Syrian Civil War Developments

[Officer of Engineers]

Hehehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! *** wiping a tear from my eye *** Hehehehehehahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[Double Edge]

Full press release from the Pentagon:

https://www.defense.gov/Videos/videoid/594372/

Q&A is quite comprehensive

The authority is under article 2, so the attack is to protect US interests, around the 31:00 mark

Question that came up in my local media is why wasn't the OPCW allowed time to investigate before the attack. Turns out they were blocked from entering the two sites.

2000% increase in disinformation by Russian trolls after the attack eh, its working to some extent

[citanon]

According to the Pentagon, 100 missiles launched from all approaches. 0 intercepted. Russian defenses not even turned on. Syrian SAMs mostly fired after missiles had hit. Ouch.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/...s-intercepted/

[TopHatter]

So, now that the number are all in, not counting support aircraft:

From the Mediterranean
U.S. Virginia-class submarine USS John Warner: 6 Tomahawk missiles
French Aquitaine-class frigate Languedoc: 3 SCALP/MdCN missiles.

In the Red Sea
U.S. Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Monterrey:30 Tomahawks
U.S. Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Laboon: 6 Tomahawks.

In the Arabian Gulf
U.S. Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Higgins: 23 Tomahawks.

Air-Launched
U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers: 19 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM).
British RAF GR4A Tornados: 8 Storm Shadows
French Air Force Dassault Rafales: 8 SCALPs.

Interesting how "little" was launched from the Med.
I wonder if that was to demonstrate to all and sundry how boxed in Syria is and how even potentially disputing control of the Med is no shield for her.

Or maybe there was just a dearth of appropriate assets there.

[Ironduke]

Serbian Putin fanboys are the only ones whom are not happy and are busy cooking up abysmal explanations for this mess.

Just show them this picture and I'm sure they'll settle down.

Syria air strikes: Action showed enough is enough - Boris Johnson

Air strikes in Syria were about saying "enough is enough" over the use of chemical weapons, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has said.

Mr Johnson said the action by the US, UK and France would not "turn the tide" of the conflict and was not about regime change.

But he said he hoped it would act as a deterrent to more "barbaric" chemical attacks.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has questioned the legality of the action.

He called for new legislation to ensure MPs get a vote before future military action is taken, and said he would only back intervention in Syria if the United Nations backed it.

Conservatives said this would never happen due to Russia using its veto at the UN.

Downing Street has published its legal case for its part in the strikes, which targeted military bases.

Sites near Damascus and Homs were hit in response to an alleged chemical attack on the town of Douma on 7 April.

Both Syria and Russia - which provides military support to the Syrian government - have reacted angrily to the action.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43772719

[Double Edge]

More on this legal basis business. Article 2 of the US constitution. Why would that be invoked for an action in Syria. To protect US interests.

What interests does the US have in Syria ? US forces approx. 2000 in Syria presently

So the message of this strike is don't think of using chems against those forces ? this might mean the Brits & French also have assets on the ground there

Which begs the question whether the US would have struck at all had there been no Americans in theatre regardless of whether chems were used by Assad.

There was that red line by Obama. No Americans in Syria then.

Clinton fired off tomahawks at a chemicals facility in Sudan in 1998. They said it was the tail wagging the dog and he needed a diversion from that Monica thing

[Officer of Engineers]

More on this legal basis business.

Forget the legal issue. It's going to drive you crazy. All you need to know is that it is NOT illegal. Doesn't mean it's legal but it is not illegal. How? Because the US, UK, and France can veto any UN Resolution making this action illegal.

Kinda like the undead thing.

[Double Edge]

Forget the legal issue. It's going to drive you crazy. All you need to know is that it is NOT illegal. Doesn't mean it's legal but it is not illegal. How? Because the US, UK, and France can veto any UN Resolution making this action illegal.

Kinda like the undead thing.

Implies its a grey area. Is it though ?

They say using chemical weapons is against international law. Which law isn't specified maybe the chemical weapons convention. All parties agree to dismantle and not use chemical weapons is the gist. Doubt if there are any enforcement clauses in that convention.

Still is that compelling enough to strike. I don't know. Previous presidents have either done or threatened something whenever chemical weapons use was suspected or somehow confirmed.

Has to be more. If there are personnel on the ground then you can say you are keeping them safe (from being attacked by chemical weapons)

[Officer of Engineers]

The CWC and the 1925 Geneva Protocals.

However, only the UN has the authority to punish transgressors, unless you're acting in self defence. No such authorization was given. This being said, the US, UK, and France must be charged with the crimes of being vigilantees by the UN in order to declare the attack illegal. No such UNSCR is coming precisely because they have the veto.

So, is the attack legal? No, because the UNSC has not authorized it. Is the attack illegal? No, because the US, UK, and France will veto any UNSCR declaring the attack illegal.

[Double Edge]

The CWC and the 1925 Geneva Protocals.

However, only the UN has the authority to punish transgressors, unless you're acting in self defence. No such authorization was given. This being said, the US, UK, and France must be charged with the crimes of being vigilantees by the UN in order to declare the attack illegal. No such UNSCR is coming precisely because they have the veto.

So, is the attack legal? No, because the UNSC has not authorized it. Is the attack illegal? No, because the US, UK, and France will veto any UNSCR declaring the attack illegal.

Very good, just like with Iraq.

Rather than getting a UNSC resolution to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria and building consensus for action which is nigh on impossible.

Prevent the other side from declaring the action illegal and whatever attendant sanctions that go along with it.

UNSC judo : )

[Versus]

Just show them this picture and I'm sure they'll settle down.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43772719

Its so bad that my friend whom owns an talk show, needed to make separate page dedicated just for them and call it " Thoughts of an average Serbian ox". It fits so well...

[zraver]

More on this legal basis business. Article 2 of the US constitution. Why would that be invoked for an action in Syria. To protect US interests.

Congress' war making powers are basically a giant appropriations bill, since they know longer issue letters of margue. For money already disbursed ie weapons already bought, the President's authority to use force is unrestrained by the Constitution. The President can use every bomb and bullet in the US inventory. The one thing he can't do is buy more.

[Officer of Engineers]

LOL where were you guys when LBJ pranced around butt naked on AF One?

I demand citanon be banned for putting that picture in our heads.

Get it out! Get it Out! Get it Out!

[citanon]

I demand citanon be banned for putting that picture in our heads.

Get it out! Get it Out! Get it Out!

LBJ is the new Celine Dion?

[Ironduke]

If Trump managed to confine his immorality to merely raw-dogging porn stars and the like, I could almost ignore that. It certainly bespeaks to a character bereft of conscience, but hey that's politicians in general.

I don't know about that - I'm sure his wife don't care except that it's on the news all the time. If I was a billionaire and my wife was seeing the pool boy, I'd probably just keep my blinders on and just pretend it wasn't going on.

Syria air strikes: Macron says he convinced Trump not to pull out troops

French President Emmanuel Macron has said he convinced US President Donald Trump not to withdraw troops from Syria and instead commit "for the long term".

Earlier this month, Mr Trump declared that the US would "be coming out of Syria very soon".

On Saturday, joint US, UK and French strikes targeted Syrian government sites in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

Mr Macron said he also persuaded Mr Trump to keep the strikes limited.

The pair, who are reported to have a friendly relationship, spoke multiple times in the days before the military action was taken.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43778831

US-led strikes on Syria: A move with unpredictable consequences

The United States and its European allies launched airstrikes early Saturday on Syrian research, development and military facilities in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus last weekend that killed at least 40 people.

The tripartite military action from the United States, France and Britain was designed to set back or destroy Syria's chemical weapons program, the three countries said, and deter any further use in violation of international conventions. They stressed that the strikes were limited and not intended to signal a Western intervention in the Syrian civil war or an attempt at regime change.

"The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons," US President Donald Trump said in a televised address. "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."

In London, British Prime Minister Theresa May repeated that the military action was not about "intervening in a civil war" and "it is not about regime change."

"It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties," she said.

http://www.dw.com/en/us-led-strikes-...ces/a-43389488