Trump to Russia: 'Get ready' for US missile attack

They were discussing on RT the need for May to take this to Parliament and that any attack on Syria would be pretty much the US declaring war on Russia which very soon would result in nukes worldwide.

 

If the Russians blink on this one, or start playing back channel games looking for a deal, no one will ever take them seriously again. They have already done this too often and its about time they stand up and be counted.

 

Prepare to be disappointed.

 

That seems to be the Russian view of it, at least the one they want the world to share.

 

Have you ever watched RT?

It's like watching the Scientology Network, or having dinner with the Moonies.

 

Yes that is true but one hell of a big risk over something that really Syria had absolutely nothing to gain from doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/11/kremlin-us-strike-against-syria-heighten-instability

It looks like having given them warning it would be very difficult not to get engaged with Russia. Now if France can do what she said she would do which was to only attack chemical sites and not to attack any of Syrian allies .... but it looks like that would be hard to do even just to let them keep face.

 

The BBC was giving a similar view earlier on. I remember years ago Alistair Crook writing an article in which he believed that the US could push Russia to nuclear war simply because of their arrogance in believing it would not happen.

 

I agree that May should be prudent and consult her colleagues in the British government. As for declarations of war, an attack on Syria is a declaration of war against Syria. If Russia wants to make more of that it will be on the Kremlin.

 

Yeah, it's kind of silly having the president who talked about not wanting to announce intentions do so in a very unmistakable way. It would be pathetic if we end up blowing up empty runways again.

 

Yes I'm pondering the timing of ... well everything, from the sacking of Tillerson, the departure of McMasters, the appointment of Pompeo and Bolton to this response in Syria, all seem to flow together towards military action in Syria, like someone other than Trump is orchestrating this.

I say other than Trump because Trump is a reactive creature, he doesn't have the patience to wait until all the pieces are position

 

Jake J says here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-missile-attack.530363/page-4#post-1068935575
that a US attack on Syria by the US would be a direct act of war by the US against Russia by the rules of war.

 

Despite their rhetoric, Russia is not foolish enough to go to war with United States.

 

I would say that is all you are left with.

Difficult to know why Trump acted as he did. The alt right were telling him not to attack. Possibly he didn't want to and pushed it to a situation which would allow him a way out - but I don't think Trump is that smart.

 

but you are foolish enough to repeatedly push them to the limits which might create that outcome.

 

They decided to get involved in Syria and set themselves up as opposition to us there, among other things, let us not forget.

 

I have never mentioned that I support Trump in his decision to attack Syria. It's just that Russia will not attack. Almost entire Russian Duma (Parliament) have their own kids and families living in the west. They would be attacking their own families. They also have huge investments in the west. Not to mention that Russia has a military disadvantage compared to U.S.

 

The Russians don't need to go to war with the US over Syria. What they need to do is enter into a secret pact with Iran and cooperate accordingly. I don't want to really spell out but if the Russians work with Iran and vice versa, it is pretty much checkmate for the US in the region.

 

So we should pay Iran a visit, too?

 

There are a lot of people all over the political spectrum who do not want to increase our presence in Syria. Similarly, a lot of people think that Trump's Twitter threats are completely irresponsible.

 

Well, the Soviet Union supported Egypt during the Cold War, but that hasn't done anything to U.S. influence. As long as moderate Arab states are allied with U.S., the Russian influence will be limited.

 

indeed and that part was very carefully dealt with. A couple of months or so ago the US said that it was giving up having terrorists as its main enemy and was going back to that being Russia.

Russia gave a pretty good warning that if you came in again after last time they would react and although 'balancer' says they do not have many weapons there and although there are lots of this person said that, at the same time I cannot see that you can continue treating Russia like this and that Russia will always stand down and I also do not think this is necessary and that there is anything to gain from it except the intent to drag Iran in and try and destroy Iran. Iranian monitor has said that the intention on making friends with Russia was so that it would let them get away with this but that the Republicans would not go with it. Like I said only recently the US made an announcement that Russia was once again its main enemy. Russia was getting heavy with Israel for her attacks on Iranian bases before this apparent chemical attack. Russia was making clear that it had Iran's back. If the intent was as seems likely to get Iran to attack which it has said it would do at any significant attack on Syria then it looks like Russia has her back, hence war.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

Yep...if they attack, they'll just clobbered again...only harder).

 

still waiting for "proof" that the Russkies made the attack and used English language inscriptions on the weaponry: