CNN Reporting that US Launched 50 Missiles on Syria

[JimL]

Listening to the news right now, CNN is reporting that the Trump administration has launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against airfields in Syria. I have no links for this yet. If confirmed, this seems like a pretty bold and decisive move on Trump's part.

The cynic in me says that, though I believe the bombing to be justified, though not necessarily constitutionally legal, its really just a ploy by Trump and Putin to make it look as though Trump is not a Russian puppet and to take some of the air out of the expanding investigative balloon regarding campaign collusion. What I don't get though, is why the killing of men, women and little babies matters only when its done by means of chemical weapons? I think a hundred or so Syrian people were killed in that bombing, but about a half a million have been blown away by conventional bombing and such over the years, including little babies. Whats the deal?

[Yttrium]

The cynic in me says that, though I believe the bombing to be justified, though not necessarily constitutionally legal, its really just a ploy by Trump and Putin to make it look as though Trump is not a Russian puppet and to take some of the air out of the expanding investigative balloon regarding campaign collusion. What I don't get though, is why the killing of men, women and little babies matters only when its done by means of chemical weapons? I think a hundred or so Syrian people were killed in that bombing, but about a half a million have been blown away by conventional bombing and such over the years, including little babies. Whats the deal?

Take that up with the UN. Killing his own people is a tragic loss of innocent life, but it still counts as an internal issue. It's not the job or the right of the US to meddle in every internal affair around the world, even if we sometimes come up with a reason to do so. The use of chemical weapons like sarin is an international war crime, however, which makes it an international concern and not an internal affair.

[Meh Gerbil]

The cynic in me says that, though I believe the bombing to be justified, though not necessarily constitutionally legal, its really just a ploy by Trump and Putin to make it look as though Trump is not a Russian puppet and to take some of the air out of the expanding investigative balloon regarding campaign collusion. What I don't get though, is why the killing of men, women and little babies matters only when its done by means of chemical weapons? I think a hundred or so Syrian people were killed in that bombing, but about a half a million have been blown away by conventional bombing and such over the years, including little babies. Whats the deal?

Your typical liberal bot has been conditioned to panic whenever people in the media tell them to panic.
The media is signaling that chemical weapons are a reason to panic.

As you've noted, there is no logic to getting upset when 500K people have been murdered by conventional means only to get self-righteously indignant when chemical weapons are used to kill a couple of dozen. It makes no sense because there is no sense to it, only emotion.

From now on let's refer to death by bullets as over-exposure to lead or lead-poisoning.

[Leonhard]

Didn't Obama try to approve an attack on Syria, only for Congress to vote him down on it?

[Yttrium]

Didn't Obama try to approve an attack on Syria, only for Congress to vote him down on it?

In 2013, yes, as described in this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politi...ump/index.html

Republicans weren't so fired up to retaliate against Syria back then.

[Darth Executor]

ISIS is no better or worse than what these third world hell holes have now

Wrong, ISIS is pretty terrible even by mudslam standards.

[Darth Executor]

Close.
It is actually about appearing morally superior.

You could take Assad's ideology and followers and have them switch positions with the rebels; that is, the rebels now have the chemical weapons. Upon use of the chemical weapons the media would post a couple of pictures, show a child crying in the streets, and suddenly these liberals would all be rooting for Assad. If you doubt that show mass graves of those killed via conventional weapons and don't show pictures of the chemical weapons usage and the liberal would immediately switch sides. They're entirely reactionary based on the media cycle. There is no actual substance - it is just crying on cue.

Nah, liberals always root for the worst people. If ISIS was using gas they'd still shill for them. The reason why they latch on to chemicals is because it's a good rhetorical point (dying from sarin poisoning is considerably less pleasant than a bullet to the head or being pulverized by smart missiles), but in the end it's all about destroying Assad and letting ISIS take over.

[Terraceth]

I would have celebrated Obama as the greatest President ever had he the wisdom to permanently get out of the middle east.
I was hoping I could celebrate Trump as the greatest President ever - but like all those before he just had to stick his finger in the middle eastern pie.

Let me know if you're willing to be President and stay the hell out of the middle east.
I'll write out a campaign check today.

Well, all three of the "major" third parties in the US--Constitution, Libertarian, and Green--are all very non-interventionist in foreign policy, especially the first two.

I don't know a great deal about the middle east but I get the impression that Assad wasn't that big of a threat.
It isn't like he was going to take over the region.

Assad is having difficulty having control over his own country, I don't know how he could really be much of a threat to anyone else.

[Meh Gerbil]

Nah, liberals always root for the worst people. If ISIS was using gas they'd still shill for them. The reason why they latch on to chemicals is because it's a good rhetorical point (dying from sarin poisoning is considerably less pleasant than a bullet to the head or being pulverized by smart missiles), but in the end it's all about destroying Assad and letting ISIS take over.

Well, that is the second theory I've heard that makes sense.
It beats the tar out of all the 'humanitarian' theories.

[rogue06]

They are if you fill them with bleach.
CHEMICAL WAEPONS OMG OMG OMOGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM!

Bleach mixed with ammonia produces chlorine gas which is a war gas used heavily during WWI.

Better practice your duck and cover rodent, the Tomahawks are on the way.

[Trout]

(...) All the usual Trump supporters and "violent" types ...Gerbil

Sometimes your kentuckyesque wisdom is spot on.

[Sea of red]

Take that up with the UN. Killing his own people is a tragic loss of innocent life, but it still counts as an internal issue. It's not the job or the right of the US to meddle in every internal affair around the world, even if we sometimes come up with a reason to do so. The use of chemical weapons like sarin is an international war crime, however, which makes it an international concern and not an internal affair.

You understand we've committed all kinds of war crimes, right? This is not about war crimes, chemical weapons, or anything along those lines. We've had our eye on Syria for a number of years now, and we were looking for an excuse to get involved. It's what we do. If there's a conflict going on we just can't stand to not feel like we're making a difference, or on the right side.

[Sea of red]

I think it is more about "defending the helpless" - at least in their mind. Although this is more revenge than defense. I don't think they get that part though.



There is a long history with chemical weapons dating back to WW1 and mustard gas. They have been banned as horrific weapons by the UN and every other nation. And they are easy to make, so it makes sense that the reaction was so swift and harsh. We don't want people getting the idea that chemical weapons are OK because once that idea gets out, it will become a nightmare. At least with conventional weapons, you don't have to worry about someone making a missile in their basement out of stuff they buy at the local drug store.

War by it's very nature is a nightmare. People have been buried alive, napalmed, incinerated - you name it. Nobody ever plays fair in war, including us. If we were in a war and the difference between winning and losing was using chemical weapons, you can bet we'd use them ourselves.

[Yttrium]

You understand we've committed all kinds of war crimes, right? This is not about war crimes, chemical weapons, or anything along those lines. We've had our eye on Syria for a number of years now, and we were looking for an excuse to get involved. It's what we do. If there's a conflict going on we just can't stand to not feel like we're making a difference, or on the right side.

Attacking one air base in a limited fashion doesn't really get us overtly involved. It was a specific response to a use of chemical weapons, and it's a warning for Syria to not use chemical weapons any more.

On the other hand, we've been covertly involved in helping the rebels for a long time now.

[Tassman]

The cynic in me says that, though I believe the bombing to be justified, though not necessarily constitutionally legal, its really just a ploy by Trump and Putin to make it look as though Trump is not a Russian puppet and to take some of the air out of the expanding investigative balloon regarding campaign collusion. What I don't get though, is why the killing of men, women and little babies matters only when its done by means of chemical weapons? I think a hundred or so Syrian people were killed in that bombing, but about a half a million have been blown away by conventional bombing and such over the years, including little babies. Whats the deal?

Yes, and one wonders whether Trump's new found compassion regarding the pain and tragedy of murdered innocent children will extend to providing sanctuary in the US for refugees fleeing Assad's brutality.

Didn't Obama try to approve an attack on Syria, only for Congress to vote him down on it?

Yes he did. It was yet another example of Republican obstructionism during the Obama presidency..