Home | About | Donate

'Carnage and Chaos' Loom as Trump Weighs Military Options in Syria


#1

'Carnage and Chaos' Loom as Trump Weighs Military Options in Syria

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

The threat of further U.S. military action in Syria looms with the Pentagon reportedly drawing up plans for a response to Tuesday's deadly chemical attack that Defense Secretary James Mattis will present to President Donald Trump Thursday evening.


#2

Let the evil emperor dressed in his golden raiment, driving a golden tank lobbing golden armaments at any and all targets into the homes with women and children waking to a golden dawn and their deaths. It is only fitting that he who calls for war lead the charge. May his body be the first and thus at the bottom of the pile of rubble and carnage he caused with Tillerson the second body laying on his lowness.

Is there no end to this demon's destruction? Seems not thus far.


#3

There is just about ZERO chance Assad was behind the gas attacks and just about 100 PERCENT chance Al Qaeda or some other faction in the anti-Assad coalition were behind it. There are peace deals in the offing and someone doesn't want that to happen.

Assad knows full well that were he to engage in chemical warfare then exactly what the NeoCon-NeoLiberal-Saudi-Israeli faction wants would happen - further involvement by the US, France, et al, in their illegal invasion. To think he is that stupid is utterly insane.


#4

I doubt that the public would support sending troops into Syria. This sounds like a nonstarter and just something to make Trump sound tough. Sort of imitating George W. Bush. Another macho guy as president. The last thing we need based on past experience. There seems to be no hint that Trump understands what is going on in Syria at all. In the big picture it is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia or between the Shiites and Sunnis. Assad is from a Shiite sect and has been oppressing the Sunnis which is a major reason why ISIS has had some support from parts of the population. Assad of course is an ally of Russia which has military bases in Syria. To attack Assad is to be on the side of Saudi Arabia and to be against Iran or to take the side of the Sunnis. It would be the opposite of what the US did in Iraq when it took on Sadaam who was a Sunni and in effect the US came in on the side of the Shiites which was good news for Iran and bad news for Saudi Arabia. So what if Assad is overthrown somehow? Who would take over? And how would the US get out of Syria? Trump so far is supplying nothing but simple macho statements as if this was part of his campaign which it probably is as he seems to be campaigning by playing to his base of extremists. What was that rally about last month? It is was found out afterward a bunch of neo-Nazis attended.


#5

"The death and suffering caused by poison gas in Syria emphasizes the urgency—not to escalate the war with more bombardment—but to end it through negotiation between the United States and Russia. Only they can impose a solution on their clients."

So much for our Great Negotiator in Chief, it seems.

Direct Online Democracy


#6

" Is there any valid argument that Trump has legal authority do this without the approval of Congress?" Glenn Greenwald.

No, of course not, but that Congressional authority was made irrelevant in 1950. Ever since America has been at the mercy of a presidential war dictator.


#7

Do you think that this diabolical dunce knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite? His idea of being "presidential' is throwing his bulk around to demonstrate his power regardless of the consequences. You already know a lot more about the complicated dynamics in Syria and neighboring nations in the Middle East that this mentally deranged dimwit will ever know!


#8

I agree. In the meantime here are some observations from Pepe Escobar:

Peace
Po


#9

I don't believe presidents give a damn what the public thinks about sending troops anywhere in the world. They haven't for decades, sending troops across the globe to whatever place they (anointing themselves "the deciders" one after another) decide needs to be turned into bloody hell for their twisted idea of "gain" for their corporate, power hungry cronies. I don't see that that attitude has changed lately.


#10

Hey, more people die over there, more money for the plutocrats here. This is a no-brainer for a republican. War is PROFITABLE. Therefore, the republicans can show us all pictures of dead children as an excuse to kill even more children. Brutality and murder masquerading as humanitarian concern. The bottom line is the bottom line, and with war, the bottom line for the plutocrat looks damn good. Expect even more rampant blood and carnage from these heartless, compassionless and brainless republican ghouls.


#11

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)


#12

From the absolutely reliable source, Sputnik news, we learn that Assad did not use poison gas against his own people, he just very reasonably dropped a bomb on a pile of the stuff, which had the same effect. The kind of defense that makes sense to putinists of Left and Right.

Opposing intervention in Syria does not require progressives to defend such nonsense.


#13

Yes, that certainly makes sense. And Trump has been itching for his own war from day one.


#14

These oligarchs are not even human, and never were. When is MORE not enough?


#15

You really don't know who Pepe Escobar is? He's been a foreign journalist all over the world since the early 2000's, started out as a regular correspondent for Asia Times. He is also a respected geopolitical analyst who covered Bush's IWOT, Iraq War, etc. He gets published in many outlets, RT and Sputnik only being two of them. And just because it happens to be RT or Sputnik publishing his stuff doesn't automatically make Escobar's reporting and analysis wrong. How about challenging the substance of what Escobar says instead of throwing up the ad hominem attack that it was published by a country you don't like.


#16

Thanks for that. I didn't know where to start but you did just fine.

Peace
Po


#17

No problem. Bashing Russian media and labeling all sources that might remotely have a position that happens to be consistent with Russia's (about anything) as Russian/Putin stooge seems to be the only tune he knows how to play around here. It's a poor substitute for a real argument.


#18

That's not true. Congressional support was needed for the first Gulf War, for the war in Afghanistan, and congressional authority was needed for the Iraq War. The money comes from Congress.Trump can't run a war without money to pay for it.


#19

Anyone who goes into a war in an Arab country without knowing the difference between a Shiite and Sunni is complete fool. Just ask George W. Bush and Dick Cheney what can happen.


#20

They try to get public support but ultimately they may make a decision that may not have popular support. It seems to me that in the country once we go to war popular support quickly materializes to support the troops. If the war doesn't go well, however, that support can be lost and it becomes a big political issue.