Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Saturday April 14 2018, @02:09AM   Printer-friendly

Submitted via IRC for chromas

President Trump announced Friday night that the U.S. and its allies had launched attacks on Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack last week by President Bashar Assad's regime.

In televised remarks from the White House, Trump said the attacks were underway, and that Great Britain and France were also taking part.

The president did not provide details, but U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea, armed with cruise missiles, were in position to strike. British and French forces were also in place.

[...] The president said the U.S. prepared to sustain effort until the Syrian regime stops using chemical weapons.

[...] In the days leading up to the U.S. attack, Russia had warned that it would defend its troops in Syria. This has raised fears of a possible direct clash of U.S. and Russian forces.

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/13/601794830/u-s-launches-attacks-on-syria

Also at Bloomberg and The Guardian


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:13AM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday April 14 2018, @04:13AM (#666782)

    >$100 million+ to shut down an airport for a few hours.

    is cheap, compared to the blowback from any military deployment.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Sunday April 15 2018, @04:13PM (1 child)

    by Bobs (1462) on Sunday April 15 2018, @04:13PM (#667293)

    True.

    But what was accomplished by the attack?

    By a number reports, the attack was so impotent that Assad was emboldened in his use of chemical weapons.

    So the 2017 attack/response by Trump was a net negative.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:16PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:16PM (#667345)

      But what was accomplished by the attack?

      As released to public knowledge, or full spectrum?

      By a number reports, the attack was so impotent that Assad was emboldened in his use of chemical weapons.

      Which could actually be a strategic move to draw Assad out into making a bigger mistake on the international stage...

      So the 2017 attack/response by Trump was a net negative.

      As so many military interventions are - from some perspectives. From other perspectives the same intervention can be win-win for several parties.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]