Trump and Bolton are assembling an Arab force to replace the US contingent in Syria..

[Drummond]

Yep, this is from after he was President-elect: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-zones-2016-12

It was Gary Johnson, Yea, that one, that was taken by surprise by Aleppo.

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?

[Black Diamond]

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?

Good luck with that one.

[revelarts]

There's one very big problem with all of that.
Assad, and particularly Russia, OPPOSE ANYONE GOING TO THE AREA. OPCW investigators themselves have so far been denied access .. they MAY get access tomorrow !!
Perhaps you've 'overlooked' the fact that Russia vetoed a UN-based drive to investigate what had happened at the site of the gassing ? So what makes you think that Russia, or Assad, will let humanitarian workers of any description anywhere near there ?
Revelarts, really ... WAKE UP to the realities involved.

But OK so how exactly can you be sure there was chemical attack and that Assad did it if you don't have independent inspectors on the ground again? "Rebel" reports?

And i asked early isn't the area a "REBEL" controlled area, Because Assad BOMBED the rebels and children there right? So Are you sure that the Russians and Syrian army have control now? Is it safe for inspectors? it is an active war zone right? do you need to wake up to the realities here?

But lets say you're right, it's all safe and the Russians and Syrians are blocking entry becasue they are GUILTY as sin.
Is the best alternative, if you can't inspect or send medical aid, to send a 100+ U.S., U.K. and French missiles? really?

[revelarts]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.

[Kathianne]

Just seen your link. OK - it's clear, then, that Trump had a humanitarian position on the subject, back then.

Since then, we've seen Assad ramp up matters. This against a backdrop of a Russia happy to facilitate and even be the cause of chemical weapons deployments.

Trump feel this needs to be tackled. He is, of course, absolutely right.

Perhaps Revelarts could be persuaded to agree ?

Here's the thing. I actually agree with the bombing in retaliation for those innocents targeted. I think US, FR, UK were correct in the response. Same with removal of Russian diplomats in EU and US. What I don't think is right now or in the past, is ignoring the threats to our troops under the guise of 'training' the home team that we should have learned our lesson from regarding Iraq and particularly Afghanistan.

As Gunny has repeatedly stated; either commit to the hard job or get the hell out of there.

[revelarts]

More from Nigel Farage

[Drummond]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.

Nigel Farage is an ex-Party leader, now relegated to a talk show host (and he was never a Conservative as such .. at best, he had 'Conservative leanings'). He is, and largely by his own design, a spent political 'force'.

So, I don't agree with him. What of it ?

[Drummond]

But OK so how exactly can you be sure there was chemical attack and that Assad did it if you don't have independent inspectors on the ground again? "Rebel" reports?

And i asked early isn't the area a "REBEL" controlled area, Because Assad BOMBED the rebels and children there right? So Are you sure that the Russians and Syrian army have control now? Is it safe for inspectors? it is an active war zone right? do you need to wake up to the realities here?

But lets say you're right, it's all safe and the Russians and Syrians are blocking entry becasue they are GUILTY as sin.
Is the best alternative, if you can't inspect or send medical aid, to send a 100+ U.S., U.K. and French missiles? really?

Well, how come you are so sure of the opposite ?

The point, Revelarts, is that the Assad regime, backed fully by its Russian facilitators, have done what they can to BLOCK access to the 'disputed' area. Now, if no chemical attack happened, why is that so ?

The 'is it safe for inspectors' question is a crock. Those inspectors could make their own determination if they wanted to. If unsafe, they'd find that out in short order. Fact is, Assad, the Russians, now apparently you, aren't keen to see inspectors go in and check the area (and the victims) out.

As for sending missiles ... well, the missiles sent were not sent THERE !! They were sent to buildings and research facilities run by Assad's people for the creation of chemical weaponry !! Now, how on earth can it be 'wrong' to neutralise Assad's chemical weapons program ?

I'd really like to know why you're so keen to defend Assad's regime, to say nothing of Russian support for it. And if you're not, then understand that something needs to be done about it all.

Trump DID act. And, oh, how you hate him for it ...

[Drummond]

Here's the thing. I actually agree with the bombing in retaliation for those innocents targeted. I think US, FR, UK were correct in the response. Same with removal of Russian diplomats in EU and US. What I don't think is right now or in the past, is ignoring the threats to our troops under the guise of 'training' the home team that we should have learned our lesson from regarding Iraq and particularly Afghanistan.

As Gunny has repeatedly stated; either commit to the hard job or get the hell out of there.

You have a point.

Gunny certainly does.

The only difficulty is in considering to what extent we defy the Russian presence, also there. Because neither Assad nor the Russians would welcome any significant US presence without their prior approval of it.

I think that what Trump's done is reasonable and proportionate, and definitely better than completely standing on the sidelines and tolerating it all. Doing THAT would've sent out the worst possible message.

[Kathianne]

You have a point.

Gunny certainly does.

The only difficulty is in considering to what extent we defy the Russian presence, also there. Because neither Assad nor the Russians would welcome any significant US presence without their prior approval of it.

I think that what Trump's done is reasonable and proportionate, and definitely better than completely standing on the sidelines and tolerating it all. Doing THAT would've sent out the worst possible message.

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

[Elessar]

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

Then there is the notion that things might have changed internally with Syria through increased
reports and Intel that is not necessarily privvy to the general public. The MSM hates not being
spoon-fed everything. It does not allow them to pass judgement prematurely.

You don't play all of your cards openly for all to see.

[Kathianne]

Then there is the notion that things might have changed internally with Syria through increased
reports and Intel that is not necessarily privvy to the general public. The MSM hates not being
spoon-fed everything. It does not allow them to pass judgement prematurely.

You don't play all of your cards openly for all to see.

Yep, we agree, same as he said about Obama. Speaking of which, while he was my least favorite president, I don't think we saw such defense of his positions, regarding his having intel the rest of the US doesn't.

[mundame]

That's what Trump said during the campaign, do you have problem with that?

I sure don't. I love it. Bravo, Trump, again.

What are our real interests there? NO ISIS. So far, so good.

NO normalization of chemical warfare. So far, Trump is making that real, real clear, and we do not need anything but the USS Donald Cook cruise missile launcher sitting out in the Mediterranean to enforce that. I believe Trump has adequately made that point, and a WHOLE lot better than Obama did, and if Assad doesn't get the message, he can easily do it again. Myself, I'd like to see the missiles rain down on the Syrian Presidential Palace, but then, I'm a hothead. What he did will work, IMO.

[Drummond]

He did what he did AFTER making it clear a week before, that he wanted the US out of Syria, same as he criticized Obama for doing.

I get changing one's mind, but in this case an argument may be made his statement caused the crisis. A week later, 'let's consider doing what was done in Afghanistan.'

Of these decisions I'm not a fan.

His statement 'caused the crisis' .. ? That's quite a reach, surely ?? Ok, you don't like Trump ! I get it !!

Back to the plot: the crisis ACTUALLY came about as a result of Assad launching a chemical attack, and our seeing news reports of victims of it suffering its effects. I don't believe, especially with Russia backing him, that Assad allows every utterance of Trump's to determine his every move ! Assad wants to commit acts of such an atrocious nature, so, he'll do it.

And, he did.

We have news that the OPCW has now, finally, ELEVEN days later, been allowed into the zone of attack. Our own media is already making obvious comments to the effect that Russia has had ample time to remove traces of chemicals from that environment.

Trump, along with the UK and France, has sent Russia and Assad a valuable message. We on our side WILL NOT tolerate the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations.

That we have taken such a stance is something we can be proud of. It astonishes me that such a move invites any level of scorn, considering what doing the opposite invites, instead ... the continued TOLERATION of such acts to be readily inferred and relied upon, most especially by Russia.

[mundame]

Again Nigel Farage doesn't think attacking Syria is a good idea... STILL.
maybe you could convince him.

I don't know who Nigel Farage is, but the name doesn't sound American, and if he isn't, he doesn't matter. To us. A true Trump supporter stays LOYAL. In this time of continual leftwing attack against Trump, we have to support him faithfully, or we will lose him. Probably will anyway, but I sure hope not: he's doing great.