for trying to get other nations dragged in. Whilst it is probable who did it, it is by no means conclusive and getting involved seems a bit premature by the Americans.

It's the usual US, shoot first ask questions later. I'm not convinced 100% that Assads planes were responsible for the chems weapon attack. I damned well hope the US have 100% verified incontrovertible evidence that it was Syrian warplanes. But something tells me they don't have it. Especially when the Whitehouse make statements like 'it's highly likely'.

bendertherobot

It's a big retreat from not being the President of the World as recently as Wednesday.

Evidence or not, he's drawn in now.

Pross

It seems to be all international experts on the subject that say it was a government strike using chemical weapons. I know we're in a new age where we've had enough of experts but I suspect they have ways of telling.

dinyull

Saw some expert (could have been an ex-defence minister) explain that it had to have been from a missile and not from a factory/store compound being hit by a missile.

And whilst not an expert you'd think that the US and UK agencies would know if rebels or terrorists have their hands on weapons of mass destruction*.

*although after Iraq.....

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

It seems to be all international experts on the subject that say it was a government strike using chemical weapons. I know we're in a new age where we've had enough of experts but I suspect they have ways of telling.

So the rumour is Russians were present at the base where the weapons were loaded, so there is some thinking that Russia may have been aware of the attack.

pblakeney

To misquote a spokesman - "If there were any Russians in the area they shouldn't have been there."

mr_goo

Dinyull wrote:

Saw some expert (could have been an ex-defence minister) explain that it had to have been from a missile and not from a factory/store compound being hit by a missile.

And whilst not an expert you'd think that the US and UK agencies would know if rebels or terrorists have their hands on weapons of mass destruction*.

*although after Iraq.....

Dr David Kelly was an expert on biological warfare advising the British government. Look what happened to him.
Which reminds me. Did the police ever find the murderer? And if not, is the case still open?

rjsterry

No, its not still open. Presumed suicide. CoD: haemorrhage from wrists wounds in combination with ingestion of opiates.

Put the tin foil away.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

No, its not still open. Presumed suicide. CoD: haemorrhage from wrists wounds in combination with ingestion of opiates.

Put the tin foil away.

Presumed, but not proven.
I suit a foil hat.

Matthewfalle

bbrap wrote:

I'm still not convinced that the gas attack was by the Assad regime. What if the the missile attack was using conventional munitions which just happened to hit a stockpile of chemicals.

It doesn't really work like that, so I'd ignore that little theory.