Trump hits Syria

**Dirt1** · 04-16-2018, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

“The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons,”

All of the pictures from the bombing raid show Syrian chemical weapon plants to be destroyed. Pretty straight forward.

Also, it's a deterrent against the IS who are trying to rise up in the region.

I bet the IS hates Mattis.

I agree that we destroyed the three sites that were hit. The pictures clearly show that.

My question though was if we have not destroyed Syria's chemical weapons program, then what is to stop them from continued use of these weapons? I thought last year's strikes were supposed to be a deterrent from further use of these weapons? How far is the Trump Administration prepared to go if the Syrian regime continues with these or similar atrocities?

A former officer in Syria’s chemical program, Adulsalam Abdulrazek, said Saturday the joint U.S., British, and French strikes hit ‘parts of but not the heart’ of the program. He said the strikes were unlikely to curb the government’s ability to produce or launch new attacks. Speaking from rebel-held northern Syria, Abdulrazek told The Associated Press there were perhaps 50 warehouses in Syria that stored chemical weapons before the program was dismantled in 2013.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/16/missil...ogram-7470161/

**ravenmaniac4life** · 04-16-2018, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

I agree that we destroyed the three sites that were hit. The pictures clearly show that.

My question though was if we have not destroyed Syria's chemical weapons program, then what is to stop them from continued use of these weapons? I thought last year's strikes were supposed to be a deterrent from further use of these weapons? How far is the Trump Administration prepared to go if the Syrian regime continues with these or similar atrocities?

Well, that's the question...right Dirt1?

Time will tell.

When you lose military deterrence, it's tough to get it back. People who have a military background can speak to this better than I can, but I know that it takes time and it's not easy. There's a reason why we are the only superpower in the world. Ask Japan about that.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about military deterrence that I have saved in my favorites. VDH is a scholar/genius and he is one of my "go-to people" for knowledge and insight.

This is a FANTASTIC read and offers a glimpse into a world so few of us have any knowledge about outside of watching Saving Private Ryan:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...a-appeasement/

"Losing deterrence and seeking to recapture it are among the most dangerous moments for a great power." - VDH

**Dirt1** · 04-16-2018, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

Well, that's the question...right Dirt1?

Time will tell.

When you lose military deterrence, it's tough to get it back. People who have a military background can speak to this better than I can, but I know that it takes time and it's not easy. There's a reason why we are the only superpower in the world. Ask Japan about that.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about military deterrence that I have saved in my favorites. VDH is a scholar/genius and he is one of my "go-to people" for knowledge and insight.

This is a FANTASTIC read and offers a glimpse into a world so few of us have any knowledge about outside of watching Saving Private Ryan:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...a-appeasement/

I understand the concept of military deterrence, but it is only effective if your adversary believes that you will follow through. Wasn't last year's strike supposed to have the effect of military deterrence? If this strike was just a symbolic one off, then the deterrence value is extremely limited. Also, the Russians are unlikely to sit idly by if such strikes continue.

**CarrollCoRaven** · 04-16-2018, 11:40 AM

Is there any possible chance that Assad was not responsible for this last chemical attack and that it was done by some other group/country that did not want the US to pull out of Syria like Trump had recently said that he wanted to do? These days, nothing would surprise me. Just a thought.

**filthflarnfilth** · 04-16-2018, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

Do you guys think these strikes will accomplish anything more than the missile strikes last year accomplished? We made a statement that the use of chemical weapons was unacceptable last year with the missile strikes. What was the purpose this time?

Exactly! You think we really give a fuck how they killing each other over there? It’s just a pretext for war. They got chemicals in Flint water.

**NCRAVEN** · 04-16-2018, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

I understand the concept of military deterrence, but it is only effective if your adversary believes that you will follow through. Wasn't last year's strike supposed to have the effect of military deterrence?

You answered your own question "but it is only effective if your adversary believes that you will follow through". Apparently they did, now maybe they will

**Dirt1** · 04-16-2018, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

You answered your own question "but it is only effective if your adversary believes that you will follow through". Apparently they did, now maybe they will

That is if this strike is viewed as a real follow-through, and not just a symbolic gesture. The strike last year didn't deter the Syrian regime. I am not sure this one will either.

**ravenmaniac4life** · 04-16-2018, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

That is if this strike is viewed as a real follow-through, and not just a symbolic gesture. The strike last year didn't deter the Syrian regime. I am not sure this one will either.

Maybe it will. No one knows. Make a threat and follow up on it...vs...make a threat and not follow up on it. Bomb them once to deter them from killing more innocent people...and if they do it again...don't bomb them?

It's all speculative...so...who cares, but...what would you do?

**Dirt1** · 04-16-2018, 01:42 PM

Not sure what I would do, but Lindsey Graham doesn't seem to be a fan.

Graham calls Syria strikes a 'major step backwards' for Trump
‘We don’t have a strategy about why Syria matters,’ the South Carolina senator says.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.S.C.) on Monday criticized President Donald Trump's strikes on three Syrian chemical weapons sites as a "missed opportunity," calling it a "major step backwards" for his military approach in the region.

Graham scrutinized the round of air strikes, carried out Friday night in response to a suspected poison gas attack against civilians near Damascus, which he framed as dealing an insufficient blow to Syrian leader Bashar Assad, whom U.S. officials have accused of deploying chemical weapons.

Asked about the president's response to the attacks in Syria during a radio interview on "The Hugh Hewitt Show," Graham griped that his actions "didn’t lay a glove on Assad’s capabilities to wage war."

"We’re becoming the chemical weapons police," Graham said. "We don’t have a strategy about why Syria matters."

He added: "The military strike itself was a tactical response well short of what I thought was justified. So he’s been a good commander-in-chief in general, but this is a major step backwards."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-graham-526286

**ravenmaniac4life** · 04-16-2018, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dirt1

Not sure what I would do, but Lindsey Graham doesn't seem to be a fan.

Lindsey Grahmnesty? Really?

uhhhhhhh, I'll take..."who gives a shit?" for $500, Alex

**wickedsolo** · 04-16-2018, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by CarrollCoRaven

Is there any possible chance that Assad was not responsible for this last chemical attack and that it was done by some other group/country that did not want the US to pull out of Syria like Trump had recently said that he wanted to do? These days, nothing would surprise me. Just a thought.

Of course it’s possible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk