Okay, then.

We have previously attacked "chemical weapons users." And I wasn't trying to make a precise analogy; more to offer a commonplace example that illustrates why "it doesn't matter who did it" is a bizarre thing to say in most circumstances where human lives are at risk.

Local news reporting that a US air strike hit a boat of refugees off the coast of Syria, killing 6 kids and an adult, wtf? I don't see a story on their website, just on TV. Did anyone else hear something like this?

Did we ever learn Trump's reasoning when he was quietly sending US troops to Syria before the chemical attack?

killing children with bombs is ok, its just killing them with gas that irks daddy trump.

The "most of the fighting" is much harder to measure because clearly the large battles were against the regular North Vietnamese miltary, but a lot of the war consisted of action other than large battles.

I hadn't heard, but Googling

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-ac...vilians-2017-4

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...85347038576640

I don't get it. Is he being critical of the move or defending it? Either way, what's his point?

I had to do a double take. I was sure it was one of those 2013 tweets.

He's trolling himself now.

He's being incredibly petty, as usual.

I think Americans are so conditioned to being the world's police that it's not even occurring to anyone that this was a significant event. We still recognize the Syrian government. This wasn't even an act of war as much as a claim of sovereignty.

Dutarte is committing a lot of atrocities. How do we feel if Russia or China unilaterally strikes The Philippines? What if Russia bombs Saudi Arabia next time they have a mass execution?

If I had to guess, Trump's reasoning was something like

"If I bomb Syria it will distract from the Russia story, show people I'm not a pussy like Obama, and assert that the United States is tough."

I can't imagine he thought about strategic implications beyond that though they were obviously presented to him. In fact, it strikes me as being reminiscent of his career in reality TV more than anything else. He's good at controlling narratives; I don't see why we should assume this was anything other than that.

That being said, I don't think it really changes anything in the current geopolitical landscape. Russia may make a show of escalation in the media but they're not actually going to do so. It certainly doesn't represent a paradigm shift in how the US is going to deal with various sovereign nations around the world.

What was the point of the attack?

"Trump must look strong. Trump send missiles"

Paul M,

I don't think it changes much globally because the West's governments fully accept and endorse that the US is the world's police; hence the immediate approval. The rest of the world thinks it's part of American Empire and they're used to that.

Locally though it might end up affecting things/relationships.

It sends a strong message to the American people that if there's one thing the media can unify behind, it's bombing brown people for no particular strategic or tactical outcome.

Agent Orange really really hates immigrants...

I think his point is that you don't waste very expensive cruise missiles on runways that are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix.

Come on guys, it's really not all that difficult to figure out is it?

Well, apart from the "trivial outcome" of hopefully stopping Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.

But we wouldn't want to acknowledge that now would we.

America's cruise missiles are the best, the finest, the most beautiful, the classiest. So he is correct that you shouldn't waste them on a runway.

I still don't get it. So we didn't launch missiles at the runway because the runway is easy to fix. Instead we launched them at the airfield for seemingly no impact?

I don't understand if he is being critical or praising the move. Obv I am going to assume he is praising it or at least trying to explain/justify it in some way, but I don't see how.

ETA: is the idea that now Assad is scared because we showed him we are willing to launch a missile into the country? Not necessarily at anything, but that we are willing to physically move a missile through that airspace? I am pretty sure Assad was already aware of that. It's not like the sober, realpolitick analysis of the "red line" comment by Assad was "Those weak Americans would never try anything over here" and now it's "Oh ****, Donald Trump is president and he's tough, we better be careful." Hopefully that's not the idea here.

They took out 20 planes apparently.

0.339 planes / missile is some pretty bigly ROI. I mean, imagine if we had diverted just two missiles to put a couple craters in the runway to gum up their takeoff and landing capabilities for a week or so. They would have had 0.68 planes more!

We can probably make this thread dedicated to new invasions Trump is considering as he has now deployed an aircraft carrier to the Korean Peninsula.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39542990

Normally, military muscle flexing isn't all that newsworthy from us but when it's done by an irrational moron who bases his views on what Fox and Friends says to him every morning, it can be quite dangerous.

Once Trump sees the Pavlovian effect that dropping bombs has on the media's view of him, I'm sure many, many more will come. It'll boost his popularity and keep that pesky investigation off the front pages.

Yeah until he develops a full blown 6 human life airport crushing $100 million a day news cycle habit.

Trump's favourite part of the Bible is the Old Testament, clearly.