Was Donald Trump right to bomb Syria?

Maybe, he's just putting on a little show for China and North Korea, so they take note of his resolve and apparent disregard for the usual protocol.

Maybe this recent bombing in response to Assad's alleged chemical attack, was actually done with Putin's blessing, behind the scenes. Maybe Putin still believes that US/Russia relations will be better with Trump in charge and want to do everything they can to assist Trump in securing two terms, and so agreed to some limited bombing to allow Trump some good PR back home.

Thoughts etc??

The Donald could not be more wrong. I guess he took the bait. I don't think that Assad is a nice guy, but it seems unlikely to me that he launched a chemical attack knowing what reaction it would cause. 

He shouldn't have done it but I do not think he is mental. I think it is unwise to underestimate just how duplicitous and conniving he is.

Dean wrote: He shouldn't have done it but I do not think he is mental. I think it is unwise to underestimate just how duplicitous and conniving he is.

I agree, but could he be duplicitous, conniving and also mental?

Blacksword wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: He shouldn't have done it but I do not think he is mental. I think it is unwise to underestimate just how duplicitous and conniving he is. I agree, but could he be duplicitous, conniving and also mental? I think he is reactionary and reckless, but my use of the word mental was somewhat flippant, I admit. He seems to me like a child who's got hold of his dad's gun...

With every news story I see I ask myself, 'what's in it for Trump?' It is pretty evident thus far that The Donald rarely does anything that doesn't have some benefit for The Donald. Snarky observers have already noted that firing 59 Raytheon missiles has resulted in a few percentage points increase in the value of The Donald's Raytheon stocks. As cynical as that view is, war is very good for business.

While it's obvious that Trump is just playing an one-man show of vulgar display of power, I'm not sure I would condemn this bombing: it's not the first time that Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against his people, and I do think it's time to act against this regime.

Yet, bombing a military station isn't the best option (from every point of view, strategical, diplomatical, etc): I'm still in favor of an UN resolution - granted that the Blue Helmets could be useful. At least, if they could help the NGO to do some humanitarian, it would be a great start.
 
Also, I still think the best way to get rid of Assad would be to help some rebel factions (especially the YPG). Instead of bombing some military sites, it would be more intelligent to send some logistical help, food, weapons, etc...

aglasshouse wrote: Vompatti wrote: The UN is a joke and the congress would only have slowed him down. You could argue that the bombing was a waste of money and he shouldn't have done it at all (and I would be inclined to agree), but if he was going to do it, this was the right way. Yeah, this.

Blacksword wrote:  I think he is reactionary and reckless, but my use of the word mental was somewhat flippant, I admit. He seems to me like a child who's got hold of his dad's gun...

I don't think that your use of the word mental is flippant at all, Andy. I don't take Trump for a fool, but his 4 AM tweeting binges do hint of lunacy, which was once thought to be an irrational mental state brought about by the lunar cycles. 

Blacksword wrote: Dean wrote: Blacksword wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: He shouldn't have done it but I do not think he is mental. I think it is unwise to underestimate just how duplicitous and conniving he is. I agree, but could he be duplicitous, conniving and also mental? I think he is reactionary and reckless, but my use of the word mental was somewhat flippant, I admit. He seems to me like a child who's got hold of his dad's gun... With every news story I see I ask myself, 'what's in it for Trump?' It is pretty evident thus far that The Donald rarely does anything that doesn't have some benefit for The Donald. Snarky observers have already noted that firing 59 Raytheon missiles has resulted in a few percentage points increase in the value of The Donald's Raytheon stocks. As cynical as that view is, war is very good for business. Yes, war is always a money spinner, but the whole episode doesn't smell right to me. For a start Assad was getting the upper jhand in the conflict having recently taken Aleppo. Why risk a foreign intervention with a chemical attack, unless he was testing the new presidents reaction... Also, Trumps position on Russia has taken such a sharp U-turn, I'm struggling to believe his new apparently hostile position is legitimate. I'm wondering if the Kremlin actually approved this limited strike, and have agreed to an exchange of harsh words and hollow threats to play to their respective electorates at home.

Dean wrote: Blacksword wrote: Dean wrote: Blacksword wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: He shouldn't have done it but I do not think he is mental. I think it is unwise to underestimate just how duplicitous and conniving he is. I agree, but could he be duplicitous, conniving and also mental? I think he is reactionary and reckless, but my use of the word mental was somewhat flippant, I admit. He seems to me like a child who's got hold of his dad's gun... With every news story I see I ask myself, 'what's in it for Trump?' It is pretty evident thus far that The Donald rarely does anything that doesn't have some benefit for The Donald. Snarky observers have already noted that firing 59 Raytheon missiles has resulted in a few percentage points increase in the value of The Donald's Raytheon stocks. As cynical as that view is, war is very good for business. Yes, war is always a money spinner, but the whole episode doesn't smell right to me. For a start Assad was getting the upper jhand in the conflict having recently taken Aleppo. Why risk a foreign intervention with a chemical attack, unless he was testing the new presidents reaction... Also, Trumps position on Russia has taken such a sharp U-turn, I'm struggling to believe his new apparently hostile position is legitimate. I'm wondering if the Kremlin actually approved this limited strike, and have agreed to an exchange of harsh words and hollow threats to play to their respective electorates at home. I do wonder how much we've been played by all three of them, thou' that may be crediting Assad with being more than just a pawn in Putin's game. Syria is Russia's only reliable foot-hold in the Middle East (their relations with Iran have always been tenuous and unpredictable, they're chums at the moment out of economic necessity but there is no guarantee how long that will last - ideologically they are poles apart) so he will defend the Syrian regime at all costs, even if and/or when Assad does something stupid and indefensible. As I recall every use of chemical weapons in the middle east has had a degree of doubt and counter-accusation associated with it because of the international outrage it creates; there is tangible credibility in the belief that both sides are insane enough to deploy them (even against their own people) and smart enough not to admit that they have but blame the other side instead.

The west are also crazy enough to supply them to future enemies, as was the case with Iraq, when they were at war with Iran. This is my problem. There are no cleans hands. There are no good guys, there are just 'interests' that each side wish to protect, and will do so regardless of the cost in human life or money.

While I'm not fan of Putin, try and see this from his perspective. The G7 are currently trying to come up with a plan to 'persuade' Moscow to ditch Syria as an ally. Can you imagine if the BRICS nations decided to meet to put pressure on the US to ditch France or Britain as an ally, we'd laugh our f***ing arses off at them. Russia are not going to ditch a strategic ally in the region, regardless of sanctions and threats, and making such demands is only going to make Putin more determined to stand his ground.