You sound...strangely surprised.

I'm kinda curious too about the reaction of all the people who kept insisting Hillary was a straight-forward ticket to World War III and only Trump could save us, only for him to now escalate stuff faster than she probably would have done. This is certainly a sudden 180 after the whole "it's no longer our policy to oust Assad" from a few days ago, which might have encouraged that Sarin attack in the first place. In the short term, this sense of unpredictability might help Trump, but in the long run I don't see this working out well for him.

Anyway, as with all things Syria, it's kinda hard to decide what side to root for, if any. There's no doubt ISIS is a deprived criminal death cult the world would be much better off without, but that's no reason not to regard Assad as a war criminal who butchers his own people and who propped up ISIS as a means of holding onto power.

Hmm, I had hoped Trump would bring genuine change, but apparently he's really just a stupid piece of shit who listens to neocon advisors. Sad! Confirms me in my anti-Americanism...top priority in Europe must now be to get rid of pro-American politicians and get rid of NATO. The US is clearly beyond redemption politically, and its elites are utterly insane, mad, bad and dangerous.

This thread needs to be closed.Some of the stuff said in here is absolute rubbish.

The main point from our international point of view is that in his campaign, Trump led to believe that USA would have put an hold on their long tradition of interventionism.

While the airstrike of this night was minor and that the local forces were informed preventively, he still has crossed the redline by "making an example". It's politically a good move as it's both a step towards the "USA Über Alles" crowd and the "in the name of peace&love" crowd but for people who dislikes seeing USA acting like the cops of the world, it just feels like treachery.

Now, while it's a sporadic event, we'll see how it wraps up in the coming months. I don't expect WW3 or whatever but if the USA choose the "let's replace Assad by some random guy" card then it will only show that they still haven't learned anything.

Now, let's chill out and wait&see....

Yeah I was also surprised by this move (both because earlier Trump seemed he wants to concentrate more on internal matters, and because it seemed he didn't want to anger Putin in any way)... but in this case I was pleasantly surprised, at least for now. I don't know what if any hidden agenda there was with Trump, but I felt this action was The Right Thing To Do.

So I am not black and white about "US should (or shouldn't) play world police", it depends what is achieved by that. For instance, I was also pleasantly surprised when Obama killed Osama. Farewell to that piece of scum too, I am glad US killed him even if it meant they illegally invaded Pakistan in doing so. Maybe Pakistan shouldn't be harboring terrorists then.

Similarly, if tomorrow CIA assasinated Kim Jong-un (and anyone in his regimen that tries to fill his place as a dictator)... say what you will, I would be glad even if once again US acted as world police. Heck, if Putin fried his ass, I would congratulate him, and not say "Russia shouldn't meddle with international matters!". Yeah teah, North Korea is a "sovereign country" just like Syria, but sometimes something just has to be done. I am sure that in 50 years when people talk about the atrocities in former North Korea, everyone will be asking why no one did nothing in the early 2000s but just let the atrocities continue there. Hindsight and all that.

Maybe this is just my frustration with e.g. European leaders who achieve nothing and are total wussies. Chemical gas attack in Syria and Europe seems to be like "This is criminal to humanity, we object this strongly" and that's it. Or Erdogan saying this and that and the EU leaders are like "now now, that was not a very nice thing to say, you hurt our feelings by calling us nazis". Send the nukes already, dammit! (figuratively only, of course)

They probably think: if life is a struggle, then why we can't be winners in this life?
We'll do! Because we can!

Everyone should learn lesson of Muammar Gaddafi. This dude decided that he doesn't need Russian weapons. Because he has friends in Europe (like President of France, Sarkozy).
He is dead now. His country is ruined.

If you can't defend yourself - you're next. They will find a reason, no worries.
Demonize, invade, kill. ⟵ This formula works like a charm.
Yes, they lie a lot. Peaceful coexistence is out of the question for American establishment.
They must win, win, win. But if they must win, someone has to lose.

Assad's regime is supporting ISIS? What kind of convoluted "logic" is this???
And while I'm not in favour of gassing children, all this humanitarian intervention nonsense is fucking hypocrisy. The US is busy supporting Saudi-Arabia in bombing and blockading Yemen and has helped creating a situation which threatens millions there with starvation, and supports every damn autocracy there like Saudi-Arabia and Bahrain. No side in the Mideast has clean hands, certainly not the US and its allies. This whole "oh my god, they're gassing children!" nonsense is pure pretext so the US can get at its geopolitical rivals Russia and Iran and indulge another regime change fantasy. All without the slightest basis in international law (believe it or not, the US doesn't have some god-given right to just attack whomever it deems to be "evil").
After the last 15 years it should be clear to anyone that this will end badly but then you guys just never learn.

Obama to UN: 'Some May Disagree, But I Believe America is Exceptional'

So do you similarly object Russia having troops in Syria (fighting both ISIS, and anyone who isn't for al-Assad's regime)? It is defended as "we are fighting the evil ISIS", but should they be away from there, as it is clear they are there for geo-political reasons, to keep a dictator in power that they support?

Yes US has some questionable ties elsewhere (like Saudi-Arabia, probably for its oil), but I don't see that as a reason to condemn doing something elsewhere that, to me, seems like the right thing to do. Also I wouldn't really object Russia being involved in Syria IF they really concentrated on fighting ISIS, and not everyone who happens to oppose al-Assad. Plus this latest chemical warfare shit that Putin stubbornly keeps denying.

As said, if Putin assasinated Kim Jong-un tomorrow, I would congratulate him, even if at the same time I feel Russia is involved in things it shouldn't be (Ukraine/Crimea, Syria, supporting fascist far-right organizations in European countries).

I know, the entire US political establishment and a large part of their population believes in this demented doctrine of American exceptionalism...who needs international law? After all America the beautiful is always in the right, only out to do good and smite evil-doers...and if there are some unfortunate side effects in America's quest to rid the world of "evil" (like creating the conditions for a sectarian war in Iraq which has mostly exstinguished that country's Christian community)...well, who could have known about that?

I admit Syria is somewhat of a moral dilemma. Personally I believe Assad's regime is the least bad option right now (the opposition is dominated by Islamists who would create a religious tyranny and massacre Syria's non-Sunni minorities if they got in power, would also be a major terrorist threat to Europe). It's certainly a brutal dictatorship though (and it wouldn't surprise me if Assad's troops had indeed been responsible for that gas attack). But I won't condemn Russia's support for it because at least it's a rational policy and the alternatives are arguably worse.
US policy in the area is just totally bankrupt, morally and intellectually. In Yemen and in Syria the US is basically empowerung al-Qaida-like Islamists. Total madness.

This has been known for a long time, even before the election.

I am perplexed that the link to that was offered by a pro-Putin person. Isn't Russia a prime example of a country who doesn't give any shit at all about international laws?

It is just a big theater that Putin is now summoning the UN Security Council due to the US attack to Syria, when earlier Russia has ridiculed the same organization over and over again with its vetos and not caring one bit for intarnational laws (also in Syria, but also in Crimea etc.).

Yet, at the same time you object US support to Saudi-Arabia. After all, maybe without the current Saudi-Arabia regime, some true islamist terrorists would come into power there?

I feel you are having a bit of a double standard there. You give a free pass to Russia for something for which you strongly condemn US.

I've got a different impression...obviously one can accuse Russia of hypocrisy since e.g. they haven't respected Ukraine's sovereignty and flagrantly broken international law by detaching Crimea...I'm not going to defend that. But on the whole the Russian side at least pays lip service to the concept of sovereignty, the Westphalian system of states that in my opinion is still absolutely necessary and a precondition for international stability (obviously there are some hard questions about what to do in cases of real genocide...I'm thinking of something like Rwanda, Syria is well below that threshold in my opinion). The US by contrast has consistently tried to dismantle that system during the last 25 years, with a first drastic illustration being the Kosovo war in 1999. Basically the US position seems to be "We're the global hegemon and can do whatever we want, including attacking other states on the flimsiest pretexts". That's a recipe for chaos and instability.

"Evgir Unslaad has come at last. The "Season Unending". War... without end." - Bergritte Battle-Born, Skyrim