Firstly, my rant:
IMO, the US politics game just got a lot more serious such that the constant banter in the media about investigations into Russian interference in the elections, contacts between the Trump team and the Russians, and so on, most of it evidence free, all fades into insignificance.
The only reason I supported Trump was the prospect of normalising relations with the Russian and Syrian governments, promoting peace in the middle east, respecting countries' borders, doing deals to share resources in the area, and making any military forces in the area defence based and not offence (NATO etc). All that includes ditching the neocon dream of running the whole world.
Overnight the game changed in a big way. Tillerson and Trump have bought into the narrative that Assad dropped chemical weapons on his own people to kill innocent civilians, including women and children, evidence free of course. Sure everyone agrees there is proof that chemical weapons killed people. That's not the proof we want, regardless of how the MSM likes to spin it. The proof we want is exactly how the gas was released and no such solid proof has been made public.
Surely, if "we" are considering military action between two nuclear super powers, USA and Russia, we the citizens of the world are owed solid proof of Assad's guilt! Drop all the secret meetings BS! We are tired of that stuff. If it involves military satellite photos or other covert surveillance then show us some of it. We can't put secrecy above the possibility of nuclear war. I would also argue that even if chemical weapons were deliberately used by Assad it would not justify such large scale military action but it looks like that's the path we are on, like it or not.
From Zerohedge:
Trump Weighs "Saturation Strike" In Syria, Resulting In Russian Military Deaths
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...tions-cruise-missiles-no-fly-zone-surgical-st
"The Pentagon has briefed President Trump on various military options the US can conduct in response to the poison gas attack in Syria that killed scores of civilians, and which Washington has blamed on the Syrian government, a U.S. official told Reuters.
Options include things like implementing a "no fly zone" or grounding aircraft used by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, an official quoted by Reuters said.
Another option also includes the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles to overwhelm Russian air defense systems used by the Syrian military. The official did not comment on how likely military action might be which, if any, options might be recommended by the Pentagon. According to the Intercept, this would be a “saturation strike” using dozens of cruise missiles designed to hit Syrian military targets —including military air fields — in an effort to limit future Syrian Air Force attacks on rebel positions, according to the two U.S. military officials.
Among the valid military targets in Syria would be Syrian military airfields, air defenses and other types of Syrian military installations. The official played down the idea that Russian military infrastructure might be a target.
What is most troubling, however, is that according to the quoted U.S. military officials, "
the current proposal would likely result in Russian military deaths and mark a drastic escalation of U.S. force in Syria."
“
There is no doubt in our minds, and the information we have supports, that the Syrian regime under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad are responsible for this attack,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters in Florida on Thursday,
adding that “there is no role for Assad” in Syria after this.
In case of an accelerated military escalation,
the US Navy currently has two warships on alert in the East Medditerranean to strike in Syria if necessary, officials say cited by Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson, who adds that USS Ross and USS Porter are the 2 Navy warships in close proximity and ready to strike Syria, if necessary.
On a positive note:
"Earlier on Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) announced he would oppose any military action without a vote in Congress.
“The President, if he decides to do something in Syria, he would come to Congress and ask for a declaration of war. Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars," Paul told Fox News radio show ‘Kilmeade and Friends’."
But the war hawks are going for it:
"Paul was promptly opposed by senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), both of whom called for Trump to attack Syria.
"The United States should lead an international coalition to ground Assad's air force," they said in a joint statement Thursday. "This capability provides Assad a strategic advantage in his
brutal slaughter of innocent civilians, both through the use of
chemical weapons as well as
barrel bombs, which kill far more men,
women and children on a
daily basis."
