Lion of the Blogosphere

Syria Attack. Is it good for Trump?

with 150 comments

I think the answer is yes.

1. It’s always good for the president when there’s military action overseas, at least in the short run, because people rally around the flag.

And there’s no evidence here that Trump intends to get American soldiers stuck in a long ground war.

2. Had Trump done nothing, for weeks the MSM would have been showing us pictures of the poor children killed by the Sarin gas. Trump heads that off and makes the MSM shut up.

Also, it seems that Trump gave warning about the attack so that the airbase could be evacuated, heading off the negative publicity of pictures of dead victims of the attack.

3. Trump sends a message to North Korea and other countries up to no good that we mean business and we’re no longer the wishy-washy country previously led by Obama.

* * *

There are a lot of yahoos in the comments insisting the chemical attack was a “false flag attack.” Sounds like a dumb conspiracy theory to me. Even the Russians and the Syrians don’t say that, their story is that they accidentally blew up an Al-Nusra Front (aka Al-Qaeda in Syria) chemical weapons storehouse.

Trump has access to intelligence information that I don’t have. I’m not in the mood to believe that Trump was duped by his own intelligence agencies.

Even if he was duped, why does it matter? The world knew about the attack and blamed Assad, Trump had to do something. Even in the unlikely event that the “false flag” conspiracy theory is true, then we should thank the false-flag people for giving Trump the opportunity take advantage of it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 7, 2017 at 9:06 am

Posted in International

150 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Even if the chemical attack was real why should we care? Muslims treat their people like cattle all the time. Why do we have to spend our money and lives to save them? So they can move here and rape our women?

    Donna

    April 7, 2017 at 9:08 am

    • #MuslimLivesMatter

      Why should we care, indeed. The harsh reality of this world is this: you look out for number one. You pick yourself over others. We care about our children more than children in Syria (or elsewhere) who are not our responsiblity. PERIOD.

      Remember, no good deed goes unpunished. As the poster above stated, you save all the Syrians and suddenly they’re brought into your country to make war with YOU!

      fakeemail

      April 7, 2017 at 9:20 am

    • Even if the chemical attack was real why should we care?

      Because that war is the excuse being used to bring them into our countries. The sooner we end that the sooner we stop the flow and start sending them back.

      destructure

      April 7, 2017 at 11:07 am

      • Every country in that region that we intervened in is still a failed state sending refugees. We won’t be stopping the flow by intervening.

        DataExplorer

        April 7, 2017 at 2:19 pm

      • Equating this to staring wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is a bit of a stretch. How is blowing up the cafeteria and a half dozen planes on an evacuated air base going to create refugees? When he does something to create refugees then you’ll have point. Until then, you people need to settle down.

        destructure

        April 7, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    • “Even if the chemical attack was real why should we care? ”

      We don’t care. We care that we look weak while Russia struts its stuff in the Middle East. It’s getting too big for its britches.

      The US takes orders from no one. Under no circumstances, no how.

      gothamette

      April 7, 2017 at 2:58 pm

  2. If there were any evidence that Assad ordered a gas attack we would have seen it. Trump got duped and so did you

    S

    April 7, 2017 at 9:15 am

  3. Tillerson is talking about Assad removal and all the DC neocons are ecstatic. This is not a head fake maneuver. Trump lied and can’t be trusted. The American people are not interested in this. This is a straight up betrayal of his base.

    bobbybobbob

    April 7, 2017 at 9:23 am

    • Nah, his base LOVES this. At least according to my Facebook feed. The alt-right is a tiny fraction of all Trump supporters. Throwing them under a bus to get mainstream support as well as showing that he is not in Russia’s pocket is a strategically good move at the very least.

      A Reader

      April 7, 2017 at 10:02 am

      • He’s losing populists too.

        Dave

        April 7, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    • trump’s biggest support comes from moderate republicans because trump doesn’t emphasize social conservative talking points. the alt-right has fewer members than the libertarians.

      • People confuse the normal right wing who hate illegals and cultural displacement, with the alt-right who mostly started out as liberals and then had to read Larry Auster and Mencius Moldbug (then later Heartiste) to understand why their cucked liberal instincts were wrong. Not all of the alt-right is like this, but many people came to these blogs to understand why they were still alone and single and why women were so vicious in their behaviors towards them. Some left Lion’s blog as race realists, while others left more extreme blogs as Neo Nazis.

        That’s why the alt right has become so rabidly fascist and full of hate (not a value judgement, but just an observation, since their hate is well justified.

        The alt-right is what would happen if you broke Mr. Rogers. Take someone kind hearted and decent and endlessly stomp on their face with a steel toed boot, while telling them it’s their fault.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        April 7, 2017 at 6:11 pm

  4. My reply to SFG on Sailer’s blog:

    Trump received a rare opportunity to re-establish a certain red line, and he took it.

    What’s good for nothing is Trump’s base losing its shit because of something Bill Clinton used to do to distract from sex scandals. You have the first immigration restrictionist president of the modern era and you’re ready to throw it all out because he made Putin and the Iranians a little upset today? Take a chill pill and wait to see where this goes.

    In other news, possible terrorist attack in Sweden.

    IHTG

    April 7, 2017 at 9:25 am

    • Trump campaigned explicitly for *years* explicitly on the matter of extricating ourselves from exactly this sort of meddling and global policing. He was stronger on this issue than on immigration, frankly. Many people voted for him largely because of it.

      What we learned yesterday is that he is an outright liar and can’t be trusted on anything, or he’s so compromised now (blackmail?) that he’s merely taking orders and what he said before taking office is irrelevant.

      The odds we get the wall or any restriction on immigration are close to zero now. Syrian refugee flow is still coming at 800+ a month and will probably spike up now, and Trump will do nothing. Impeach Trump.

      bobbybobbob

      April 7, 2017 at 9:56 am

      • IHTG

        April 7, 2017 at 10:17 am

      • “He was stronger on this issue than on immigration, frankly. Many people voted for him largely because of it.”

        Those people can FOAD. We don’t want their votes.

        Otis the Sweaty

        April 7, 2017 at 12:16 pm

      • “We should have kept the oil… but maybe we’ll have another chance…”

        http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/26/donald-trump-iraq-oil-newday.cnn

        What oil does Syria offer other than that potentially being pumped out the mouth of a pipeline into the mediterranean?

        Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

        April 7, 2017 at 5:01 pm

      • I oppose the neocons running around the world carelessly starting fires and getting us entangled in long drawn out wars. But I don’t oppose the judicious use of force. Stability is in our interest. Because lesser powers like Russia, China and Iran take advantage of the instability and distraction to increase their position at our expense.

        The simple fact is that the mess was already made. And it’s going to take a bit of effort to clean it up. It won’t be cleaned up by being weak or refusing to engage. The key is a willingness to engage judiciously. Clueless people just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the threat of force and carelessly starting wars. Of course, the threat requires the willingness to back it up in order to remain credible. Otherwise, one is seen as a paper tiger like Obama.

        Bush made a mess by allowing the neocons to start the Iraq war. But Obama made it worse by refusing to put his foot down. Bush’s mess was contained. But everything went to hell under Obama. Iran, Russia and China / North Korea all took advantage of his weakness in the midst of chaos. An early show of force by Trump was necessary to put them on notice.

        Trump walked right up to Putin, pimp slapped him and said, “What you gonna do?” Then he walked over to Xi and said, “You got something to say?” That’s alpha as **** and the whole world saw it. I guarantee Japan, S Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and the EU all breathed a big sigh of relief when he did that. It was such a minor act. But that he was willing to do it right in Putin’s face was huge. Even the fact that his response was measured inspires confidence. The only real question is whether Russia, Iran or China will pull something to save face or just accept their role as betas.

        You clowns who don’t understand the world need to hold your tongues and let the adults talk.

        destructure

        April 8, 2017 at 10:07 am

      • “You clowns who don’t understand the world need to hold your tongues and let the adults talk.”

        I love that line.

      • destructure, this analysis is completely retarded. Geopolitics is not the prison shower room. High IQ adults in suits assess the players at the table. Trump did not buy a bunch of respect and breathing room by doling out a wedgie. All he did was remove optionality and increase the odds of getting dragged into a quagmire. What if there are three more gas attacks this week? Then what? We’d be stuck with a ground war by this insane precedent.

        bobbybobbob

        April 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      • “Geopolitics is not the prison shower room.”

        Don’t be so sure. Putin just got raped.

        destructure

        April 8, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      • Except for the stuff about “neocons” (there were a lot of liberals and paleos who supported Iraq), destructure’s latest comment is 100% gothamette approved.

        (@destructure – the alt-right has lost whatever marbles it has over this little tiny cruise missile strike. They are calling it the Jew’s war., etc. You’ll be doing a lot of arguing in the coming months.)

        I was listening to NPR (I admit it) and they said that this strike had something to do with Russia’s behavior in the UN. Anybody know what that’s about?

        gothamette

        April 8, 2017 at 4:37 pm

      • @destructure – One further thought. You do realize that most if not all of the alt-right, the guys who are now shrieking about “WWIII” really really thought that Trump was Putin’s best bestest friend, because they are both white guys? And if that sounds stupid, well, it is.

        gothamette

        April 8, 2017 at 5:23 pm

      • gothamette “Except for the stuff about ‘neocons’ (there were a lot of liberals and paleos who supported Iraq)”

        I was talking about the people in the executive branch setting foreign policy, not the public.

        “the alt-right has lost whatever marbles it has over this little tiny cruise missile strike. They are calling it the Jew’s war., etc. “

        They have half a point. Iran is using Syria as a bridge to funnel arms and equipment to Palestinian and Lebanese militias attacking Israel. Israel has a very real and legitimate stake in this. It would be naive to think that at least some Jewish donors aren’t trying to influence foreign policy. Especially considering the great lengths politicians go to reassure Jewish organizations they support Israel.

        Where they go off the rails is in thinking that Israel is the problem. Arabs, Persians, Turks, Egyptians, etc have been fighting over the Levant for thousands of years and still are. The Levant is in their backyard and to a slightly lesser extent Europe’s. A Russian-Iranian alliance dominating the middle east and eastern europe would be catastrophic for Europe and America. So there’s a common interest and a lot more than Israel at stake.

        Regardless, ISIS vs Iran are both terrible choices. So when it comes to picking a side I say, “none of the above.” Iran screwed us for years in Iraq costing us over a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of soldiers maimed or killed. Now it’s their turn to have their teat in the wringer. When they get tired of getting blown up then we’ll arrange an advantageous settlement. Time is on our side.

        “I was listening to NPR (I admit it) and they said that this strike had something to do with Russia’s behavior in the UN. Anybody know what that’s about?”

        http://www.dw.com/en/world-powers-clash-with-russia-at-un-over-syria-suspected-chemical-attack/a-38315520

        “You do realize that most if not all of the alt-right, the guys who are now shrieking about “WWIII” really really thought that Trump was Putin’s best bestest friend, because they are both white guys? And if that sounds stupid, well, it is”

        The msm has been saying it for months. Stupid people on both sides believed it.

        destructure

        April 9, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      • @destructure,

        “I was talking about the people in the executive branch setting foreign policy, not the public. “

        In whose world is Dick Cheney a neocon? The guy was a conservative in his first trimester. There were many others. The Iraq war was not a neocon war. It was a completely mainstream war, and the only people who opposed it were on the left, like Sanders.

        I don’t know if you remember back to 1991, when the first Gulf War happened. A lot of people on every side of the aisle were disappointed with Bush1 for “not finishing the job,” and there was a lot of grumbling.

        Somehow this got turned into a neocon debacle. They may have been some of the loudest voices, but they weren’t alone.

        When the alt-right uses the world “neocon” they mean Jew. One of them calls them “neocohens.”

        “They have half a point.  “

        Calling it a “Jew’s war” is no point. Of course Israel hated Assad. He’s run Syria as a violently anti-Israel state. But somehow Obama managed to keep us out of this war despite that fact. My God, all that Jewish money and weak, malleable Obama stayed out of it.

        The alt-right point is that the Jews are America’s misfortune, and that nothing goes on without nefarious Jewish plotting. Nothing. I’ve given up reading their sites, it’s so depressing, but that’s what they say. This is Kushner’s war. That’s not even half a point. It’s a total distortion of the truth. I mean, what about Rex Tillerson? Isn’t he Secretary of State? Does anyone expect me to believe that Rex Tillerson, “T-Rex” – would allow himself to be upstaged by a whippersnapper like Kushner?

        The chemical attack, whether it was an accident, or on purpose, was a real slap in the face to the outside world. It had to be responded to in some form or fashion. But to the alt right, it’s just the Jews dragging the goys into a war.

        “Regardless, ISIS vs Iran are both terrible choices.”

        They really are. And this is the Middle East. The best they can offer is guys like Sisi. But the Middle East is still a strategic part of the world and would be so Israel or no Israel.

        “The msm has been saying it for months. Stupid people on both sides believed it.”

        Really? The MSM has been saying that Trump and Putin are best friends because they are white guys? They have a commonality of interest based on whiteness? I don’t think so. The MSM has been talking about Trump’s business ties to Russians…which may or may not be true, but that’s not the same thing as being best buddies because of race.

        Anyway so what? The alt-right prides itself on being critical, skeptical truth tellers. They actually thought that somehow Trump and Putin had a relationship based on whiteness. They actually thought that. They actually think Putin is some kind of hero, a model for white men to follow. That’s totally sick. But I repeat myself.

        They are so….triggered by this cruise missile attack. I’m enjoying their rage. They are shaking, shaking…..and I’m laughing. They are idiots.

        I’m so happy that the alt-right no longer supports Trump. Let them FOAD.

        gothamette

        April 10, 2017 at 11:56 am

      • “In whose world is Dick Cheney a neocon? “

        From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

        “Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.”

        “It was a completely mainstream war, and the only people who opposed it were on the left, like Sanders. “

        Once again I was talking about foreign policy guys in the executive branch, not the public or even congressmen. The public sentiment can apply pressure. But they don’t call the shots.

        “When the alt-right uses the world “neocon” they mean Jew. One of them calls them “neocohens.””

        The world doesn’t revolve around the alt-right. It doesn’t revolve around jews either. They both need to stop obsessing over each other. It’s annoying and distorts the conversation.

        “Really? The MSM has been saying that Trump and Putin are best friends because they are white guys?”

        No. But the msm was accusing them of collusion.

        .“They are so….triggered by this cruise missile attack.”

        It’s a mistake to assume everyone who opposed the strike was alt-right. Most people have grown weary of the endless wars. What makes the difference for me is that I don’t automatically equate the judicious use of force on a single airbase to send a message with a 180 degree shift in policy that will lead to another war.

        destructure

        April 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    • I ain’t going to turn away from Trump because of this, not least because there’s nothing to turn *to*. But let’s not equate supporting Trump with cheerleading him (1) killing god knows how many for no reason and (2) making a 180 turnaround in 48 hours because he saw some pictures on TV.

      Jesse

      April 7, 2017 at 10:06 am

      • Agreed. Not happy about this but there isn’t an alternative.

        Mike Street Station

        April 7, 2017 at 3:43 pm

      • Mike,

        I understand initial dismay at the strike. (Oh no, again?) And everyone is gunshy about military engagement in the Middle East, esp. when it comes to deposing eeevil dictaturz with Weaponz of Mass Distraction.

        But I had a chance to look at the whole picture, and I think that if it doesn’t go further, the strike was called for.
        What really interests me is the alt-right’s response to this. Richard Spencer has totally lost his cookies and is calling for demos against World War III. Other alt-right sites are shrieking about the Jew Kushner and the Jew War in the ME, yada yada.

        The alt-right is completely off the Trump train.

        I think that’s great. But what are they so upset about? Putin is a thug who runs a trashy little country with no ability to challenge the US. He is a nothing and a nobody. Nukes? Yeah, that’s all he’s got, and if he should use one against the US, Russia will be powdered glass in 3 seconds. Russia has hardly any economy, and their social problems are worse than ours.

        Why are they so crazy about 59 cruise missiles? That’s a burp, military wise. Or a fart.

        gothamette

        April 8, 2017 at 4:59 pm

      • “I understand initial dismay at the strike. (Oh no, again?) And everyone is gunshy about military engagement in the Middle East, esp. when it comes to deposing eeevil dictaturz with Weaponz of Mass Distraction.

        But I had a chance to look at the whole picture, and I think that if it doesn’t go further, the strike was called for.
        What really interests me is the alt-right’s response to this. Richard Spencer has totally lost his cookies and is calling for demos against World War III. Other alt-right sites are shrieking about the Jew Kushner and the Jew War in the ME, yada yada.”

        Well if it doesn’t go any further, it’s a political win for Trump. And although I don’t think the Alt right is totally off the Trump train, I think it’s a good public relations coup for them to oppose Trump on this. This allows Trump to publicly distance himself from the Alt Right without really doing anything consequential.

        My worry about this is Trump’s explanation for doing a 180 on Syria, the “dead babies.” I think foreign policy by dead baby pics is a potentially dangerous trend. There is no end to the number of dead babies in the third world and no amount of missile strikes or invasions is going to fix that. Already, almost half a million people have been killed in the Syrian Civil War, but Trump changes his mind about it because of a few dozens of dead kids? That’s no way to conduct foreign policy.

        Mike Street Station

        April 9, 2017 at 10:43 am

    • ” Many people voted for him largely because of it.”

      Some people did.

      Most people voted for Trump on immigration and trade.

      As far as the “endless foreign wars” meme, Jesus, the US has been involved in one war or another since the Spanish-American war. There was a slight interregnum from that time to WWII, with the exception of WWI. Other than that, war is our game.

      The hysterical responses on the alt-right and the Bernie wing of the left are…hysterical. They’ve been front & center defending Trump by pointing out what an essentially weak country Russia is. It is. So why are they so opposed to a show of force?

      gothamette

      April 7, 2017 at 3:05 pm

      • The distinction is national interest. This pointless nonsense in the mid-east does absolutely nothing for the American middle class. It is in service of a corrupt elite at the expense of the middle class. There have been wars that served the common man in the past.

        bobbybobbob

        April 7, 2017 at 4:19 pm

      • In the long run, the American middle-class does not benefit if the world becomes a hellhole. America is needed to keep global law and order.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 7, 2017 at 5:09 pm

      • Assad is law and order.

        bobbybobbob

        April 7, 2017 at 5:30 pm

      • In the long run, the American middle-class does not benefit if the world becomes a hellhole. America is needed to keep global law and order.

        If our attack was a warning shot to knock it off with the Sarin then Trump’s decision is probably a justifiable idea (though if the decision were mine I would have limited our objections only to more sanctions and a diplomatic statement condemning Assad).

        This will become a mistake if it is followed up with the removal of Assad. If Assad is removed Syria will be taken over by ISIS or some other Islamic terrorist front:

        https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/the-case-for-assad-is-as-strong-as-ever/

        We hope yesterday’s airstrikes against Syria were only warning shots to the Assad regime and not the opening move of a campaign that will lead to his removal from power because none of the facts that led us to conclude Assad is the least bad option in Syria are changed by Assad’s attacks against his own citizens.

        Those facts are simply that there is no possibility whatsoever the government of Assad can be replaced by anything other than Islamic terrorists and warlords orders of magnitude worse than Assad ever was. The primitive nature of the Islamic religion and savage nature of its adherents inherently prohibit the civilized norms required to sustain prosperous democracies ever taking hold in the Muslim world.

        Since the start of the Cold War, and especially since its end, the history of the Middle East has been littered with examples of Muslim strongmen or military juntas that fell out of international favor because they brutalized their own people, but whose “democratic” successors turned out to be worse than their tyrannical, but stabilizing, authoritarian predecessors.

        The rule of the Shah was replaced by the worse rule of the Ayatollahs. The fall of Gadhaffi led to Libya being carved up by Al Qaeda and ISIS warlords. The weakening of the secular Turkish military freed Erdogan to saber rattle against the West and Turkey’s non-Western enemies. The arrest of Egypt’s President Mubarak opened a path for Muslim Brotherhood terrorists to temporarily assuming power.

        The only examples where a change of regime led to an improvement in the international balance of power were those that led to the rise of a Western backed Islamic dictator in defiance of the democratic preferences of ordinary Muslims: The Shah’s CIA endorsed overthrow of Mohamed Mossadeq; the Egyptian military’s coup against Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood controlled government, and various Turkish juntas that periodically took power during the Cold War.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        April 7, 2017 at 5:58 pm

      • “Those facts are simply that there is no possibility whatsoever the government of Assad can be replaced by anything other than Islamic terrorists and warlords orders of magnitude worse than Assad ever was.”

        Ideally, Assad would be replaced by one of his generals, who would be more friendly to the United States, and we’d look the other way as he uses hardball dictator tactics to keep the Islamic crazies in line.

        But I agree that miscellaneous crazy Islamic warlords are worse than Assad.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 7, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      • Lion, what prevents us from isolating the rest of the world from us (i.e. Dangerous hot pockets). Nothing. We don’t need to make sandboxes for worthless savages.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        April 7, 2017 at 6:15 pm

      • Ideally, Assad would be replaced by one of his generals, who would be more friendly to the United States, and we’d look the other way as he uses hardball dictator tactics to keep the Islamic crazies in line.

        Yes but we would have to invade Syria with ground troops to depose and replace him with a Shah-like general.

        There’s no appetite for that so we’re the most realistic and least bad option is to leave Assad in power and contain him with limited actions if necessary.

        Tillerson was inclined to accept him as the least bad option last week but Assad ruined that:

        https://www.rt.com/usa/382839-tillerson-assad-syrian-people/

        The Undiscovered Jew

        April 7, 2017 at 7:28 pm

    • “You clowns who don’t understand the world need to hold your tongues and let the adults talk.”

      LOL. Richard Spencer thinks this is the start of WWIII.

      I’m not kidding.

      I’ll see you all in a month. Really, I’m putting something on my calendar right now:

      “Missile strike one month no boots.”

      In a month this missile strike will have been forgotten.

      gothamette

      April 8, 2017 at 4:43 pm

  5. Greater US involvement in Syria will not help the Syrian people. They need a stable government not a civil war between a tyrant and jihadists.

    Trump’s bombings will only increase the demands to admit refugees because we need to do “something” since we are already involved.

    Jimi

    April 7, 2017 at 9:26 am

  6. The litmus test is to see if helps the regime, which protects christian, and have the sensible policy he said during the compaign …. or if he ‘ll support the islamists, as you did with Bush I and II : remember the fake baby story in Koweit, the fake story in timisoara etc. I hope it is only a communication trick to gain quickly gravitas in the world scene.

    Bruno from Paris

    April 7, 2017 at 9:31 am

  7. Trump spoke about evidence brought by the White helmet. This is a guy from french brittany who shows how white helmet are terrorist people (Al Nosra, Al Qaida and ISIS people) :

    Bruno from Paris

    April 7, 2017 at 9:34 am

  8. It’s not an opinion I would venture to everyone, but assuming Assad did use chemical weapons (and I’m not sure there really is such a moral distinction on the type of weapon used anyway) I don’t automatically think that makes him a bad person.

    Most Western European countries have Muslim minorities of only 5% or less, yet look at the problems they cause. The only reason we are not experiencing terrorist attacks in Britain and France every week (every day?) is that we have sophisticated and expensive security services, most of which are staffed by non-Muslims who are not likely to be secretly helping the Islamic radicals. So how would a secular Muslim president go about trying to keep order and create some kind of progress in a nation that is not only 100% Muslim, but a nation also made up of different kinds of Muslim who hate each other, with little money to combat them, and the world’s only superpower hell bent on installing Islamic radicals in every secular Muslim country in the Middle East?

    It’s easy to judge Assad, but if you think that having your nation taken over by the likes of ISIS is the worst thing possible, then launching a chemical attack in your own nation becomes something less than the worst thing possible. Heck, if ISIS were twenty miles from my town I’d be out on the streets DEMANDING he uses everything he’s got on them and their supporters.

    I’ve read a lot of comments on Alt-Right sites like Steve Sailer making these kind of arguments about sending a message to North Korea or China, or the Democrats, or some other foreign or domestic enemy. This just seems like the kind of mentality of a corrupt Empire that sees the world as it’s plaything. You are talking about a foreign nation engaged in an existential struggle against an evil opponent, the idea that some Americans view whole nations as irrelevant pawns in a geopolitical or dometic political game is sickening, and something I’d hope only those on the left would make.

    prolier than thou

    April 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

    • I agree with this.

      Andrew E.

      April 7, 2017 at 11:13 am

    • great comment.

      fakeemail

      April 7, 2017 at 11:44 am

    • True that!

      Yakov

      April 7, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    • +1

      DataExplorer

      April 7, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    • Yes.

      If America wanted to send a message to tinpot despots, how do these despots interpret the message carried by cruise missiles or smart bombs?

      “It might pay off to have a nuclear deterrent so the Yanks mind their own business…”

      Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

      April 7, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    • Never seen so many posts to up-vote a comment, but I will add one more. Truly sickening shit.

      +1

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      April 7, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    • Lion you should delete all of these comments, what is this Reddit?

      IHTG

      April 7, 2017 at 7:06 pm

  9. In the short term, no question this helps Trump.

    The disturbing point is that Trump made a 180 degree turn in his policy on Syria. Up to a couple of days ago, Trump’s Syria policy was to go after ISIS period. Obama had said that Assad must go, but Trump was ready to tolerate Assad and work with the Russian’s who are supporting Assad in Syria. The impression I get is that Trump saw some pictures of dead children on TV, and now that policy is no longer operative, but it is not clear what Trump’s new policy is. I think I heard some Trump officials saying Assad had to go again.

    Has Trump gone back to the Obama policy in Syria, perhaps with more boots on the ground than Obama had?

    From my perspective Syria and Iraq are a complete mess and there are no good policy options. We are forced to try to pick the least bad option. Assad is supported by Russia and Iran. Trump is ok with Russia, but his team hates Iran. In Iraq much of the fighting is being done by Iranian trained militias. To fight ISIS it seems we need to align ourselves with Iran. Obama was willing to try to work with Iran in Iraq and Trump is continuing that policy in Iraq too.

    In Yemen you have a 3 way civil war between the Iranian backed Houthis, the Saudi Arabian backed Hadi government and al-Qaeda/ISIS linked militants. Trump wants to get more involved in Yemen, but whether that is only to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS or whether that includes fighting the Houthis is not clear.

    Until a few days ago, Trump seemed to have focused on ISIS as our enemy, and we were willing to at least work beside Iran in fighting them. Now it is not clear what the policy is.

    Mike CA

    April 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

    • Wrong. There is a good option. Work directly with Russia, Iran and the Syrian Military to destroy ISIS and stabilize the country under its legitimate government: Assad.

      27 year old from sailers

      April 7, 2017 at 10:10 am

      • The problems with this for Trump are:

        1) Trump team is full of Iran haters.
        2) Assad is a brutal dictator who is hated by the Sunni, like Saudi Arabia.

        I have long thought that working with Assad is the best of the bad options in Syria, but using chemical weapons like this makes that very hard.

        mikeca

        April 7, 2017 at 10:25 am

      • Assad is not a “brutal” dictator. Thats nothing but an idiotic neocon talking point. Syria was one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. Please compare Syria to Saudi Arabia and get back to me on who is “brutal”.

        PerezHBD

        April 7, 2017 at 3:08 pm

      • The Saudi Arabians are better diplomats and they are our friends, while Assad made it clear he was allied with anti-Western forces.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 7, 2017 at 4:03 pm

      • Assad is not a “brutal” dictator. Thats nothing but an idiotic neocon talking point. Syria was one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. Please compare Syria to Saudi Arabia and get back to me on who is “brutal”.

        Of course Assad is a brutal dictator. The major problem with removing him is that Islamic warlords he many times worse than Assad would almost certainly takeover Syria if he falls.

        Assad is the least bad option in Syria.

        However the airstrike was primarily Assad’s fault. As recently as last week Tillerson was signalling that we could live with Assad remaining in power. Tillerson even used Russia’s terms for allowing Assad to remain – “The Syrian people should decide”.

        Then Assad, perhaps thinking Trump was giving him great leeway to do whatever he wants, stupidly ruined this good fortune with Sarin gas.

        Trump is being blamed a bit too much here for what was actually the consequence of a very bad move by Assad:

        Assad’s fate ‘to be decided by Syrian people,’ says Tillerson

        30 Mar, 2017 14:35

        https://www.rt.com/usa/382839-tillerson-assad-syrian-people/

        At a news conference in the Turkish capital, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to suggest the end of Bashar Assad’s presidency was no longer a prerequisite for a way out of the Syrian crisis, in a U-turn from Washington’s long-held policy.

        “I think the … longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” said Tillerson at a joint conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevut Cavusoglu on Thursday, AFP reported.

        Under President Barack Obama, the United States made Assad’s departure one of its key objectives. The Syrian armed opposition also insisted upon the longtime leader’s resignation as one of the conditions during the Astana peace talks.

        Letting Syrians decide the fate of President Assad has been Russia’s stance since the conflict began. Moscow has repeatedly rebuffed any preconditions for Assad to step down before a political settlement of the crisis.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        April 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    • “The disturbing point is that Trump made a 180 degree turn in his policy on Syria.”

      It disturbs you because, why?

      Trump has now removed the Russia monkey off his back. That’s clever.

      Andrew McCarthy, who I respect, is dead set against this strike on grounds of law, and let’s not get involved. He makes a great point but only in an ideal world.

      In this world, the strike was a good move. Not the least of which is that he’s completely flummoxed his political opponents.

      gothamette

      April 9, 2017 at 2:13 pm

  10. Having slept on it, I don’t think it’s as politically bad a move as my first instinct. I still don’t like it though. I agree with Donna that this isn’t any of our business at all. Honestly, who cares what happens in Syria? Why are we involved? I thought Trump would have the sense to understand that and he would finally get us out of the role of World Police.

    But I see he has to show the world he’s tough, like when Bill Clinton fired a bunch of missiles into a goat hut or whatever he did, to distract from Lewinsky.

    I still don’t like it. Those damned neocons better step up on immigration as pay back for this pointless attack.

    peterike

    April 7, 2017 at 9:49 am

    • There’s been a tacit agreement since 2013 that the US would allow Assad to win his war (if he can) so long as he doesn’t embarrass us by using chemical weapons against women and children while photographers are nearby. Unless you buy the false flag theory, Assad broke that deal. Some response was inevitable.

      Anybody sane has to be concerned by what’s happened, because it may indicate the neocons have crawled back into influence and we all know where that leads, but my hope is that this was just a shot across the bow to restore the old rogue’s agreement.

      Richard

      April 7, 2017 at 10:38 am

      • There’s been a tacit agreement since 2013 that the US would allow Assad to win his war (if he can) so long as he doesn’t embarrass us by using chemical weapons against women and children while photographers are nearby.

        If this is true then Trump should have found some way to work this into his statement last night.

        Andrew E.

        April 7, 2017 at 11:15 am

      • Then it wouldn’t be tacit anymore.

        Richard

        April 7, 2017 at 1:20 pm

      • The false flag theory is gaining more and more credence, so where does that put us?

        CamelCaseRob

        April 10, 2017 at 2:18 am

  11. Surprisingly good analysis. Very good, Lion!

    I think he should have accepted the Syrian explanation, which was probably true. It was a mistake, but then who knows? I’m not a politician, maybe it’s good to show the world that you are crazy? For the first time my level of confidence in Trump has diminished. This is dumb move, imo.

    Yakov

    April 7, 2017 at 9:56 am

  12. Better question: does this help the US? I’m open to sane corrections but at the moment it looks like a solid no.

    Jesse

    April 7, 2017 at 9:56 am

    • It helps the United States if North Korea is more afraid of us now.

      • How much of a threat are the Norks, though? Inasmuch as they are, it’s because the Chinese are using them as a proxy. In which case, go after China rather than pouring gas on the flames in the ME, and making the Syrian war even more America’s problem.

        Jesse

        April 7, 2017 at 10:04 am

      • NK is not our problem at all. We have zero interest in the matter. It’s Japan’s problem. Before NK collapses and gets peacefully folded into South Korea the leadership may well lob a couple nukes at Tokyo, and the South Koreans will cheer on the inside. This is the real issue. We need to throw the South Koreans overboard, and wish the Japanese best of luck in the matter. Close all the bases in SK and Japan and pull out. The Japanese will easily and rapidly re-arm and deal with the situation.

        bobbybobbob

        April 7, 2017 at 10:31 am

      • Japan is our ally. Japan’s problem is our problem. Same with South Korea.

        I don’t agree with “fuck every other country in the world let them all die”

      • To scare North Korea you bomb Syria? If I was the leader of North Korea, I would be getting the bomb ASAP, before Trump starts bombing me.

        Yakov

        April 7, 2017 at 10:36 am

      • Ally is the wrong word. Japan is a parasite that steels our market share and technology, and free rides on the US military. We are getting played. We need to actually form an alliance with Japan, which would require the US pulling out of the region and ending the security guarantee.

        bobbybobbob

        April 7, 2017 at 11:00 am

      • No, Japan is not a parasite.

      • In 2007 North Korean engineers were setting up nuclear facilities in Syria. Israel bombed it, and everyone kept quiet about it. So the North Koreans are linked with Assad.

        Sid

        April 7, 2017 at 11:15 am

      • Did bombing Libya scare North Korea? I doubt it. Unlike Libya or Syria, the North Koreans can actually fight.

        jasonbayz

        April 7, 2017 at 11:27 am

      • Yes, Japan is a parasite, not an ally. Look at the trade deficit. They work to stymie American business at every turn in Japan and actually in other parts of Asia, too. They engage in systematic technology theft. In return we lay out the red carpet in America for their businesses and products and cover their defense costs.

        America barely has any allies. Maybe Britain. When people say “ally” they usually mean “manipulative parasite.” Alliance implies a mutual benefit.

        bobbybobbob

        April 7, 2017 at 1:07 pm

      • Japan is not a “parasite”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 7, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      • The solution to North Korea is a deal between South Korea and China to allow China to occupy North Korea indefinitely. The legal fiction would be that a new faction of the Workers’ Party is taking over North Korea, which then recognises ROK sovereignty in principle, and both sides request Chinese intervention to ensure stability in the north.

        Assuming KJŬ doesn’t just give up, then, once everything else is in place, drop leaflets over the North telling them that everyone except for a couple dozen top leaders is getting a complete amnesty for anything they did in the past, but they’re going to be treated as criminals if they’re involved in any attacks on civilians going forward. Hopefully, people start to realise it’s already over and you get most of the military going awol, surrendering, ordering their subordinates to stand down, or mutinying before a lot of munitions and WMDs get dumped on Seoul and Japan.

        For China to agree to this, they would need a credible U.S. commitment not to take advantage of the situation to move troops into the north. In this scenario, there’s really no need for U.S. troops in the Korean peninsula at all.

        Greg Pandatshang

        April 7, 2017 at 1:13 pm

  13. People have every right to be against this attack but have no right to call it a betrayal. If Trump sends in ground troops or even does what Obama did in Libya, that is a betrayal. But this wasn’t that. This was just a show of force.

    It was the right move politically, end of story. If you think it was the wrong thing to do *politically* you are subhuman scum.

    Otis the Sweaty

    April 7, 2017 at 10:01 am

    • thats some tortured logic there otis. this was a betrayal.

      james n.s.w

      April 7, 2017 at 11:09 am

  14. By the way, this attack is really causing some cognitive dissonance on the Left. Half of neogaf is saying that Trump and Putin are colluding and this is all a dog and pony show and the other half are saying that Trump is about to lead us in to WWIII.

    Otis the Sweaty

    April 7, 2017 at 10:04 am

  15. From an overall political point of view, it probably short term helps Trump. Democrats, McCain & Graham, and various other establishment types and neo-cons are saying positive things. Maybe it gives some leverage with China that we’re serious about North Korea (who knows but it’s a possibility), and probably most people in general see dead babies on TV and want something done.

    I’m of course, disappointed. If you are moved by dead babies, you probably shouldn’t be President because there are millions of dead babies worldwide, and the ability to wipe away every tear is limited. And of course Syria is super complicated. Our real enemies there are the Jihadists, so doing anything that helps them, hurts us long term.

    Plus, it really makes Trump look easily manipulated. He has been consistent in opposing military action in Syria, but he sees dead baby photos and bombs away? Not a good look. Like I said, there’s no end to dead babies.

    Mike Street Station

    April 7, 2017 at 10:08 am

  16. By the way, lots of Gaffers giving up the “Trump is a Russian agent” meme.

    Otis the Sweaty

    April 7, 2017 at 10:08 am

  17. Point #2 – is wrong. The MSM strictly wants the US to admit Syrian refugees, without any kind of military intervention against either side. So the MSM is not happy with this because there’s nothing about the refugees entering the country to go along with any of this.

    rdorsey

    April 7, 2017 at 10:12 am

  18. i oppose our involvement in syria…but the way trump handled it was the best possible method. and yes, it helps trump with more people than it hurts him.

    • Yeah, it only hurts Trump with his base. The best possible way for Trump to have handled it was to do nothing.

      CamelCaseRob

      April 10, 2017 at 2:22 am

  19. I was in a business meeting this morning with a long table full of NYC bankers (men and women) who are your typical liberals. In discussing the Syria strikes one guy, perhaps the freest thinker among the liberals in attendance, said at least no one can say Trump is a Russian agent anymore. I noticed that several others (Trump haters of course) seemed to suffer from some cognitive dissonance at that piece of logic. A bright spot in an otherwise gloomy morning.

    Andrew E.

    April 7, 2017 at 11:23 am

    • Great. People that will never vote for Trump in a million years are giving him “credit”. Meanwhile white guy from Florida who voted for first time in a decade to pull the lever for Trump is completely disillusioned.

      PerezHBD

      April 7, 2017 at 3:12 pm

      • Maybe if he was a Paultard, in which case we don’t want his vote. Trump was elected to destroy the immigrant community. The Assad lovers who are so loud on the internet are electorally worthless.

        I don’t care about Assad or Syria and I would prefer not to get involved over there at all, but I would take Vietnam on steroids if that’s what it took to annihilate the immigrants.

        Otis the Sweaty

        April 8, 2017 at 1:56 am

  20. Personally, I love it. Quick, decisive show of strength that manages to cuck Putin (and therefore the Democrats) as well as North Korea (and by extension, China) all while Xi Jinping is being wined and dined at Mar a Lago. It’s An absolutely sublime 3D chess move.

    Two in the Bush

    April 7, 2017 at 11:30 am

  21. The Russian’s claim that Assad bombed a Al Nusra base that must of have had some Sarin gas. The bombing just released the gas that Al Nursa had stockpiled.

    Does anyone know if there is any evidence that is not true?

    mikeca

    April 7, 2017 at 11:36 am

  22. “And there’s no evidence here that Trump intends to get American soldiers stuck in a long ground war.”

    Bullshit. There three alternatives for who will rule Syria:

    1) Assad

    2) Jihadists

    3) An American puppet kept in power by US troops.

    Unless Trump wants to give jihadists more territory to rule over, he will have to commit ground troops there.

    Maz

    April 7, 2017 at 11:38 am

  23. This was the wrong decision and I see absolutely no upside to this. Will this combat the “Trump is Russian puppet” meme? Not at all, the media will keep pushing it and average people will not be able to see any connection between Russia and Syria. The media never “shuts up,” it will simply move on to the next round of fake news. It would have been better had the media rolled the drumbeat for war for a few weeks, because the American people don’t want war. At the very least Trump should have at least sought congressional approval, which he would have been able to get.

    Why would Assad want to use chemical weapons? He’s winning the war. Maybe it was just to test Trump’s reaction, see how far he could cross the line. Or maybe it was a false flag. These “rebels” are not nice people.

    jasonbayz

    April 7, 2017 at 11:47 am

  24. Anyway, expect a new wave of Internet antisemitism accusing Jared Kushner of hijacking the Trump presidency. Apparently it’s unthinkable that Mattis and McMaster could have spearheaded this.

    IHTG

    April 7, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    • If Jared wants to avoid criticism, how about he gives us a reason to support him? You don’t see anyone attacking Miller. Prove to us you are more than a trust fund globalist banker. Mattis and McMaster are nothing but meatheads who got promoted on account of their willingness to do whatever their political masters wanted. Nobody Asians them any agency because they have none. Any officer above the rank of Lt. Col. is by definition a shill.

      PerezHBD

      April 7, 2017 at 3:17 pm

  25. Has anyone been watching CNN/MSNBC et al to see how they are incorporating this into their “Trump is a Russian stooge” theme. I’m sure it will be quite easy for them – perhaps Trump and Putin planned this to throw the Goodwhites off his trail?

    Nothing is too ridiculously convoluted to fit the narrative meme. Hopefully they won’t disappoint our expectations. We’re all waiting with bated breath.

    gda

    April 7, 2017 at 12:33 pm

  26. Trump at most temporarily took out one military airbase in Syria. Wikipedia says there are 19 others, although some of those might be under rebel control. If reducing the number of cruelly murdered beautiful babies in Syria is a priority, one can only hope Trump did not significantly impair Assad’s capacity to defeat the rebels and restore order.

    Mark Caplan

    April 7, 2017 at 12:45 pm

  27. It might be good for his poll numbers but it sure took me off the Trump train.

    Jay Fink

    April 7, 2017 at 1:03 pm

  28. Either Assad is a madman or Trump is full of swamp water. I don’t have enough secret “intelligence” to make up my mind. Either way, the establishment won and Trumpism is a dead deal in my mind.

    cesqy

    April 7, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    • You can watch an interview with Assad on YouTube to derminewho who is the madman – here he or Obama, Clinton or McCain.

      Yakov

      April 7, 2017 at 7:22 pm

  29. Trump is appeasing the Neo-cons, which will just encourage them more to push for an all out war with Syria.

    This does nothing for the Russian puppet narrative in the long run. Within 48 hours, if this attack is not followed up with another attack then the media will be back saying Trump is a Russian puppet, and criticizing him for a pointless, short-sighted show of strength that does nothing to fix the situation in Syria, and this time they would be right.

    DataExplorer

    April 7, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    • Trump is appeasing the Neo-cons,

      McMaster, Mattis and Tillerson are not neocons.

      Hell, it was only last week that Tillerson said we could live with Assad in government. He even used Moscow’s term for acquiscieng to Assad “The Syrian people should decide”:

      https://www.rt.com/usa/382839-tillerson-assad-syrian-people/

      Assad’s fate ‘to be decided by Syrian people,’ says Tillerson

      30 Mar, 2017 14:35

      At a news conference in the Turkish capital, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to suggest the end of Bashar Assad’s presidency was no longer a prerequisite for a way out of the Syrian crisis, in a U-turn from Washington’s long-held policy.

      “I think the … longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” said Tillerson at a joint conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevut Cavusoglu on Thursday, AFP reported.

      Under President Barack Obama, the United States made Assad’s departure one of its key objectives. The Syrian armed opposition also insisted upon the longtime leader’s resignation as one of the conditions during the Astana peace talks.

      Letting Syrians decide the fate of President Assad has been Russia’s stance since the conflict began. Moscow has repeatedly rebuffed any preconditions for Assad to step down before a political settlement of the crisis.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      April 7, 2017 at 6:06 pm

  30. I think it was fair to launch cruise missile strikes for the gassing.

    Last night I was worried that the strikes would prefigure a Libyan-style regime change, but currently the strikes appear to have been a very strong warning.

    No one was afraid of the US after Obama backed down from his redline comment in September 2013. Crimea and the South China Sea were largely responses to that vacuum.

    I know there are some Russian nationalists in the alt-right. If they’re ethnic Russian, I don’t necessarily blame them for wanting to advance their country’s interests, but the American ones are just another kind of cuck. So I’m not crying about how peace and justice have died because Putin is upset about the strike.

    Assad is an absolute monster. During the Iraq War, he supported Al-Qaeda in Iraq. At the start of the Syrian Civil War, he let jihadis out of prison. He has consistently purchased oil from ISIS. His barrel bombing campaign has been a key reason why so many Syrians are homeless and are flooding Europe.

    In short, Assad wanted some of his foes to be Islamic terrorists so he could say, “See? My enemies are worse than me.” He’s launching a de facto ethnic cleansing campaign against Syrian Sunnis and is expecting the West to pick up the tab. No, I don’t feel bad for him. That doesn’t mean I want the military to enforce regime change, but I don’t feel bad about threatening him to clean up his act.

    Sid

    April 7, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    • Fair is relative to whose side your on and whose propaganda you believe. Being skeptical of both sides is a lot fairer approach.

      cesqy

      April 7, 2017 at 5:03 pm

      • Ok, and once you’ve examined the matter in a skeptical and fair fashion, you have to make a decision on what to do.

        Bombing an air base was a good response to civilians being gassed. The message to Assad was that we wouldn’t enforce regime change on Syria, not yet, but he’d better clean up his act and stop gassing civilians just to test us.

        Some people have asked how Assad affects us. His policies have amounted to ethnic cleansing and the West is stuck with the refugees. Of course it affects us and our allies.

        To be clear, I don’t want 99% of Syrian refugees in North America and Europe. That’s my particular bias.

        Sid

        April 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    • ” I don’t necessarily blame them for wanting to advance their country’s interests, but the American ones are just another kind of cuck. ”

      I think cuck is a nice way of describing them, LOL. The Alt-right pro-Russians are a bunch of treasonous shits. And they are stupid too.

      gothamette

      April 9, 2017 at 2:16 pm

  31. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and CNN have all praised Trump on this. When Little Jebbie comes out and says this shows Trump is a President like his Brother W, Trump’s Political Career is OVER.

    Joshua Sinistar

    April 7, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    • “Trump’s Political Career is OVER.”

      No matter how many times you pepes keep saying this, it will not make it true. T R U M P is going to be a thousand times better than whatever shitberg the Democrats put forward in 2020. He will win in a landslide, and you will vote for him.

      Two in the Bush

      April 7, 2017 at 4:52 pm

      • You might want to wait a couple of years before declaring that.

        Stealth

        April 7, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      • I doubt it. The Alt-Right has left and all he has cheering this are his opponents. When all you please is your opposition, its already over. McCain was totally Anti-Trump. Hillary was his opponent, and she’s loving this. When CNN calls you Presidential, you may as well resign now.

        Joshua Sinistar

        April 7, 2017 at 11:37 pm

      • Trump is going to rip the middle out of both the Republican and Democrat parties and form the Trumpublicrat Party. This current move provided the ideal opportunity to blow apart the nonsensical Dem narrative and open them up to Trumpegotiations.

        This was, of course, the plan all along. I mean, look at the politics of his now (once again) closest advisor and her husband.

        gda

        April 8, 2017 at 1:28 am

    • ISIS and Al-Queda are also celebrating with the warhawks. George W. Trump for the next four years???

      cesqy

      April 7, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    • Middle? What middle? What middle ground is there between “you have to die and give everything to failed genes”, and “leave me alone, I want my country back”? That’s a Civil War scenario there. There’s no middle. This strike made Trump look stupid is all. The Syrians were launching planes off this base later in the day. The US Navy somehow managed to kill more kids than Trump was supposedly avenging. This isn’t 4D Chess, 3D Chess or even Chess.

      Joshua Sinistar

      April 8, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    • Trump’s political career has only just begun. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

      He hasn’t just trangulated. He’s strangulated. He’s icosahedronated. You can sense the shock and dismay on the left.

      He did what we want? Now what?

      gothamette

      April 9, 2017 at 2:18 pm

  32. If Obama had ordered this attack he would’ve already received 8 more prizes from the Nobel Committee and had the liberals proclaiming him the defender of children across the globe.

    Camlost

    April 7, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    • Ha. You’re right.

      Two in the Bush

      April 7, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    • Indeed. But I also believe Trump has gotten more flack from his alleged ‘supporters’ than they would have given Obama. Had Obama or Bush done the same they wouldn’t have said a word.

      destructure

      April 7, 2017 at 6:21 pm

      • I would have said a lot. I was all over the internet in 2013 speaking out against Obama attacking Assad.

        Jay Fink

        April 7, 2017 at 8:36 pm

      • I doubt it. This was just a couple of buildings and half a dozen planes. That you even think this was a thing shows you’ve lost perspective.

        destructure

        April 7, 2017 at 10:27 pm

      • Alleged supporters is right.

        Another secondary benefit of this strike is to shake out the real supporters from the frauds. I’m actively looking forward to Richard Spencer following Milo into obscurity.

        Note: I do not support any further military, nor do I think any will follow.

        gothamette

        April 9, 2017 at 2:20 pm

  33. OT, but wow!
    NYT, 04/06/17 – Close to Half of American Adults Infected With HPV, Survey Finds

    More than 42 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 59 are infected with genital human papillomavirus…significant differences in rates of high-risk genital HPV infection by race and ethnicity… The highest rate, 33.7 percent, was found among non-Hispanic blacks; the lowest, 11.9 percent, among Asians. The prevalence of genital HPV infection was 21.6 percent among whites and 21.7 percent among Hispanics.

    E. Rekshun

    April 7, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    • So what? Those cancers do not develop until someone is 70 if they develop at all.. This is like complaining s it people having herpes simplex 1 (aka cold sores).

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      April 7, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    • To clarify the above post: blacks had the highest rate of overall infection at 65%, and the highest rate of having the high-risk strains at 33.7%.

      Mark Caplan

      April 7, 2017 at 11:44 pm

      • Right, you don’t read that unless you click on the “report” link in the article.

        E. Rekshun

        April 8, 2017 at 4:25 am

  34. Looks to me like Trump was trying to make a deal to get his new justice confirmed. I think he could have made a better deal than this, though.
    I get the criticism that alt-right types are few in number, but like other vocal minorities they have disproportionate influence. Also, it’s not as if ordinary moderates are slavering for Syrian hostilities. People who are fans of this show of force are also a small group.
    I really think those who think this is a good move for Trump are fooling themselves. This was a blunder.
    https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/why-the-attack-on-syria/

    Giovanni Dannato

    April 7, 2017 at 7:38 pm

  35. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I said could be a false flag attack. Regardless, I wasn’t proposing that as a reason the United States should stay out of Syria. Whether it was Assad’s government or not, I don’t think we should get involved in the Syrian conflict.

    Stealth

    April 7, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    • We’re already involved, and this one-time launch of cruise missiles doesn’t change the balance of power or put American lives at risk.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm

      • Russia is sending ships and beefing up Syrian air defenses. Good Luck getting Kim Pop Crazy of North Korea to get rid of his nukes now. The World is noticing that only non-nuclear states get bombed. You are just creating more nuclear programs with this trigger happy bombing. Ruthless Dictators run just about the Whole Non-White World. Targeting Dictators seems short-sighted when you consider that.

        Joshua Sinistar

        April 7, 2017 at 11:41 pm

      • Well regardless of whether the long-term effects of the bombing are good or bad, Trump needed to do it for the political reasons I stated in the post. Trump can’t do any good if he’s impeached by Congress, can he?

        It’s not as if this indicates any change in U.S. policy. Every president has bombed other countries during my lifetime, except for Carter.

      • ” The World is noticing that only non-nuclear states get bombed. You are just creating more nuclear programs with this trigger happy bombing.”

        I think that was the lesson learned from Libya. Qaddafi came in from the cold, got rid of his WMD’s, paid restitution for past terrorism….and we still bombed the country and overthrew him. So there is zero reason for any dictator to NOT go nuclear if he can, because Libya taught the world that the US can’t be trusted to make a deal and stick with it.

        Mike Street Station

        April 8, 2017 at 12:15 pm

      • “Good Luck getting Kim Pop Crazy of North Korea to get rid of his nukes now. “

        On the contrary, there’s a better chance than ever that the Norks will abandon their nukes. They’ve been launching missiles towards Japan and threatening to nuke the US. Which provides the opportunity Trump needs to put nukes in South Korea. A very bold move indeed and one that makes the Chicomms say, “Holy shit!”

        There was already talk among some of the Chicomms of sending the Norks to their room and taking away their toys. Trump’s show of force in Syria will likely convince them that he won’t back down in a far east “cuban missile crisis”. Asians tend to be risk averse. They don’t like confrontation unless they’re sure they can win a decisive victory with minimal risk. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Kim Dong Dung gets spanked.

        destructure

        April 8, 2017 at 12:53 pm

      • What good will that do? The US could nuke North Korea any way it wants. Minutemen and Tridents are enough and they could travel to North Korea. North Korea cannot intercept them or pre-emptively destroy them. I doubt North Korea has the guidance system to destroy a static Minuteman silo if it knows the coordinates. The US does not need to put nuclear weapons in South Korea. It just threatens China.

        China could threaten South Korea by deploying more warhead to target the THAAD radars and to increase penetration to other targets. China, so far, has pursued minimal deterrence and this gives China more reasons to deploy more nuclear weapons.

        Black_Rose

        April 9, 2017 at 2:24 am

  36. I’m glad to see you included #3. Here’s an article making that point.

    destructure

    April 7, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    • #3 seems like one of the dumbest things Lion has ever written. Bush 43 showed the world the US was willing to use force, how did that work out? It’s this puerile fantasy that a) force can even solve these issues and b) that the US is some kind of actual military super power and hasn’t failed at nearly every major military objective since WW 2.

      And as Yakov said, possibly inspired by Lion being so dumb to be smart for once, our reckless use of force is one of the primary reasons our enemies are so desperate to obtain nuclear weapons and ICBMs in the first place.

      Magnavox

      April 7, 2017 at 11:32 pm

      • “Bush 43 showed the world the US was willing to use force, how did that work out?”

        There’s a big difference between the threat of force and the use of force. The threat of force is a great deterrent. The use of force destabilizes regions and leads to drawn out and disastrous wars. The problem is that neocons have gone from using threat as a deterrent to war as foreign policy. By the way, neocons aren’t really conservatives but liberals like yourself. As far as I know, every war the US has ever fought has been driven by liberals.

        Fear of the US is the only thing keeping Russia from invading Eastern Europe, Iran from invading the entire middle east and China from invading SE Asia. As well as lots of weaker countries massacring their own people. Every time the US has a weak leader or gets distracted one of them takes advantage of the opportunity to pull something.

        They didn’t develop nukes because they’re afraid the US will attack them for no reason. They developed nukes so that they can invade their neighbors without fear of reprisal.

        destructure

        April 8, 2017 at 8:15 am

      • There’s a big difference between the threat of force and the use of force. The threat of force is a great deterrent. The use of force destabilizes regions and leads to drawn out and disastrous wars.

        That makes absolutely no sense. It sort of makes sense if you assume that noone else but you is smart enough to realize that actually using force is a bad, self defeating idea, but that’s a completely retarded premise.

        They didn’t develop nukes because they’re afraid the US will attack them for no reason. They developed nukes so that they can invade their neighbors without fear of reprisal.
        Since developing nukes North Korea has not invaded it’s neighbors (contradicting your theory) and has not been invaded by the US, despite sabre rattling (supporting my theory)

        You’re really confused thinking that conservatives are great by threatening force, but only liberals ever carry through on those threats and are bad for that, but liberals are also weak people who refuse to use enough force and are bad for that too. You would get a lot further by looking for the truth rather than twisting yourself up in logical pretzels trying to defend conservatism, this arbitrary group identity that you’ve latched onto in order to define yourself. I also don’t think you’re that bright.

        Magnavox

        April 8, 2017 at 6:11 pm

      • Magna, lolz! Next time you say something stupid I’m gonna savage you, though.

        Yakov

        April 8, 2017 at 9:13 pm

      • “The use of force destabilizes regions and leads to drawn out and disastrous wars.”

        We haven’t had a drawn out and disastrous war since Vietnam.

        Occupations aren’t always disastrous, either. Japan, Germany and Italy were tremendous successes. Occupations are disastrous when the society itself is shit to begin with. Moral: wars don’t change as much as we think they do. A society has DNA just as a person does.

        gothamette

        April 9, 2017 at 2:26 pm

      • “Since developing nukes North Korea has not invaded it’s neighbors “

        No. But they threaten their neighbors and abuse their own people. Which was one of the reasons I gave for countries fearing the US. Regardless, my comment about developing nukes in order to invade neighbors without reprisal referred to Iran.

        destructure

        April 10, 2017 at 9:56 am

  37. As I’ve written elsewhere, Trump can’t simply accuse the deep state of false flags, or doubt the attack, or assume another responsible party did it, or waffle while investigations are ongoing. The attack on the near empty Syrian base and the angry posturing by parties involved seems to be a decent compromise.

    map

    April 7, 2017 at 8:22 pm

  38. You shouldn’t write off praise from Hillary and Chuck Schumer. Shumer and Trump are old friends. Trump was giving him money up until 2010. His praise is worth more than the alt-right.

    A Reader

    April 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    • Having to pay someone protection money is not the foundation of a solid friendship. Schumer was a parasite Trump dealt with to do business in New York, no different than the goons that control the sanitation racket.

      And the influence of the Greater Alt Right can not be underestimated. Trump was the “cool” candidate (virtually unheard of for a Republican) because the internet was behind him and produced, better, funnier, and more compelling content than the Hollywood/MSM machine. None of those folks are traditional Republicans. They are all Alt-Right to one degree or another.

      PerezHBD

      April 7, 2017 at 9:28 pm

      • He thinks Schumer is very smart and likes the fact that he agrees with him.

        A Reader

        April 8, 2017 at 1:30 am

  39. This is a funny question. This is probably good for Trump himself. Is this good for regular people including me ? Nah, it is not. It is largely irrelevant, unless Trump corners Russian into an actual war. In which case, it might still be good for Trump: he will get to play the leader of the free world, or whatever will be left of it.

    Nice blog, dude

    April 7, 2017 at 9:20 pm

  40. “Gorka on Syria: ‘This Is Not a Full-Throated War Deployment,’ Just ‘Surgical’ Missile Strike”: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/04/07/gorka-syria-not-full-throated-war-deployment-just-surgical-missile-strike/

    IHTG

    April 8, 2017 at 6:29 am

  41. Damn what a terrible world where posts about Syria get 120+ comments, while fascinating classic movies linger in the dustbin.

    S.J., Esquire

    April 8, 2017 at 12:32 pm

    • I love Bashar.

      Black_Rose

      April 9, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    • This is a website for the most part dominated by a type of iconoclast that doesn’t care for culture, or at least prefers video games. TUJs interest in philosophy is a notable exception if you consider philosophy a cultural pursuit.

      Curle

      April 9, 2017 at 1:57 pm

  42. No hysteria here. This was a bone head mistake by Trump but it’s not significant. What is eye opening is how many suckers there are that buy into this as a chemical attack by “brutal dictator”. These same sucker bought the Iraq WMD story, hook, line and sinker. Not typically gullible they absolute lose rational thinking skills when the neocons spread their garbage. 2013 attack was done by the rebs. This one is fake as a three dollar bill.

    Walter Jeffords

    April 9, 2017 at 11:39 am

  43. Peter

    April 9, 2017 at 11:58 pm

  44. the t

    DataExplorer mn

    April 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: